1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

(WI) Annual firearms training a must for police, citizens

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Drizzt, Dec 23, 2005.

  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Well-Known Member

    Annual firearms training a must for police, citizens

    As debate about concealed carry continues, it is time someone from law enforcement clarifies the training requirements current law enforcement officers must meet under Wisconsin's Training and Standards Bureau.

    I do not believe any police chief, sheriff or police administrator would intentionally mislead or deceive the public regarding their perceptions of current training standards here in Wisconsin, but some discrepancies need clarification.

    Firearm training is mandatory before initial certification as a law enforcement officer, but there is no standard training requirement beyond that initial certification.

    On Sept. 29, Rep. Scott Gunderson and Sen. Dave Zien co-sponsored The Personal Protection Act. AB 763 and SB 403 address two issues: rights for citizen concealed carry and to mandate provisions of H.R. 218 (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004) for active and retired law enforcement officers.

    These bills are appealing to the rank-and-file law-enforcement officers throughout Wisconsin as they address the implementation of H.R. 218, the federal legislation that some police chiefs, sheriffs and police administrators continue to oppose.

    On Dec. 2, The Post-Crescent interviewed Appleton Police Chief Rick Myers, Neenah Police Chief Ray Appel and Outagamie County Sheriff Brad Gehring.

    "All three of the area's top cops said their main concern about the bill is the lack of any substantial training requirement for those who would carry a concealed weapon.

    "'One training requirement during the life of the permit is ridiculous,' Gerhring said. 'This is a deadly weapon we are issuing.'"

    "Appel points out that before police officers can be certified they need 24 hours of intensive gun training and refresher courses two or three times a year."

    On Dec. 5, the Green Bay Press-Gazette interviewed Green Bay Police Chief Craig Van Schyndle and Brown County Sheriff Dennis Kocken. "Training is one of his biggest stumbling blocks.

    "'There's only one-time qualification with this weapon, whatever wea-pon (a person) is carrying and then it goes on forever, where a police officer needs to qualify four times a year,'" Van Schyndle said.

    These interviews occurred more than one year after Wisconsin Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager wrote a memorandum dated Nov. 17, 2004, from the Department of Justice to Governor Jim Doyle and Senate and Assembly Majority and Minority Leadership. That memo outlined her opinions regarding the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (H.R. 218).

    Lautenschlager wrote, "Currently, in order to be certified as a law enforcement officer by LESB (Law Enforcement Standards Board), a recruit must complete a basic training program that incorporates a 48-hour block of instruction on firearms, the components of which include classroom lectures, activity-centered practical exercises, competency checklists, written examinations and scenario-based evaluations.

    "A significant element of the content of this curriculum addresses tactical response and deadly force decision-making for police officers.

    "Beyond these recruit training requirements, however, Wisconsin currently has no uniform statewide standard of continuing annual fire-arm training or qualification."

    Many agencies do have their own departmental policies requiring officers to attend firearms training.

    A policy is only a guide. No law enforcement officers in this state can lose their certification for failing to attend firearms training under a department policy.

    However, if Training and Standards Bureau required annual firearms training, officers not fulfilling the training requirement would lose their certification, from the rank-and-file officer to the police chief, sheriff, and police administrator.

    If police chiefs, sheriffs, police administrators, and editorial writers really believe only one training requirement in a lifetime for a citizen is ridiculous, they should be equally concerned since this is the current standard for active law enforcement officers here in Wisconsin.

    Police chiefs, sheriffs, and police administrators that do not want "big brother" to dictate training requirements to their department should rethink their position.

    If you maintain your position against standard training for active officers, how can you justify telling a citizen that they should allow "big brother" to set a standard for them?

    Our citizens expect their law enforcement officers to receive far more training than a citizen, because we are held at a higher standard.

    We need these police chiefs, sheriffs, police administrators, and editorial writers to work with us in urging our attorney general to promulgate a rule requiring law enforcement officers to attend annual firearms training and qualification regardless of their personal opinion on the Personal Protection Act.

    Casey Perry is executive director of the Wisconsin Troopers' Association and chairman of the National Troopers Coalition.

  2. Jayb

    Jayb Well-Known Member

    Another reason I'm not surprised when the headlines read......... dozens of shots fired, but no injuries.......:rolleyes:
  3. CAS700850

    CAS700850 Well-Known Member

    Interesting issue: do police officers need to qualify quarterly because shooting skills deteriorate, or do they need to shoot for score quarterly so that there is a record of competency for the lawyers to have available should the officer be involved in a shooting?

    Here's a hint: one local agency issues officers 200 rounds of ammo a quarter (though more is available during "open range" sessions). The idea is that officers will shoot 200 rounds during a qualification day. Most of the officers good with their sidearms will shoot the 50 or 100 rounds required for the qual, then take home the extra ammo.

    Darn lawyers! :neener:
  4. Firehand

    Firehand Well-Known Member

    Sounds in part like a standard "If you don't meet MY standards for training, you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun" from some of the police.

    I've seen too many LE officers at the range trying to get ready/ last minute/ for qualification and shooting worse than my kids did the second or third time they fired a handgun to have any tolerance for that.
  5. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I repeat "Training is a solution."

    Those who advocate a solution ought to be able to point at a related problem. What is the problem here?

    Are Concealed Carry holders shooting too many innocent people? No -- they shoot less than cops.

    Are Concealed Carry holders involved in lots of accidental shootings? No, the accident rate is going down.

    Are Concealed Carry holders shooting people when they are not justified? No, they have a very good record of responsible actions.

    What is the problem?
  6. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Well-Known Member

    I can not believe that there are states that do not have a mandatory qualification for LEO's.

    Qualifications is more than a score. It includes all ascpects of the use of a firearm; deadly force issues, loading and unloading, cleaning, malfunctions, etc.
  7. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Well-Known Member

    There's a difference in the training that an active duty officer needs to have, and what a "civilian" or a retired officer needs to have.

    A permit holder doesn't chase suspects, do forced entries, traffic stops, or other activities officers have to.

    And "qualifying" two, three or four times a year is simply target practice. Chances are most permit holders will go to the range at least that many times, if not many more times every year.

    Once again, these chief LEO's are searching for objections to the bill.
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    The problem is that Wisconsin's legislature is in the process of passing a CCW and shall issue law. The leftist extremists are having a hissing fit over it.
  9. FedGunner

    FedGunner Well-Known Member

    I live in Minnesota... you guys in Wisconsin haven't seen nuthin' yet.(Well yes you have but it can get worse)

    We had legislators parading around chambers in 2nd chance vests. Grade C theater at best.
  10. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Well-Known Member

    "The problem is that Wisconsin's legislature is in the process of passing a CCW and shall issue law. The leftist extremists are having a hissing fit over it."

    No, the problem is that we have an anti-gun governor who is the leader of his party, same as any other state.

    It doesn't matter what some police chief says, or what some sheriff says. This is pure, hard-boiled, back-room politics.

    Doyle's staffers will be working over Democrat legislators for the next six weeks. They'll be threatening and bribing. They'll resort to any tactics.

    If we had any governor other than Doyle--Democrat or Republican--we'd have our CCW bill now.

    Right now, we supposed to be polite and thankful to those Democrats who voted for the bill. If that tactic fails, then the gloves come off and we threaten defeat in the elections.

    By the way, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has already chimed in on his opposition to the bill. "Nobody needs to carry a gun...etc."

    If anyone can get close to his car, please get a photograph of the two drop-down compartments in the roof of that car. Each is equipped with a full-auto M16A2.

    "For the children" my ass.
  11. Strings

    Strings Well-Known Member

    Gee Dick... you almost sound bitter there. I know *I* wouldn't want M-16A2s in my car...

    Of course, a couple tricked M-4s or Uzis would be perfectly acceptable... :neener:

Share This Page