Police officer: Wisconsin doesn't need law allowing its residents to carry

[Don Gwinn]

Charlie, he's entitled to his opinion.

He's not entitled to have it be the only opinion in the debate. These people have the right to disagree with him.

 

[Logistics]

>>>These people have the right to disagree with him<<<

The people should have the right to take his job away too. He works for all of us! He is a servant, we allow him to serve. A stronger citizens review board is needed in this country.

 

[bigun15]

I believe that there is no credible evidence that carrying a concealed firearm reduces crime

Here's one: Vermont vs. Washington D.C.
Which has more crime? Which one doesn't even require that you have a license to carry? Exactly.

 

[Jeff22]

CCW in Wisconsin

One problem that pro-concealed carry people have in Wisconsin is that, except for some rough areas of Milwaukee and Racine and Beloit, there isn't much random street crime. So the uninformed can't really conceive of a need for CCW.

I am a police officer in Wisconsin (since 1981) and very few cops in my vicinity ever go armed off duty. Apparently they don't perceive the need. Because they don't carry, and are unfamiliar with the issues, many of them just make the assumption that CCW is a bad idea.

It comes down to being emotional rather than logical. 40+ states now allow concealed carry for private citizens. Has there been a problem? No. Most states have found that less than 1/2 of 1% of CCW permit holders get their licenses pulled in any given year, and that's usually for carrying with an expired permit and not for a criminal violation. (In my explorations, I've found that Texas and Florida have the most accessible statistics about revocations and renewals and so forth on their websites).

Minnesota has similar demographics and economy and population to Wisconsin, and I was hoping that with Minnesota allowing CCW permits, after a few years people would be able to LOGICALLY evaluate their experiences and realize "If it works for Minnesota, it will work in Wisconsin". This shift in public understanding and perception hasn't occurred yet.

Another problem was that the CCW bill proposed during the LAST session of the legislature was poorly written and not based on research on the licensing process in other states. That has been corrected, and this proposal is much more tightly written. The Chief's association and the Trooper's Association have both offered qualified support for the current proposal, provided that some changes be made, mostly the creation of an LE-only access to the data base of CCW permit holders, so the validity of a permit could be verified should the need arise. (Some anti-gun weirdos proposed that the records be public, with the potential problem that this would then possibly cause the homes or vehicles of CCW permit holders to be targeted by thieves looking for firearms)

This discussion came up at work over coffee at 0330 the other morning. One of my fellow officers was complaining about the concept of CCW permits for private citizens. I pointed out that in the last few years she's had vacations in (Orlando) Florida and (Las Vegas) Nevada, both states that allow CCW. I asked her if she was aware CCW was legal in those states, if she had read in the paper or seen on TV any incidents where a CCW permit holder broke the law or got in trouble during the period she was on vacation, and I asked if she had ever felt unsafe in the places that she went. When confronted by facts, she just spluttered "I just don't think it's a good idea!" and went back out on patrol . . . the ignorant always think it's "unfair" when they get confronted with the facts . . .

If we get CCW for private citizens in Wisconsin at some point, some small number of people will actually be motivated to go out and get permits, and those that do will generally act appropriately and it won't be a big deal and in a few years people will look back and wonder why this was a controversy. It's just getting to that point that is the struggle . . .

 

[jsalcedo]

Great post Jeff22.

That had a ton of good information!

asked if she had ever felt unsafe in the places that she went. When confronted by facts, she just spluttered "I just don't think it's a good idea!" and went back out on patrol . . . the ignorant always think it's "unfair" when they get confronted with the facts . . .

This scenario is repeated time and time again and eventually it all becomes
forgotten history when the CCW laws are enacted.

Then once again the next state on the list is filled with terror and doomsday editorials about blood in the streets, wild west, and a sea of guns washing over the state in a great tidal wave of irrational insanity.

Even though we are winning the CCW battles, the anti gunners remain fools, alarmists and liars.

 

[mindpilot]

Translation: I support my right to self-defense, but not yours.

The chip on that LEO's shoulder is getting bigger..........Funny how they are so self righteous. Its a pity the power we let people with 2 years of education have.

 

[Deavis]

There are a lot of responsibilities that come with carrying a concealed firearm and being able to effectively use it against someone in their self-defense or in the defense of another human being.

I just couldn't get past this sentence. Unpossible English there? "against someone in their self-defense"??? You are going to use a weapon against someone to defend that other person?

 

[GregGry]

Translation: I support my right to self-defense, but not yours.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

I live in Milwaukee Wi, and this is how I see this whole situation.

I drive through bad areas of town on a regular basis. After seeing light poll after light poll with stuffed animals tied to it (The stufties pay tribute to a child that was shot) I don't feel safe. The fact that I have seen fights in the street where people pull firearms out (I wasn't close enough to find out if they were real or not) makes me feel even unsafer. I believe that people in wisconsin should be able to choose to protect themselves. Its not right to rely on the police to come and protect you.

The fact is, numerous family members of mine have been held at gunpoint before. Its hard to call the cops to show up and protect you when a criminal is pointing a firearm in your face. Not to mention even if it takes the cops 3 minutes to show up, thats enough time for the bg to shoot you, and get far enough away that odds are he/she wont be caught for a while if ever. You can't expect someone else to call the cops either, thinking that is going ot get you killed.

I am a law abiding citizen, that can legaly own (and does own) a firearm. If I carry said firearm with me, I am not putting anyone at risk, I am mearly protecting my life. Why it is illegal for me to protect my life when I hit the streets, makes no sense. It is true that a lot of people in wisconsin live in good areas, so they don't see the need to carry. I admit I live in one of the best areas of milwaukee, however like I said eariler, I am in the worst areas often. The fact is, if you don't feel the need to carry, then don't. I feel the need to carry, and since I am a law abiding citizen, I should be able to. Making it so that I can't legaly carry, gives the BGs the advantage on the street.

Granted I am about the worst person a bg would want to run into on the street (6'6", lot of muscle, and defense training), however if some crack head thinks I am worth something, whats stopping him from aiming a gun at me. Nothing is stopping him obviously. The fact is, I am no match for a BG with a gun. I may be able to reach to punch a long ways out, but thats no match for a perp with a gun standing 5 feet away. So the way I see it, the only way that I can protect my life, is by carrying a weapon of equal power as the people on the street do.

Also, I am going into LE in wisconsin, right now I am almost done with my degree and training. When I become a cop, I am certainly not going to be one of thoes guys that is pro CCW for myself, and not for the rest of the public. That is just flat out wrong imho.

 

[Werewolf]

but let's not make any mistake about it - police are paid to serve us, the law-abiding taxpayers,

There's a very nice bridge in Brooklyn for SALE too.

Make no mistake about it the Police are paid to serve the government be it town, county, state or national. Any benefit that we, the law-abiding taxpayers accrue is purely to appease us and keep our master's task of shepherding us easier and less prone to annoying things like discontent and unrest.

AND that is why the attitude of the LEO in the original post is not surprising at all - disgusting, yes - elitist, yes - poorly informed, for sure - BUT! NOT surprising at all.

 

[XLMiguel]

As noted, My Meyers is entitled to his opinion, no matter how stupid, misinformed, and arrogant it may be. I also gather from his atitude that he would be delighted to become my personal fulltime bodyguard for no pay. Afterall, if he's there to service, I damn sure want some service. Idiot.:banghead:

 

[AF_INT1N0]

12-34hom---
As he stated - it's his opinion, only - not representing his agency or other Peace officers in general.

Is he not entitled to it? As to we are entitled to our views here at THR...

Sure he's entitled to his opinion, until he makes the statement as a policeman from such and such county.. At that point he's speaking for his PD, un-officially, and I'm pretty sure it's not allowed (Though looked over-looked in the civilian side.)

But because he works in LE - this guy deserves some special attention here?

Only because he's using his position to gain extra attention. " I am a police officer with the City of Racine Police Department and a part-time police officer for another community in Racine County." Had he made his statement as Adam A. Meyers he would get much less attention from both sides. And he knows it.

For instance if I (and few buddies) were to show up in uniform at a pro CCW rally in my Blues we would potentially get in trouble, because we represent the Military and hold a certain amount of influence based on the uniform we wear. Additionally we represent the whole of the Air Force, by our actions because of the uniform, us being at a CCW rally could lead certain people to relate our Personal views with the view of the Air Force. For this reason we are pohibited from attending political rallies/ speaking on politics as a Servicemember.


On a personal note, you're right he is entitled to his blissninny, Elitist, sorry-*ss, insignifigant, opinion. Just like we are entitled to feel that we should be able to protect ourselves and families..

May all his teeth fall out and hair grow in their place.

 

[El Tejon]

Any cop that speaks against my civil right to carry a pistol should be disarmed immediately!

I demand that Officer Meyers turn in his firearm at once and then tell us how we do not "need" to carry.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

El Tejon- +1

 

[44Brent]

Hypocrite licensee in North Carolina

I recently took a concealed carry class in North Carolina. One gentlemen in the class repeatedly asked the instructor on how to keep licensed individuals out of his own business.

He wanted a special sign that kept everyone else disarmed except form himself.

 

[AJMD429]

Really, the Citizen gives the Police permission - not the other way around.

Every time a cop—even when he pretends to be just anybody—takes cheap shots at the nation's civil rights, I find it more difficult to respect cops. An awful lot of cops have gone miles out of their way to keep us separated from our Second Amendment civil rights.

If they want my respect, they can earn it the old-fashioned way: by respecting me.

Someone needs to remind the police who advocate gun control, and the media who print their 'expert' opinions, that around the world for the past 100 years, a person's local police and national military have consistently been about 7 to 10 times more likely to kill them than has a criminal with a gun.* Therefore 'gun control' which theoretically 'could' (but doesn't) reduce the criminal's misuse of guns, ALSO has a very REAL impact to increase needless deaths. Genocide has NEVER happened in a society without the government in question first REGISTERING arms, as a 'reasonable step' - 'to help control crime' - only wicked gun nuts in this country aren't willing to compromise - shame on us! We won't even listen to the nice policeman who tells us we shouldn't carry a handgun because we're not special(ly trained) like he is!

In fact, I think the way this country is SUPPOSED to work is that the citizen has the inherent 'inalienable' right to keep AND BEAR arms, and in fact it is the police who receive a limited, conditional, and revokable permission from the citizen to carry their guns when on duty. Yes, a citizen can lose those rights if they commit a legitimate crime (a non-violent felony should NOT cause loss, because a corrupt government simply can create endless laws, particularly involving bans on ownership or bayonet lugs or other 'reasonable' things, then ensnare otherwise legitimate gun owners as 'felons' who can not only never possess firearms after conviction, but can't even VOTE to peacably restore decent government). Yes, a certain age seems reasonable, like for a driver's license, and yes, mentally incompetent folks shouldn't CCW (that should include nearly all non-Libertarian politicians, IMHO!).

("Favorite Links" on our website www.dsgl.org has some of the sources, and R.J. Rummel's "Death by Government" and website detail the source of the 5,000 or so genocidal deaths we continue to average every DAY.)

Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws - www.dsgl.org
'first do no harm' - gun control LAWS lead to far more innocent deaths than 'easy access' ever could.

 

[Gewehr98]

Racine, huh?

Pretty darned far from Madison to be spouting that drivel.

I'm very surprised he didn't bring out the "streets will run red with blood" propaganda, too.

I'm gonna miss Florida when I move back to Wisconsin next year.

 

[Strings]

well... I got an email stating that they were gonna have my response on their website friday (my real name's William Hilton, and that'll be the sig on it).

Were he a Manitowoc cop, I'd be calling the chief and demanding Officer Meyer be disarmed (since we don't need guns, he shouldn't be wearing one).

And Gewehr98: when you moving, and what part of the state? If you're gonna be near Manty, drop me a PM. And we might have finally gotten our bill passed by then, ya know!

 

[Monkeyleg]

Jeff22: "One problem that pro-concealed carry people have in Wisconsin is that, except for some rough areas of Milwaukee and Racine and Beloit, there isn't much random street crime. So the uninformed can't really conceive of a need for CCW."

Every year, there are roughly 12,000 rapes, robberies, assaults, attempted homicides, and homicides in WI.

Compared to other states, that may seem like a small number. But, for those victims, statistics don't matter.

I'm not criticizing your post: it's right on the money.

However, the veto override vote will hinge on one thing and one thing only: partisan politics.

We can all talk about the rightness of our cause, or the Second Amendment, or God-given rights.

None of the above matter.

With the exception of a very few legislators, this is all about partisan politics. It's about making the Govenor look bad, or making some Republicans look good.

It makes me want to puke.

OK, I puked. Now let's move on to reality.

The veto override vote in the Senate is pretty much a lock, and for reasons that are again purely partisan.

In the Assembly, it's so close that neither side--anti-gun or pro-gun--will predict the vote.

We have newly-elected Democrat legislators from heavily pro-gun districts who know that they'll need the NRA's support in next November's elections.

We have Republican legislators who represent largely Democrat districts, and who will be targets from the anti-CCW crowd. From past experiences, that anti-CCW message doesn't resonate.

What does resonate in those Democrat districts are messages that have nothing to do with concealed carry. The nightly bombardment of campaign ads deal with Democrat vs. Republican issues.

What we in Wisconsin absolutley need to do is convince moderate to pro-gun Democrats that concealed carry is not a losing issue. Most voters really don't care about it, and the past elections have proven that.

Instead, we need to prove to them that voting against concealed carry is a losing stance. That voting against the NRA is a bad idea. No candidate who ran in favor of concealed carry was defeated, but candidates who ran in opposition were defeated.

On that point, we have plenty of background to support that supposition.

We are not going to win the battle based upon testimony from law enforcement officers who've had to deal with defenseless victims. We're not going to win the battle base upon testimony from those victims.

The only way we're going to win this battle is to convince six Assembly Democrats that their futures do not lie with a govenor whose re-election chances are poor, but to stay true to the wishes of their contituents who are NRA. We already have the votes from a good number of those six Assembly Democrats. We just need one or, possibly, two more.

Wow. What a task to ask That we ask people who talk about "SHTF" scenarios to hand out literature at a gun show, or help people address postcards to legistlators.

The very idea gives me the vapors.

 

[mindpilot]

Reply is the best way to stuff his stocking.

go HERE and reply to the editorial

 

[gunner03]

The blood hasen't started to run in the streets here in MN so that should help to calm some of the ninnies.We had alot of LEOs on the same rant here but they seem to have gone away.Keep after them,if we can win here,I think you got better than a good shot!

 

[mindpilot]

I am in both states and only reason I have land in WI is taxes are cheaper and closer to Winter job. MN had to pass the dang law twice but in a normally Liberal state it went over FAST I was surprised. I work with the BCA and most the people there are for it.

 

[antsi]

Is he not entitled to it? As to we are entitled to our views here at THR...

But because he works in LE - this guy deserves some special attention here?
.

Yes, he's entitled to his opinion. Just as everyone here (and elsewhere) is entitled to disagree with it.

As to being a police officer, he brought attention to the fact himself by mentioning it in his letter. How many other letters on the editorial page indicate the writer's profession? "I am a plumber, and I'm against the new school board proposal."

By making such a point of his being a police officer, he is trying to lay claim to special expertise in the areas of firearms, firearms law, or self-defense. He made the point that retired law officers should be allowed to carry, but citizens in other professions should not. He is making an assumption that police - even retired police - are entitled to special rights that nobody else deserves. These are opinions that will rightly draw some hostile criticism.

 

[antsi]

Just what purpose does this thread serve? - what were the original intentions of the member who posted this? Are we supposed to getting an education here, how many other people who's professions run the gamut who hold these same views are not vilified time after time?
.

Actually, if anyone publishes an anti-CCW opinion anywhere that is available online it is very likely to be highlighted on this forum. We have had many examples of opinion pieces against CCW put up here for criticism, and often linked to a "letters to the editor" so that the opposite pro-CCW opinion can be registered in the source publication.

After all the policiticans, school board officials, MMM-er's, Bradyites, and everyone else who gets their anti-gun opinions dissected on this forum, why should police be so special that their anti-gun opinions have to be let pass without comment?

I disagree with some of the cop-bashing that occasionally shows up in THR, but this isn't cop-bashing. The guy's letter basically says "I'm a cop, and I want to restrict the rights of everyone who isn't a cop." Such opinions thoroughly deserve to be bashed, no matter who expresses them.

 

[Sheldon J]

well... I got an email stating that they were gonna have my response on their website friday (my real name's William Hilton, and that'll be the sig on it).

Were he a Manitowoc cop, I'd be calling the chief and demanding Officer Meyer be disarmed (since we don't need guns, he shouldn't be wearing one).

And Gewehr98: when you moving, and what part of the state? If you're gonna be near Manty, drop me a PM. And we might have finally gotten our bill passed by then, ya know!

Et too.. I also.. hope they get a lot of flack on his "Opinion"

 

[Baba Louie]

I strongly support the ability for people to defend themselves, but I don't believe that carrying a concealed firearm is the only way to accomplish this.

Since the courts have ruled that the Police have no legal obligation to provide their services in way of stopping a crime against a citizen and since criminals are known to carry concealed weapons allowing them to "have their way" against others (law-abiding citizens at times, other criminals at times), perchance Officer Meyers thinks (or feels) that the good citizens of WI should carry openly (As If!) .

I wonder which other form(s) of self defense he "strongly supports" for those instances when, oh, say, a 70 year old great grandmother or a young mother with her children in tow, are confronted by a ner-do-well who decides to use lethal force against them?