Thursday, September 02, 2010

MPD Seeks To Follow Law

Well, it’s a start.

Milwaukee police officers who retire to Arizona and Florida can easily get permits to carry hidden guns in those states, just like most other residents.

Soon, hundreds of former MPD officers in Wisconsin also could be able to carry concealed weapons, under a federal law that allows retired officers to be certified annually and carry their guns in any state.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was passed in 2004, and many other Wisconsin law enforcement agencies have been certifying their retirees to carry guns for years.

So after six years, MPD will finally get around to implementing the law.  But they will do so with onerous regulations. 

Retirees would have to pass the same firing range testing as active officers, using MPD-approved guns, and sign waivers that would clarify the city has no liability for any later use of the guns by the retired officers.

In addition, either Tobin or Flynn could revoke a retiree’s certification for any reason, Tobin said, and only retirees who are residents of Wisconsin can apply.

The certification procedure will cost $100.

(9) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0706 hrs
Firearms + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Now if they could only start to enforce ALL the other laws on the books in addition to holding their officers accountable to violations.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 0821 hrs


  2. If they aren’t going to allow all law abiding citizens of the state to exercise their right to carry then they shouldn’t allow retired Milwaukee police to either. Picking and choosing in this manner is an affront to all law abiding citizens.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 0852 hrs


  3. Good point.  While I’m sure we respect the work our retired law enforcement officers performed, the fact is they are retired agents of the government. Thus, only allowing retired agents of the government to carry a concealed firearm speaks volumes of what our elected officials thinks about the rest of us, and the 2nd Amendment.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 0950 hrs


  4. I really don’t see the regulations as onerous at all. In fact I would say they are perfectly reasonable.

    I don’t know about MPD, but many departments allow officers to purchase their own sidearms to be used on duty. My guess is that many officers do so, and therefore they already own MPD approved firearms.

    Furthermore, MPD approved firearms are going to be ubiquitous. Compact Glocks in 9mm, .40, and .45, 1911’s, Sigs, H&K, Walther, S&W revolvers, which I am sure is what many officers carry as a Back Up Gun (BUG) or for off duty carry. I would guess that almost every officer on the force in Milwaukee has AT LEAST two guns that will meet the requirements, hell, I have three that would probably comply, and I’m not even a cop.

    As for firing range testing, hell ya! When concealed carry passes in WI, I fully expect to have to pass some basic competency requirements, and to be re-tested on occasion, I think that is pretty reasonable. The last thing I want is some 70 year old ex-cop who is losing it, thinking he can walk around with a .44 magnum shooting at whoever he deems to have a “bad-guy” haircut.

    I think the second amendment means that we should have the right, unfettered, to carry weapons… but, I really don’t have a problem with basic restrictions, and competency testing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 0953 hrs


  5. unfettered

    I do not think it means, what you think it means.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 1557 hrs


  6. It means precisely what I know it means…

    I think the Second Amendment means we should have the right, unfettered, to carry weapons… but, I really don’t have a problem with basic restrictions, and competency testing.

    Perfectly reasonable. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to responsibly own guns, and treat them, and their neighbors with respect. Unfortunately in a country of 300 million, that simply isn’t so. Case in point: the North Side of Milwaukee every New Years Eve.

    I am not convinced that simple licensing and training are unconstitutional.

    Now, I did not mean that you should not be able to do whatever you want on your own property, hell, I think if you have the money, the land and you don’t do any damage to neighboring properties you should be able to shoot an M-1 Abrams 105mm off in your back yard.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 2014 hrs


  7. Although I suppose the argument could be made that the fee’s are unconstitutional. After all, poll taxes were long ago struck down.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 2015 hrs


  8. Unfettered means without restrictions yet in the same sentence your talking about basic restrictions and testing….


    I’m sorry, but why should there be restrictions on my ability to protect myself.  If I step onto the sidewalk in front of my house with a gun in a holster on my hip, I am committing a felony.  I live within 1000 ft of a school.  If I’m arrested and found guilty, I can no longer carry a gun for my protection.

    What gives the government the right to stop me from protecting myself?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 02, 2010 at 2246 hrs


  9. I know what unfettered means… Allow me to re-post what I said, this time bolding the qualifier rather than italicizing….

    I think the second amendment means that we should have the right, unfettered, to carry weapons… but, I really don’t have a problem with basic restrictions, and competency testing.

    I think you are having a little bit of trouble with the subtlety of the English language here….

    I am on your side, I think that the Second Amendment means what it says, unfortunately there are a whole lot of people out there who would beg to differ. I am trying to seek some logical and reasonable middle ground. Gun rights were not restricted all at once, and they cannot be restored all at once. We need to employ the tactics of the left, incrementalism.

    Sorry for thinking I was being clear enough….

    I live within 1000 ft of a school.

    Who chose where you live? Not justifying the law, but I assume you knew what it was when you moved in…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 03, 2010 at 1640 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.