Wisconsin doesn't need law allowing its residents to carry concealed weapons
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
DonR101395
New member
"I agree that retired law enforcement professionals should be permitted to carry a concealed firearm as long as they follow state and federal laws and those policies presented to them by their former law enforcement agencies."
The key word here is former. Can you explain to me why a former leo should be allowed to carry? Is their former employer going to be responsible for their actions with a firearm if they shoot someone? I would love to see you convince a police department that they are responsible for a 70 year old retired employee who just shot the paperboy because he thought he was breaking in to his house. A police officer is subject to the same laws as any other citizen. Following the above argument anyone who is a current state certified leo should be allowed to carry even if they are not employed.
The key word here is former. Can you explain to me why a former leo should be allowed to carry? Is their former employer going to be responsible for their actions with a firearm if they shoot someone? I would love to see you convince a police department that they are responsible for a 70 year old retired employee who just shot the paperboy because he thought he was breaking in to his house. A police officer is subject to the same laws as any other citizen. Following the above argument anyone who is a current state certified leo should be allowed to carry even if they are not employed.
If you want opinions here ya go:
milwaukee borders racine to the north, check into kenosha shooting also, type in michael bell 4th incident in 3 years. (kenosha is to the immediate south of racine).
Disturbing revelations about the deadly police shooting of Justin Fields demand that Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann reopen the case and consider criminal prosecution. Fields was killed in March 2003 by Milwaukee Police Officer Craig Nawotka, who alleged that he fired in self defense and that Fields' weapon was his car.
But the sheer number of such shootings involving unarmed drivers - about two dozen in the last 20 years, resulting in at least five deaths - also demands that the Milwaukee Police Department review its policy allowing such shootings altogether. It is simply too easy to label as a weapon vehicles involved in traffic stops, which is why a number of cities now forbid officers from considering vehicles as deadly weapons at all.
As recounted in a Journal Sentinel report Friday by Gina Barton, the investigating officer in the Fields shooting alleges in a federal deposition - given in a wrongful death lawsuit - that his findings of wrongdoing by Nawotka were ignored by the Police Department. Fields "did not have to die," said Sgt. Harold Hampton.
Moreover, the first officer on the scene said that he wasn't asked at the inquest by the prosecutor whether Nawotka's statements were inconsistent. They were. Nawotka said he fired at Fields' vehicle as it moved toward him. Fields was shot from behind. The U.S. attorney's office is reviewing the Fields case for possible federal charges against the officer.
And in an article today, Barton reports that the officer whose name is on a written statement that says Fields' car was blocking a fire truck on its way to an emergency - the reason Fields allegedly attracted the attention of officers in the first place - says now in a deposition that the truck wasn't headed to a fire, that he didn't write the document in question and that he didn't check it for accuracy.
In the same deposition, Inspector Steven Settingsgaard concedes that the shooting may have been racially motivated. Fields was black, Nawotka white.
On Friday, McCann defended his office's conduct in the Fields inquest. He told the Journal Sentinel that the inquest jury was provided with evidence of the inconsistencies from a crime lab expert and noted that the statements Nawotka gave to internal investigators could not be used in a criminal case.
Nonetheless, we still believe there is enough in the Fields case to warrant another review by McCann.
Police supporters often have a quick retort to critics: "You can't understand or second-guess unless you walk in those shoes," an argument usually invoked after police shootings or when investigations are launched into police conduct generally.
And, by and large, public servants who put their lives on the line for a city's residents should be given some benefit of the doubt when facts are hazy.
But a public that cares about the rule of law and the notion that no one is above it can legitimately question whether the rules governing officers give too much benefit.
Milwaukee is at that point on the matter of police shootings involving unarmed drivers who, the officers contend, are using their vehicles as weapons. It is also at that point on the question of whether it is time to reform the inquest process. Right now, there is at least an appearance that inquests automatically exonerate officers under all circumstances.
On Friday, an inquest jury delivered yet another verdict that an officer was justified in shooting and killing a Milwaukee resident. On March 6, Police Officer Alfonzo Glover fired 19 shots at Wilbert Prado, eight hitting him from behind.
Here, too, the officer contended Prado's vehicle was used as a weapon, but Glover shot at the man both while Prado was in the car and running away on foot. The verdict is advisory, and McCann must still decide whether he will issue charges in the case. Glover said he believed Prado had a gun.
The number of inquests clearing officers prompts the question: Is the system stacked for the officers?
Earlier, Barton reported that no inquest into police shootings in Milwaukee County in the past 20 years has resulted in criminal charges against an officer. In an editorial on Tuesday, we suggested changes in inquests that could produce more truth in the process. This would involve state legislation making the process more adversarial and giving the families' representatives a role.
The revelations in the Fields shooting - Nawotka was also cleared in an inquest - puts an exclamation point to the need for reform.
On the matter of officers shooting unarmed drivers, a Journal Sentinel analysis revealed that Milwaukee police officers have fired on about two dozen such drivers over the past two decades, but that none of the officers was criminally charged.
Were all those shootings justified? There is reason to doubt. As Barton reported, police departments elsewhere are prohibiting such shootings altogether.
The policy guiding Milwaukee police officers states, essentially, that officers can shoot if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm or death from the moving vehicles. Conceivably, this means officers can deem themselves threatened when they really aren't.
Other departments - notably those in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and Boston - have forbidden officers to consider vehicles as deadly weapons. The officers are instructed to simply move out of the way.
The experts are divided on this issue, but we believe that the numbers are the smoke that indicates a fire. It's possible that all the shootings were justified. But is it probable? We're not as certain.
No, we don't walk in those shoes. But the numbers certainly demand scrutiny of the Milwaukee policy, considering adjustment of some kind, up to and including a prohibition on firing on unarmed drivers.
Police Chief Nannette Hegerty should begin that examination, and McCann should reopen the investigation into the Fields shooting. Official action is now an urgent matter of public confidence.
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 29, 2005.
huh? bad apples everywhere?
milwaukee borders racine to the north, check into kenosha shooting also, type in michael bell 4th incident in 3 years. (kenosha is to the immediate south of racine).
Disturbing revelations about the deadly police shooting of Justin Fields demand that Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann reopen the case and consider criminal prosecution. Fields was killed in March 2003 by Milwaukee Police Officer Craig Nawotka, who alleged that he fired in self defense and that Fields' weapon was his car.
But the sheer number of such shootings involving unarmed drivers - about two dozen in the last 20 years, resulting in at least five deaths - also demands that the Milwaukee Police Department review its policy allowing such shootings altogether. It is simply too easy to label as a weapon vehicles involved in traffic stops, which is why a number of cities now forbid officers from considering vehicles as deadly weapons at all.
As recounted in a Journal Sentinel report Friday by Gina Barton, the investigating officer in the Fields shooting alleges in a federal deposition - given in a wrongful death lawsuit - that his findings of wrongdoing by Nawotka were ignored by the Police Department. Fields "did not have to die," said Sgt. Harold Hampton.
Moreover, the first officer on the scene said that he wasn't asked at the inquest by the prosecutor whether Nawotka's statements were inconsistent. They were. Nawotka said he fired at Fields' vehicle as it moved toward him. Fields was shot from behind. The U.S. attorney's office is reviewing the Fields case for possible federal charges against the officer.
And in an article today, Barton reports that the officer whose name is on a written statement that says Fields' car was blocking a fire truck on its way to an emergency - the reason Fields allegedly attracted the attention of officers in the first place - says now in a deposition that the truck wasn't headed to a fire, that he didn't write the document in question and that he didn't check it for accuracy.
In the same deposition, Inspector Steven Settingsgaard concedes that the shooting may have been racially motivated. Fields was black, Nawotka white.
On Friday, McCann defended his office's conduct in the Fields inquest. He told the Journal Sentinel that the inquest jury was provided with evidence of the inconsistencies from a crime lab expert and noted that the statements Nawotka gave to internal investigators could not be used in a criminal case.
Nonetheless, we still believe there is enough in the Fields case to warrant another review by McCann.
Police supporters often have a quick retort to critics: "You can't understand or second-guess unless you walk in those shoes," an argument usually invoked after police shootings or when investigations are launched into police conduct generally.
And, by and large, public servants who put their lives on the line for a city's residents should be given some benefit of the doubt when facts are hazy.
But a public that cares about the rule of law and the notion that no one is above it can legitimately question whether the rules governing officers give too much benefit.
Milwaukee is at that point on the matter of police shootings involving unarmed drivers who, the officers contend, are using their vehicles as weapons. It is also at that point on the question of whether it is time to reform the inquest process. Right now, there is at least an appearance that inquests automatically exonerate officers under all circumstances.
On Friday, an inquest jury delivered yet another verdict that an officer was justified in shooting and killing a Milwaukee resident. On March 6, Police Officer Alfonzo Glover fired 19 shots at Wilbert Prado, eight hitting him from behind.
Here, too, the officer contended Prado's vehicle was used as a weapon, but Glover shot at the man both while Prado was in the car and running away on foot. The verdict is advisory, and McCann must still decide whether he will issue charges in the case. Glover said he believed Prado had a gun.
The number of inquests clearing officers prompts the question: Is the system stacked for the officers?
Earlier, Barton reported that no inquest into police shootings in Milwaukee County in the past 20 years has resulted in criminal charges against an officer. In an editorial on Tuesday, we suggested changes in inquests that could produce more truth in the process. This would involve state legislation making the process more adversarial and giving the families' representatives a role.
The revelations in the Fields shooting - Nawotka was also cleared in an inquest - puts an exclamation point to the need for reform.
On the matter of officers shooting unarmed drivers, a Journal Sentinel analysis revealed that Milwaukee police officers have fired on about two dozen such drivers over the past two decades, but that none of the officers was criminally charged.
Were all those shootings justified? There is reason to doubt. As Barton reported, police departments elsewhere are prohibiting such shootings altogether.
The policy guiding Milwaukee police officers states, essentially, that officers can shoot if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm or death from the moving vehicles. Conceivably, this means officers can deem themselves threatened when they really aren't.
Other departments - notably those in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and Boston - have forbidden officers to consider vehicles as deadly weapons. The officers are instructed to simply move out of the way.
The experts are divided on this issue, but we believe that the numbers are the smoke that indicates a fire. It's possible that all the shootings were justified. But is it probable? We're not as certain.
No, we don't walk in those shoes. But the numbers certainly demand scrutiny of the Milwaukee policy, considering adjustment of some kind, up to and including a prohibition on firing on unarmed drivers.
Police Chief Nannette Hegerty should begin that examination, and McCann should reopen the investigation into the Fields shooting. Official action is now an urgent matter of public confidence.
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 29, 2005.
huh? bad apples everywhere?
Illegal to carry in Oregon. It is listed as a dirk or something like that (hey, I can't remember but sharp pointy things are listed as weapons).
The only thing that you can legally carry are knives under 3in concealed, sheath and auto unconcealed, pepper spray, tasers, and guns (guns only with a permit).
The problems with tasers and pepper sprays (as well as knives) is that the BG has to be in your personal space for them to work. The problem with that is that if the BG is in your personal space, they have better odds of killing you.
Sometimes, I think that is what pols and some people want. Remember, there are people out there that are calling for the extinction of the human race because we are "killing" the earth and the animals and they want us dead while everything else lives. Who knows how many of these people are members of said groups (i.e. I wouldn't be at all surprised).
Plus, you have to follow the money:
BG + LEO's + Attn. + Judge + Jails/Prisons + state funded "support" groups + state needing more money + higher taxes to pay for it all = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
BG + CCW holder = Less $$$$ and possible job deductions from LEO, Attn, Judge, Jails/prisons which then ='s no need for more money so there is less need to dig into the taxpayers wallet for more $$$$$$$$$$$.
For some reason, all of these laws (for the children being the coverup) is just basically for money and not for any type of safety (perceived) for anyone. Everytime I look (research) it always seem to come back to money and nothing else.
Wayne
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Thank you 
Card, if Wi does not need CCW because it has not needed it for 130 years, why has violent crime risen in the last 40 years?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wicrime.htm
More interesting stuff on there, since 1994 the murder rate of Texas has dropped steadily. In six years it is down almost 20 occurances in 100,000 residents. I am not sure(I was 11 in '94) but when did Texas allow CCW?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/wicrime.htm
More interesting stuff on there, since 1994 the murder rate of Texas has dropped steadily. In six years it is down almost 20 occurances in 100,000 residents. I am not sure(I was 11 in '94) but when did Texas allow CCW?
Last edited:
How about:
Because we're Americans, freedom to do what we please is part of citizenry, and you can't show any factual evidence that there is any reason NOT to grant people what they want.
The government of this land is not here to "allow" us to exercise freedoms. We allow the government to exist. If a freedom is curtailed, it has to be for a reason.
Wildcard, consider your word choices: "Opinion", "believe", "need". What do any of those have to do with writing law in THIS country. There are places where the leaders decide what the people need based on what they believe, but they go by names like "China".
Because we're Americans, freedom to do what we please is part of citizenry, and you can't show any factual evidence that there is any reason NOT to grant people what they want.
The government of this land is not here to "allow" us to exercise freedoms. We allow the government to exist. If a freedom is curtailed, it has to be for a reason.
Wildcard, consider your word choices: "Opinion", "believe", "need". What do any of those have to do with writing law in THIS country. There are places where the leaders decide what the people need based on what they believe, but they go by names like "China".
Gary Conner
New member
Allowing Wisconsin residents to carry concealed firearms may not reduce crime, if any
Looking at the above paragraph again by Mr. Myers, I noticed he is concerned not only with CCW, but he also is worried that passing a CCW, would result in more guns "in our homes" and "on our streets"?
His equating the two, seems to indicate he does not want you having a gun to defend yourself at home, either.
Well, if he gets what he wants maybe we can be like France, since it has worked so well over there. How long has Paris and the outlying areas been on fire now from the rioting? About two weeks?
But no worries, the police are armed, and they will protect the peacful citizens, just like they did in WW II.
Looking at the above paragraph again by Mr. Myers, I noticed he is concerned not only with CCW, but he also is worried that passing a CCW, would result in more guns "in our homes" and "on our streets"?
His equating the two, seems to indicate he does not want you having a gun to defend yourself at home, either.
Well, if he gets what he wants maybe we can be like France, since it has worked so well over there. How long has Paris and the outlying areas been on fire now from the rioting? About two weeks?
But no worries, the police are armed, and they will protect the peacful citizens, just like they did in WW II.
progunner1957
Moderator
Under the UN "global" plan, the United States will not be patrolled by U.S. troops, but by foreign troops. The same will hold true for every other nation.
Why? Foreign troops will enforce the UN laws with "extreme prejudice" on Americans, where U.S. troops could not be counted on to do so.
So there you go, folks - that's the UN's plan for mankind: A global reign of terror, to be enforced with maximum brutality by UN "peacekeepers."
progunner1957
Moderator
ROFLAMO!!
CONFLICT here...
If you support their freedom to defend themselves... you owe it to them to let them decide how they will choose to do so.
In my state there are, at last count, over 41,000 CWP's issued...
In the several years since our right-to-carry law was passed, there have been less than ten permits revoked and zero felonies committed by a permit holder.
But, then perhaps the citizens of Wisconsin are less responsible and can't be trusted to decide for themselves... I'm sure the liberal "nanny-staters" would think so.
Hummmm, where did the Wildcard go?
Last edited:
Gary Conner
New member
Methinks this person may just be "Stirring the pot."
I think this person actually has been trained by his "trainers" to believe what he said. That is what is so dangerous to our liberties, and convinces people to advocate giving up a Constitutional freedom, in exhange for false promises.
I think this person actually has been trained by his "trainers" to believe what he said. That is what is so dangerous to our liberties, and convinces people to advocate giving up a Constitutional freedom, in exhange for false promises.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
This is also being discussed over on The High Road with responses in the paper posted as well.
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=167438
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=167438
Whitefalls
New member
It's too bad it doesn't matter what you think about it, because its an inalienable right that is enumerated in our constitution. I'm not sure why so many anti-gun people feel it is ok to ignore this. 
Well, I do, for one. The Democrat Representative for Sheboygan is Terry Van Akkeren. He voted for the bill last year, and voted to override the governor's veto.
We need him on our side this time, so any letters sent to rebut the statements of the letter-writer-in-question will help.