Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/31/2006 6:45:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 6:56:21 PM EDT
I saw the Fox 6 broadcast and they interviewed the Brown Deer Police Chief and some state trooper guy- didn't catch name or title.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:09:38 PM EDT
We've been told by the NRA that a majority of individual cops are pro-gun and, I would assume, pro-CCW. I hope that is true. The chiefs are political hacks. They will say whatever the mayor or whoever wants them to.

Never seen this expressed before, but the chiefs are usually into empire building. More cops, equipment, etc.. Is it possible that potential CCW holders are seen as competition? After all, the chiefs need to be able to scare the sheeple into giving them more and more tax dollars to expand their empires. They may not want people to be self-sufficient. They may prefer a culture of dependency. They may actually need a certain level of crime just to justify their existence.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:09:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:11:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:17:54 PM EDT
Yep.
Whenever you hear Law Enforcement is against.......Think UNIONS and Democratic hack Unions.

The Union boss's control the purse strings and the liberal CLEOs go with it.

Same for Labor and same for Teachers.

All Democrat hacks.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:28:48 PM EDT
I tend to agree, but I think the Milwaukee Police Assoc was actually in favor of the PPA bill. But there your dealing with the cops on the street and fewer political hacks.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:49:34 PM EDT
I salute you sir.

WI State Troopers are dead set against it. I had a State Trooper so upset he was showering me with spittle once when I was stopped with a legally transported shotgun on the back seat. My offense? Asking him what his issue sidearm was. His position: mere civilians should not be allowed to own firearms.

The new breed of cops and the newest training they are given along with "advances" in "officer safety" concepts seem to promote anti gun feelings among LEOs. Just my opinion.

If I can help you in any way, please let me know.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 12:18:51 AM EDT
As a law enforcement officer, I admit to being torn on the CCW issue. I tend to look at it as a little bit of a pessimist. My main concern is the safety and welfare of the public, as well as my fellow officers. I have read the article's on the recent bill to go through Wisconsin. I applaud the measures allowing citizens who pass a background check as well as a firearms safety course to CCW. My concerns carry over to someone who may have too much to drink, or gets into a fight/domestic argument, who, faced with police contact, may not be thinking clearly, and pull the weapon, forcing law enforcement to act. I feel that the bill will aid us in the fight against crime. Awareness and training will benefit us all.

Also, anyone who wants to carpool to the NRA shindig in Milwaukee coming up, please leave a response. Responsible gun ownership starts with you.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 1:06:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By grifman23:
As a law enforcement officer, I admit to being torn on the CCW issue. I tend to look at it as a little bit of a pessimist. My main concern is the safety and welfare of the public, as well as my fellow officers. I have read the article's on the recent bill to go through Wisconsin. I applaud the measures allowing citizens who pass a background check as well as a firearms safety course to CCW. My concerns carry over to someone who may have too much to drink, or gets into a fight/domestic argument, who, faced with police contact, may not be thinking clearly, and pull the weapon, forcing law enforcement to act. I feel that the bill will aid us in the fight against crime. Awareness and training will benefit us all.



Grifman,

I'd respectfully encourage you to talk to your LEO bretheren in the 35 other states that are "shall issue" when it comes to CCW permits. Many of those states require nothing more than a safety class and no felony/DV convictions.

Most cops in those states will tell you that a CCW is akin to a "good guy" card. Those with permits are much less likely to be intoxicated, get into fights, domestic arguments, or even think about pulling a gun without the threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others.

It just doesn't happen.

I'd caution you against taking the report issued by the Milwaukee assemblyman (I forget his name at the moment) as gospel. The stats quoted in it can be very misleading. For instance, it mentions the # of arrests of CCW holders in Texas for "weapons related crimes". The statistics provided by Handgun Control, Inc. fail to mention the conviction rate (almost zero), and the exact violation (almost all the arrests were for "brandishing", but some are for homicide). In Texas, if the wind blows your jacket open and someone sees your gun, that = "brandishing". They get an "arrest" (ticket) which very rarely got prosecuted. Even in justifiable homicides (i.e. defensive shootings) the good guy can be arrested. Those arrests (despite the lack of convictions) are what the HCI reports focuses on.

Texas no longer publishes their total # of arrests, only convictions. Someone out there has a webpage that goes through the HCI report line by line using the same statistics and comes to the conclusion that CCW holders in Texas are involved in crime @ .01% of the general population.

That is to say that CCW holders are 1000 times less likely to be involved in a crime than your "average" citizen. Reference the "good guy card" statement above.

Food for thought.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:17:26 AM EDT
Hey griff how about the cops who go to partys and beat the crapola out of someone or the cops who shot up the archbishops house in chicago?These milwaukee LEO's don't need guns either!!!!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 4:58:54 AM EDT
POs don't take this personal, I realize what you deal with, I wouldn't want to do it. Antis use divide and conquer to separate you from the people you serve.
I didn't think that POs were mental giants with some kind of ESP that makes them more capable of handling weapons than your ordinary Joe, but if you listen to some of these higher ups, you'd think they were.
Really what a police force is these days is an armed branch of social services. Not a bad thing, but most law abiding gun owners don't really need social services help. People say you'd need a cop in every house to stop crime. What you'd really need is someone with a conscience and a brain. There is a lot of scraping going on in the bottom of the gene pool currently.
If it was like the "good old days" the men of the community would step up to the plate. These same men are the ones that need this law.
Once the shooting stops, you really don't need armed officers, you need more social workers.
Society has been trained to not be able to make good decisions.
It wasn't my intention to rip the police. Sorry if it came out that way. Just my insignificant observations.
CJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:08:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 5:09:33 AM EDT by glenn_r]

Originally Posted By TheKill:
The new breed of cops and the newest training they are given along with "advances" in "officer safety" concepts seem to promote anti gun feelings among LEOs. Just my opinion.



Nah, I don't think that's it. I think most street cops remain pro-gun. As far as the "new breed" goes, I think the "old geezers" have rolled their eyes over the young whippersnappers for several generations now. (As a matter of fact, generational differences in supervision and training is a course my department is hosting in the near future.) I think it boils down to younger persons in general. How's the famous quote go? 'Anyone who's a conservative at 20 has no heart, and anyone who's a liberal at 40 has no brain', or something like that.

Advancing officer safety training isn't it either. Better-trained cops are more situationally aware, just like members of the general public who have taken defensive courses. Has taking a DETC course turned anyone anti-gun? It's not the course content that causes anti-gun attitudes.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:08:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NewGunNut:
I tend to agree, but I think the Milwaukee Police Assoc was actually in favor of the PPA bill. But there your dealing with the cops on the street and fewer political hacks.



Yes they were in favor of it, and not only that but they were in favor of it before the car registration tie in shit too. They backed last years attempt as well. MPD=Good guys when it comes to CCW.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 7:59:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 7:59:51 AM EDT by colt100]
Why are cops singled out on this type of discussion all the time? Like was said, most street cops I know are very pro gun and alot of them are NRA members. Alot of them are also for the CCW if it is done right with the proper training.

This site likes to bash cops when ever the opportunity arises.

How about bashing teachers or lawers, or any other group that a few people are outspoken against the bill. I'm sure that some teachers, lawers, ect are against the bill and I was not trying to single out a group. Just wondering why LE is always brought up here.

You don't have to convince the cops, you do have to convince the Gov, house, and assembly.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:11:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 8:15:42 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By colt100:
Why are cops singled out on this type of discussion all the time? Like was said, most street cops I know are very pro gun and alot of them are NRA members. Alot of them are also for the CCW if it is done right with the proper training.

This site likes to bash cops when ever the opportunity arises.

How about bashing teachers or lawers, or any other group that a few people are outspoken against the bill. I'm sure that some teachers, lawers, ect are against the bill and I was not trying to single out a group. Just wondering why LE is always brought up here.

You don't have to convince the cops, you do have to convince the Gov, house, and assembly.




The backlash comes becuse we always hear the street cops are for it it's the brass that don't like it. We understand that, but then we go and turn on the news and what do we see the gov. surronded by state troopers while he vetoes the PPA(the first time around) mind you all were on the clock. What message does that send? That they back this veto of the bill, yet very few of them may in fact not back the veto. The problems come because most LEOs will not say on the record that hey I'm a cop and I back CCW. And the reason they don't is because they may go into work the next day and the chief says hey bring yer ass in my office and then the officer gets bitched out or whatever for not toeing the official department line. I think thats one of the major fundamental problems officers can not speak thier mind about issues without it potentialy effecting them negativly at work, and thats wrong.

The other problem is that you have a lot of unions that represent these "street cops" that also say hey we don't like this bill or we don't think people should CCW. If the "street cops" truely support the law, then that should be the message sent out by thier unions and shit too and with one exception thats not the case. So we hear one thing from individual officers and another thing from the groups that represent them and their brass. You never opnce saw a bunch of cops in uniform around Sen. Zien saying we support this bill. I know plenty of officers that supported this bill, but I never saw one letter to the editor from them stating that they were an officer with XXX police department and that they supported the bill. I hear it from them in private, but I don't see any action in the public relm. Until that changes somehow, you will always see shit like this.

I get where Barret was comming from on his no longer supporting his product in california, Hell if Paul and BC USA stopped selling to the departments that didn't support this I wouldn't blame them one bit. If they can not support us then why the hell should we support them? Why should we support organisations or departments that work toword the safety of criminals when they are suposed to be looking out for the safety of the community(notice I didn't say the individual or the people, our protection is not LE's priority or job) The police shouldn't even really be in the business of backing or not backing laws, only enforcing them, but since they are in game, they need to back the laws that make the community safer, and CCW laws make communities safer period end of fucking story.



Link Posted: 2/1/2006 8:41:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

The backlash comes becuse we always hear the street cops are for it it's the brass that don't like it. We understand that, but then we go and turn on the news and what do we see the gov. surronded by state troopers while he vetoes the PPA(the first time around) mind you all were on the clock.




This convinces me that it is no different than Slick Willie having the same backdrop of cops whenever he did something to "protect" us from some perceived evil. All the cops that stood behind Willie were told to be there....and I firmly believe that those troopers are no different. WSP is in a supreme pissing match with the state right now about their contract, and I don't think you'll see too many troopers supporting much of anything that Doyle does.

I've supported CCW in Wisconsin since before I was a cop. 13 years later, I still believe it to be a valid option for those wishing to attend the training necessary. Do I want a bunch of untrained people on the street? No, but I'm more than happy to acknowledge that the law-abiding public is not my enemy.

Painting me and all cops with the same brush really gets old on this board. I ignore much of it, as people will vent and get it out of their system and honestly, I could give two shits about a forum based pissing match.

Per my department policy, I cannot appear in public to support any political action. Apparently, you've never read the Wisconsin State Journal, as I've written many more letters to the editor than they've ever published about supporting CCW. However, again, I cannot identify my agency without repercussion. Pretty cut and dried there.

Last time I had something published, I told the public to ask their local cops their feelings on CCW...but ask the street cops, not the admin, because most will give you a straight answer. The #2 guy made a point of trying to intimidate me when the letter was published verbatim in our local paper.....I stood my ground, and he backed off. Might have had something to do with a comment about "driving a desk"....guys told me they were planning on sneaking into his office and mounting a steering wheel ........ That guy is now retired.

I can't tell companies who to support, nor would I try. I would ask, however, that you keep in mind that the end users of your products rarely share the thought processes of their admin. Want to screw us over that way? Knock yourself out, we will drive on.

Flame away.

VJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:14:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
If the "street cops" truely support the law, then that should be the message sent out by thier unions and shit too and with one exception thats not the case.



Actually, at least two. The FOP supported the bill too.


I know plenty of officers that supported this bill, but I never saw one letter to the editor from them stating that they were an officer with XXX police department and that they supported the bill. I hear it from them in private, but I don't see any action in the public relm. Until that changes somehow, you will always see shit like this.


Every department I know prohibits officers from politicking on duty or in uniform. It's unethical. Officers are also prohibited from identifying themselves as an officer of XXX department when supporting or opposing legislation. The department's position is relayed through the chain of command, i.e. the Chief, or his/her designated spokesperson.

I saw a letter to the editor in my local paper from a guy who identified himself as a Racine cop, including his name, opposing the bill. I'd assume he'll have some formal complaints filed against him. Completely inappropriate to identify your agency in that sort of letter, IMO.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:26:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 9:31:29 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By V_Johnson:

Originally Posted By photoman:

The backlash comes becuse we always hear the street cops are for it it's the brass that don't like it. We understand that, but then we go and turn on the news and what do we see the gov. surronded by state troopers while he vetoes the PPA(the first time around) mind you all were on the clock.




This convinces me that it is no different than Slick Willie having the same backdrop of cops whenever he did something to "protect" us from some perceived evil. All the cops that stood behind Willie were told to be there....and I firmly believe that those troopers are no different. WSP is in a supreme pissing match with the state right now about their contract, and I don't think you'll see too many troopers supporting much of anything that Doyle does.

I've supported CCW in Wisconsin since before I was a cop. 13 years later, I still believe it to be a valid option for those wishing to attend the training necessary. Do I want a bunch of untrained people on the street? No, but I'm more than happy to acknowledge that the law-abiding public is not my enemy.

Painting me and all cops with the same brush really gets old on this board. I ignore much of it, as people will vent and get it out of their system and honestly, I could give two shits about a forum based pissing match.

Per my department policy, I cannot appear in public to support any political action. Apparently, you've never read the Wisconsin State Journal, as I've written many more letters to the editor than they've ever published about supporting CCW. However, again, I cannot identify my agency without repercussion. Pretty cut and dried there.
However you can be ordered to even if it something you don't believe in, they can make you be there to give the preception that officers are in favor of it or against whatever is being talked about
Last time I had something published, I told the public to ask their local cops their feelings on CCW...but ask the street cops, not the admin, because most will give you a straight answer. The #2 guy made a point of trying to intimidate me when the letter was published verbatim in our local paper.....I stood my ground, and he backed off. Might have had something to do with a comment about "driving a desk"....guys told me they were planning on sneaking into his office and mounting a steering wheel ........ That guy is now retired.

I can't tell companies who to support, nor would I try. I would ask, however, that you keep in mind that the end users of your products rarely share the thought processes of their admin. Want to screw us over that way? Knock yourself out, we will drive on.

Flame away.

VJ


Stuff in blue is my comments, just so folks don't get confused or anything


The other problem though is the organisations that suposedly represent the beat cops also throw their support behind defeating PPA, with one known (to me) exception, that being the union for MPD officers. They were the only group that I'm aware of that represents officers that said hey were all for this. And they did it from the get go. So were are the other unions for the officers showing support and showing how the "majority" of thier membership feels about the issue, we don't see. What is said off duty and in private isn't the same thing being seen in the public relm and thats where people are having issues with it. Thats where the problem is and it all goes back to that part highlighted in red. You guys are unfortunetly pawns in this here political game used at wim by politicians to make it lok like one thing is true when it really isn't.

There is a very big preception that LE is against this because thats all people see, we don't see anything else with few exceptions. I know there isn't much officers can do with regards to Dept. policy on these things, but they can work to make their unions better reflect how the majority of the membership feels and let the unions be thier mouth piece on these issues, just like MPD did.

Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:30:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 9:32:10 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

Originally Posted By photoman:
If the "street cops" truely support the law, then that should be the message sent out by thier unions and shit too and with one exception thats not the case.



Actually, at least two. The FOP supported the bill too.


I know plenty of officers that supported this bill, but I never saw one letter to the editor from them stating that they were an officer with XXX police department and that they supported the bill. I hear it from them in private, but I don't see any action in the public relm. Until that changes somehow, you will always see shit like this.


Every department I know prohibits officers from politicking on duty or in uniform. It's unethical. Officers are also prohibited from identifying themselves as an officer of XXX department when supporting or opposing legislation. The department's position is relayed through the chain of command, i.e. the Chief, or his/her designated spokesperson.

I saw a letter to the editor in my local paper from a guy who identified himself as a Racine cop, including his name, opposing the bill. I'd assume he'll have some formal complaints filed against him. Completely inappropriate to identify your agency in that sort of letter, IMO.




I'd be interested to know who the Racine Cop is since I know a bunch of them and they train at our club. And thanks for the clarification on the FOP.

I totaly understand the not being able to politic on duty and such, the problem is that when it will benifit the politicians, they will pretty much order cops to be there and politic on duty. I'd love to have the govenor say I need some cops to come and be here while I kill htis bill so it looks like they suport this and have some chief say sorry it's against Dept. policy. But you won't see that.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:32:41 AM EDT
I'll agree with that, yes. The letter that I refer to in my previous post stemmed from the Wisconsin County Police Association writing to the same paper, stating how Evil CCW would be and claiming that all members of the Association were against the bill. My response was due to the idiot President of WCPA and that letter.

Nobody asked me my opinion, so how can they say that I'm for it?

Best,

VJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:43:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By V_Johnson:
I'll agree with that, yes. The letter that I refer to in my previous post stemmed from the Wisconsin County Police Association writing to the same paper, stating how Evil CCW would be and claiming that all members of the Association were against the bill. My response was due to the idiot President of WCPA and that letter.

Nobody asked me my opinion, so how can they say that I'm for it?

Best,

VJ



And thats what I'm talking about. Most people who are not shooters and are not up on these issues and who don't talk to a lot of LE see that shit and they preceve that all cops feel that way. To most people it's oh they represent police officers so all police must feel that way, or the majority must feel that way when it is not true. There is no way really for anything but one "opinion" to be heard and thats the biggest issue. Basicly people are not getting the truth.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:47:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 9:48:30 AM EDT by TheKill]
It sounds like CCW could be as devisive among LEOs as ARFCOM is between LEOs and citizens!

Seriously though, perception tends to be most people's reality, and it is easy to percieve that LEOs seem to be against CCW, and are not really doing anything to support it or convince the public that it's a good thing.

V, you glenn_r, and sully are LEOs I have utmost respect for. Also the cute JCSD deputy that took my deer hit report two weeks ago Wednesday!!

But it's really, really hard to not make generalizations when things have been presented the way they have. LEO's showing their ass on the job don't reflect well on guys like you either.

You guys "get it", it SEEMS that most LEOs do not.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:55:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
And thats what I'm talking about. Most people who are not shooters and are not up on these issues and who don't talk to a lot of LE see that shit and they preceve that all cops feel that way. To most people it's oh they represent police officers so all police must feel that way, or the majority must feel that way when it is not true. There is no way really for anything but one "opinion" to be heard and thats the biggest issue. Basicly people are not getting the truth.



Well, then I will generalize about those folks: If you believe everything you read in the newspaper or see on TV News, you're an idiot.

If people are that stupid to believe that if one auto mechanic thinks you need a new engine, all mechanics will have to believe that. Or to push the envelope, all politicians are crooks. All you hear about are the ones under indictment, so is that statement true?

This problem goes much deeper, and that is that many people, not all, but many don't want to have to make a choice or a decision. Christ, I work with a few. Right or wrong, take a side, quit walking the fence..... even if you're wrong I'll still respect that you took a side. Lost concept on many new cops.

I tried 2 or 3 times to get WSJ and Journal/Sentinel to let me write a guest column on CCW; of course, they required that I identify my agency. They don't want the truth, unless you get hung in the process.....THAT is journalism in the 21st Century.

VJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:57:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

I saw a letter to the editor in my local paper from a guy who identified himself as a Racine cop, including his name, opposing the bill. I'd assume he'll have some formal complaints filed against him. Completely inappropriate to identify your agency in that sort of letter, IMO.



Ah yes, he made our paper here, too. His ass is currently in a crack, although not for that, that I know of.

VJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:07:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:

V, you glenn_r, and sully are LEOs I have utmost respect for. Also the cute JCSD deputy that took my deer hit report two weeks ago Wednesday!!

You guys "get it", it SEEMS that most LEOs do not.



We get it, because we care about it. Many of the folks I work with, if it doesn't impact them directly, they don't care. The new generation goes home after 8 hours and you rarely see them after that time, even to socialize amongst ourselves. A lot has changed since I started. I haven't asked any of them about CCW, but they seem to come to me to ask questions about it. My response is usually, "if I had my way, we'd go back to the Wild <mid>West and allow open carry for all law-abiding citizens." I'm sure that sprinkled in there are a few that think 'well, I got my gun, I don't care'.

I had a dispatcher ask me over the weekend what I thought. I told them the above. They said, well, would it change how you approached a driver of a car with the plate saying they had a CCW permit? My response was that anyone could be driving the car and not the permit holder, yet I'd still approach the car with the same caution that I do now.......EVERYONE is considered armed, until I've patted them down. Does that mean that I approach with gun drawn every stop? Hell no, it just means that I don't rely on DOT for my officer safety. I rely on ME.

This conversation with said dispatcher ended when I said, you need to realize, the general public that would qualify for a CCW permit are not the enemy; how many thousands of guns are here in Wisconsin NOW that are NOT used against LE?

VJ
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:07:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By V_Johnson:

Originally Posted By glenn_r:

I saw a letter to the editor in my local paper from a guy who identified himself as a Racine cop, including his name, opposing the bill. I'd assume he'll have some formal complaints filed against him. Completely inappropriate to identify your agency in that sort of letter, IMO.



Ah yes, he made our paper here, too. His ass is currently in a crack, although not for that, that I know of.

VJ



Can one of you IM me the guys name, I really really want to know if I know him or not.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:15:32 AM EDT
+1 to everything V said.

Photo, I left the paper at work in the break room, and I won't be back in for a couple of days. I can check then if V doesn't have the name.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:19:26 AM EDT
It was a month or so ago.......I'll take a look around
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:31:12 AM EDT
thanks guys.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:24:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
I just watched the local news, and my stomach turned as various LE dept spokesman came out against the PPA. Saying that civies were not trained enough to carry firearms.

Does anyone have a list of WI LE Dept who came out against the PPA ?

In the spirit of Barrett firearms, the second amendment, and putting your money where your mouth is;
I should know who I am and am NOT doing business with.






I like the idea!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 6:12:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidK:

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
I just watched the local news, and my stomach turned as various LE dept spokesman came out against the PPA. Saying that civies were not trained enough to carry firearms.

Does anyone have a list of WI LE Dept who came out against the PPA ?

In the spirit of Barrett firearms, the second amendment, and putting your money where your mouth is;
I should know who I am and am NOT doing business with.






I like the idea!



Huge +1 for Bravo! I know last time around the Appleton police cheif stated he would have his officers conduct felony traffic stops on all drivers who came up as CCW holders.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 7:06:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 7:08:18 PM EDT by HKMP5A2]
Originally Posted By grifman23:
As a law enforcement officer, I admit to being torn on the CCW issue. I tend to look at it as a little bit of a pessimist. My main concern is the safety and welfare of the public, as well as my fellow officers. I have read the article's on the recent bill to go through Wisconsin. I applaud the measures allowing citizens who pass a background check as well as a firearms safety course to CCW. My concerns carry over to someone who may have too much to drink, or gets into a fight/domestic argument, who, faced with police contact, may not be thinking clearly, and pull the weapon, forcing law enforcement to act. I feel that the bill will aid us in the fight against crime. Awareness and training will benefit us all.

Also, anyone who wants to carpool to the NRA shindig in Milwaukee coming up, please leave a response. Responsible gun ownership starts with you


DONT believe the lefty propaganda many LE are just not gun people its only a tool they use for work.
Also many LE can not shoot to save there life I know that as as a fact.
They don't practice and many can barely qualify.
I not knocking LE I have many friends that are LE they are also gun people
The bad guys carry guns and they don't train or practice
As far as a few knuckleheads drinking and having there firearm on them yes you may get a few.
Give Use the benefit of the doubt.
CCW is to protect yourself or a loved one not to be a cop as the media and the Lefty's would have you believe.
We are stuck with a terrible governor and spineless hacks that wont stand up to him he has to go.
As a instructor when I get the chance to train ccw I will not sign off on anyone that I don't feel right about.
I'm in Racine if you want to car pool to the NRA
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 7:12:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
I salute you sir.

WI State Troopers are dead set against it. I had a State Trooper so upset he was showering me with spittle once when I was stopped with a legally transported shotgun on the back seat. My offense? Asking him what his issue sidearm was. His position: mere civilians should not be allowed to own firearms.

The new breed of cops and the newest training they are given along with "advances" in "officer safety" concepts seem to promote anti gun feelings among LEOs. Just my opinion.

If I can help you in any way, please let me know.



State Troopers are worse the Hitlers SS most regular LE cant stand them although I have known two that were cool one was so happy to shoot my M11/9 he was like a little kid
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 5:35:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HKMP5A2:

State Troopers are worse the Hitlers SS most regular LE cant stand them although I have known two that were cool one was so happy to shoot my M11/9 he was like a little kid



Again, broad generalizations about a large group. Hitler's SS.....So, when was the last time a few Wisconsin State Troopers gassed six MILLION people........... or lined them up and shot them in the head and dumped them into a ditch?

Give me a fucking break. Are there troopers that are wired wrong? Sure. By your own admission, they're not all like that.

VJ
Link Posted: 2/2/2006 3:22:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/2/2006 3:27:45 PM EDT by HKMP5A2]

Originally Posted By V_Johnson:

Originally Posted By HKMP5A2:

State Troopers are worse the Hitlers SS most regular LE cant stand them although I have known two that were cool one was so happy to shoot my M11/9 he was like a little kid



Again, broad generalizations about a large group. Hitler's SS.....So, when was the last time a few Wisconsin State Troopers gassed six MILLION people........... or lined them up and shot them in the head and dumped them into a ditch?

Give me a fucking break. Are there troopers that are wired wrong? Sure. By your own admission, they're not all like that.

VJ




WI State Troopers are dead set against it. I had a State Trooper so upset he was showering me with spittle once when I was stopped with a legally transported shotgun on the back seat. My offense? Asking him what his issue sidearm was. His position: mere civilians should not be allowed to own firearms



I guess this should have had this next to my post
I have many hombre's that were LE and they have all told me about the cop mentality
Seems like the rookies have it and the veterans don't

So relax this is one civilian that would jump in to back up a LE in trouble I already have.
Top Top