This past weekend the big topic of conversation at the gun club was CCW here in Wisconsin. One of the guys I worked the fireing line with is a SWAT supervisor for a neighboring city. He brought up something I never thought about and I'm still not sure what I really think about it. So I pose the question to you guys. Should a sheriff be able to deny a persons aplication for a CCW if the applicant is a known affiliate of an organised criminal group(gang, mob, etc..) if there is nothing else that would 1. prohibit them from legaly purchesing a hand gun. 2. there is nothing that would disqualify them from getting the permit otherwise.  There of course would have to be some spesific criteria that would have to be met to show that they are affiliated with such a criminal enterprise, what exactly that would be I don't know. I personally see how it could be a good thing, as these are the people who can make the straw purchases to get gangbangers guns and such. But on the other hand, even if they are affiliated with some type of criminal organisation, they themselves have done nothing to lose their(that they have been cought for at least) RKBA. Like I said I'm not sure what I think about it just yet. What do you all think? Oh and there is nothing like this in the CCW law in this state. This was something he thought should be looked at as being added or at least looked at as a way of actually keeping guns from the criminals. He is all for CCW and is a good guy. I can see the pro side of something like this but I can also see the Con side.

Why not just filter this all down and say:

"Is he Black*?"



(because that's what he's really saying - you'd be shocked at the number of LEO's I ask about how they feel about concealed carry.  They all something along the varient: "Well, I wouldn't have a problem with you carrying, but... ya know - you're not the kind of person I arrest on a day to day basis."


And there is an "exception clause" in the WI PPA for Sheriff's to use - can't quote it all by heart - but a Sheriff may petition to deny you in circuit - (I think?) - court, and then you'd have a chance to fight it.



* or jewish, or russian, or italian, has tattoos, wears baggy jeans, etc..

In those type of groups the people will buy guns  illegaly and carry them with or without a CCW.

Without a CCW they would more likely shoot the officer to avoid the illegal carry charges.

There's a difference between a "known associate" and a member.  I am a member of a Christian motorcycle group.  At motorcycle events I have hung around talking with members of an outlaw club.  From time to time LE agencies take pictures at such gatherings.  For all I know, I'm in a few.

Although I might technically be an "associate" (or affiliate), I'm surely not involved in any of their business.

Until I break the law, I expect to be treated like a law-abiding citizen.

Were not these types of individuals the ones who were carring concealed weapons long before the rest of us had the right to?

Didn't mobsters and crime syndicate "good-fellas" considered this as a benefit for their pay-offs to local LEOs, to have a little business card saying that local sheriff or DA "allowed them to carry" and "to extend to them every courtesy."

Or was that other mobsters.....

Mike  

Sounds like a recipe for disaster (or at least making a CCW law worthless). Who is going to figure out who is a "gang affiliate", and on what criteria? It's just may-issue all over again.

i think we would all be considered 'gun nuts' and giving us a CCW would be "dangerous"

Quoted: i think we would all be considered 'gun nuts' and giving us a CCW would be "dangerous"

I’ll drink to that!

Allowing that invokes government by men rather than laws. You, after all, are a know associate of a group that discusses what to do when TSHTF and tries to determine the circumstances under which armed opposition to the gov't would be appropriate. Should a guy like that have a CCW?

Sure they should and while we are at it we can just throw out the whole Constitution too.

 Dude, you realize that even bad guys have rights too and until they are stripped of those rights by due process they are no different than anyone else.  Anything less is a kick in the balls of everything a free nation stands for!

Ok I should probably clarify the affiliated thing here. He was talking about guys they come in constant contact with when working gang realted type situations, not your average guys who knows a couple gang bangers, but rather the guy with gang tattoos, and sporting the colors and shit like that but they haven't ever been busted for anything or done anything that would disqualify them from having a gun or CCW. Dolamite yer right and perhaps that is part of the reason the put that in the law. I totaly forgot about that.

Quoted: Sure they should and while we are at it we can just throw out the whole Constitution too.  Dude, you realize that even bad guys have rights too and until they are stripped of those rights by due process they are no different than anyone else.  Anything less is a kick in the balls of everything a free nation stands for!

Yes I do maybe if ya read the post again you'd see where I said

But on the other hand, even if they are affiliated with some type of criminal organisation, they themselves have done nothing to lose their(that they have been cought for at least) RKBA

could a gang be considerd a millitia?

if so, cant that be grounds for turning down thier request?

Quoted: could a gang be considerd a millitia? if so, cant that be grounds for turning down thier request?

Criminal organisation being key. So I would say no, but hey the liberals would love that to be the case now wouldn't they.

Lot's of assuming going on.  Assumes the "gang" member has not dis-qualified him/herself from CCW, assumes age requirement met, assumes legally owns firearm, taken CCW course, etc.  Nevertheless, what's the negative?  If they have met the requirements they are in a database along with the gun.  This sure ain't the scenario in say California.  

Methinks the LEO is stating his prejudice without regard to reality.

Quoted: Lot's of assuming going on.  Assumes the "gang" member has not dis-qualified him/herself from CCW, assumes age requirement met, assumes legally owns firearm, taken CCW course, etc.  Nevertheless, what's the negative?  If they have met the requirements they are in a database along with the gun.  This sure ain't the scenario in say California.   Methinks the LEO is stating his prejudice without regard to reality.

No assumeing. Obviously to apply for the CCW they have to meet the requirements to apply. I know if they don't meet those requirements and are CCW they will get busted. If you notice I made that clear, at least I thought by saying that they are not or have not done anything to disqualify them. The only thing being that they are a KNOWN gang member.  Oh time to leave work yah hoooooo! later guys.

Quoted: Ok I should probably clarify the affiliated thing here. He was talking about guys they come in constant contact with when working gang realted type situations, not your average guys .

Give them in an inch and they'll take a mile.

1. Is a criminal going to subject himself to the fingerprinting, background checks, etc. associated with a CCW and be entered into the resultant databases?

2. Is said criminal likely to carry without a permit anyway?

3. Does this illustrate the silliness of permitting law-abiding citizens (who pose no threat) while criminals do what they want?

i don't think those are the types of people that would get a CCW anyway.  if they associate with thugs..they probably just havn't been caught doing someting wrong yet, or it's just a passing thing (ie-exiting to hang out with stupid losers).

we're trying to be law abiding by getting a permit.  some people (the sketchy ones) would just carry without one anyway.

Well gang members don't buy guns for "associates" or other Gang Bangers...They steal them and carry them illegal anyway!

Organized criminal group(gang, mob, etc..)...We all KNOW there are no White, Mexican, Oriental etc. guys involved in Organized or Unorganized Criminal Activities!

BigDozer66

Quoted: This past weekend the big topic of conversation at the gun club was CCW here in Wisconsin. One of the guys I worked the fireing line with is a SWAT supervisor for a neighboring city. He brought up something I never thought about and I'm still not sure what I really think about it. So I pose the question to you guys. Should a sheriff be able to deny a persons aplication for a CCW if the applicant is a known affiliate of an organised criminal group(gang, mob, etc..) if there is nothing else that would 1. prohibit them from legaly purchesing a hand gun. 2. there is nothing that would disqualify them from getting the permit otherwise.  There of course would have to be some spesific criteria that would have to be met to show that they are affiliated with such a criminal enterprise, what exactly that would be I don't know. I personally see how it could be a good thing, as these are the people who can make the straw purchases to get gangbangers guns and such. But on the other hand, even if they are affiliated with some type of criminal organisation, they themselves have done nothing to lose their(that they have been cought for at least) RKBA. Like I said I'm not sure what I think about it just yet. What do you all think? Oh and there is nothing like this in the CCW law in this state. This was something he thought should be looked at as being added or at least looked at as a way of actually keeping guns from the criminals. He is all for CCW and is a good guy. I can see the pro side of something like this but I can also see the Con side.

I live in Iowa and it is not a "shall issue" state.  Very few county sherriffs refuse CCW licenses for applicants who qualify.

The sherriff is elected and if he is anti-gun he can be voted out.  All is not lost if your state is not "shall issue".

If I had my choice Iowa would be "shall issue" but it probably wouldn't make much difference.  Wisconsin is more Liberal and would probably be a good thing.

Shok

Other than probably being unconstitutional to deny ANYONE who has the right, has met all requirments, is not a convicted felon, convicted of domestic violence, or any number of other LEGAL denials. Why would any CLEO (chief law enforcement officer) deny said person?

If you were the CLEO, would you want to risk your career, income, lawsuits, etc, because you THOUGHT that someone was a member of a gang of some type?

If the supposed gang member had actually committed a crime in which the local LEO knew about, he would be arrested and charged with said crime.

Also, if you were affiliated with some type of gang, why would you WILLINGLY submit yourself to being fingerprinted(part of the CCW procces)? Any future crimes in which prints can be lifted, and are put into the system, you would come up as being on file. Why would a criminal do that unless he is VERY stupid?

Hate to tell you, but criminals still aquire their weapons the old fashioned way, either by stealing them or buying them on the black market.

Let's just give in some more to OUR Gov't...... NOT!!

And for those that don't know, I AM an LEO, and there is no way in hell that I am giving up my constitutional rights for anyone, that includes the Gov't that pays me.  

Problem is, give that discretion to an anti-CCW police chief or sheriff, and he’ll just deny everybody.

Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't want the government screening people to decide which rights we are allowed to have.

If our government employees don't trust the people, replace them with somebody who does.

The criminals will make themselves known soon enough, they already do.