Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Old Codger

(4,205 posts)
22. I thought
Mon Dec 12, 2011, 12:26 PM
Dec 2011

That ex-police officers, retired or just moving out of law enforcement were automatic in all states.... Seems like I read somewhere that was a federal license, have to look it up later today...
(on edit)
Found something on it

Passed in 2004, the federal law exempts officers from state gun laws, which means Wisconsin's law that allows only peace officers to carry concealed weapons. But the federal act sensibly imposes several restrictions.

First, officers must have accumulated at least 15 years of service, which should weed out unstable and irresponsible personalities.

Second, they must train annually to ensure they remain proficient in the use of firearms, and this is done at their expense.

Third, the federal law does not override restrictions which private property owners can apply, nor does it allow these retired officers to carry firearms in public buildings where possession is already prohibited.

Local officers wishing to carry firearms must acknowledge that they have no arrest powers and assume all responsibility for what they may do, just like any other private citizen. They will shoot less often than working officers - once a year instead of quarterly. Their training will be more general, and the police chief will have the authority to refuse any applicant.

Read more: http://www.journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_297d24fb-31fd-5680-a395-a8073560503b.html#ixzz1gL3UozIX

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What is the point? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #1
Fortunately, the courts, law enforcement and just about every Constitutional scholar disagrees. Hoyt Dec 2011 #3
name one gejohnston Dec 2011 #4
The poster I responded to said that government should not have any say in what folks do with guns. Hoyt Dec 2011 #6
That's not at all what he said. PavePusher Dec 2011 #8
I suggest you start with reading the excellent materials at this link. We'll go from there. Hoyt Dec 2011 #9
"Militia" was never defined in the constitution. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #14
are you serious? gejohnston Dec 2011 #15
Hahahahaha, hahahah, hahahahaha! PavePusher Dec 2011 #20
That ole clause... Straw Man Dec 2011 #23
Whose site is that? one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #24
Let's hope you don't shoot someone based on your erroneous suspicions. Don't have a gun site. Hoyt Dec 2011 #25
I like that arguement one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #26
Why, her standards for issue make sense: Rich and old. I'm covered on the latter. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #27
And yet you still can not show us your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Ninteenth Amendment Permits. PavePusher Dec 2011 #7
Ask the Supreme Court. Hoyt Dec 2011 #10
Face it. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #13
This stuff Old Codger Dec 2011 #2
National reciprocity will cure this problem. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #5
Well, not Utah any more Euromutt Dec 2011 #21
Let's hope he wins this one....it could be win for all of California. ileus Dec 2011 #11
Reporting fail? PavePusher Dec 2011 #12
For PIs and security guards, it seems there is an 'exposed carry' permit issued by petronius Dec 2011 #16
Larn sumpin' new ever day. Thanks! n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #18
Here are the details for a security guard firearm permit hack89 Dec 2011 #17
Thanks! n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #19
I thought Old Codger Dec 2011 #22
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Santa Clara County sherif...»Reply #22