Posted: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 12:00 am
While conservatives rant about their very much undefined rights to carry firearms and liberals conjure images of wild-eyed gun nuts administering street justice as in the Wild West of television myth, there is an interesting and worthwhile project in the works which strikes a balance between these extremes.
The project is based on a federal law which allows retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, and it's what the Racine Police Department is suggesting that the City Council allow. The county Sheriff's Department has done this for some time, Police Chief Kurt Wahlen told The Journal Times for a recent story.
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.
As a way to have a few more potential crime-fighters on the streets, this plan works. If this law had led to trouble we probably would have heard about it by now. One anecdote illustrates the opposite. On April 1 a retired police officer was among several people who chased a pair of robbers in Santa Ana, Calif. The officer fired several times at the suspects when they tried to ram pursuers' vehicles.
There is some question about whether this retired officer acted properly in identifying himself as an officer, but the incident illustrates the general point about what this law may provide.
The interesting sidelight to this is that some officers may want to be armed in order to defend themselves against retribution from some of the people they've dealt with during their careers. One can question the strength of this argument given the rarity of even organized crime figures targeting judges or law enforcement officers (not smart to make the whole legal system mad at you).
There is also the fact that if suspicious bodyguards can't prevent the assassination of Middle East politicians, one gun won't do much for one unsuspecting retired officer faced with a concerted attack by thugs wielding AK-47s.
The debate over firearms ownership and the Second Amendment has raged for so many decades that it's doubtful even the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the Washington, D.C., gun ban will settle the issue. Until such time as we can come to a consensus, it is a reasonable step to allow people to carry weapons who have long since proven their ability to do so.