Sheboygan County District Attorney: Give Cops Instant Access to CCW Database

Let’s do this backwards. Here’s a comment underneath the post Sheboygan DA blasts concealed-carry law by commentator natrixgli [not shown]: “If an officer is on an OWI [Operating While Intoxicated] stop or a warrant execution, for example, it would be helpful to know if the driver might have a weapon. Otherwise officers are just going to have to get in the habit of ordering all occupants out of the vehicle at gunpoint and patting them down.” Huh? Cheese State cops need to pat down citizens who might possess a legal weapon? What about drivers who might possess an illegal weapon? To paraphrase the Talking Heads, Start Making Sense. Adding to Wisconsin’s post-concealed carry gun control cacaphony, Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco . . .

“It is outrageous when, hiding behind a constitutional right, special interest groups’ paranoia and extreme views put our officers at risk when they are simply trying to do their sworn duty and remain as safe as possible,” said Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco in a news release Wednesday. “The present prohibition endangers the officers upon whom we depend for public safety, and reflects the extreme agenda and paranoia of the National Rifle Association and other gun lobbying groups that advanced these provisions. What are they afraid of?”

Idiots?

DeCecco said access to the database could help officers determine the level of danger and alert them of any guns present before they make contact. In rural areas where a single officer often responds, he could call for backup or secure the weapon immediately upon contact.

“(They) walk into a situation where people are yelling and screaming and they can’t run a check to see, there’s two people in this house who have a permit. They may walk in and say, ‘Mr. Jones, you have a permit. Where’s that gun right now?’ I think that’s reasonable,” DeCecco said. “It doesn’t compromise the right to carry concealed. I think cops should have the right to know everything they can possibly know.”

No disrespect intended, but I reckon the cops’ brains are probably full enough already, especially at a traffic stop. I’m going to give Nik Clark of Wisconsin Carry Inc. the last word (and unlike Bill O’Reilly, I mean it). “It sounds like a problem that doesn’t exist.”

comments

  1. avatar Rick Tyler says:

    For Good or Bad (make up your own mind on this) In Ohio, CHL’s are tied to your vehicle license plates, so when police make a stop, they supposedly know you’re carrying. Except when I’m driving my wife’s car, registered in her name.

    1. avatar 2Wheels says:

      Same thing here in VA. It’s really not that big of a deal to me, in my experience they’ll generally just politely ask if you have a weapon and go from there. I’ve been pulled over at least 4 times while driving a vehicle with plates linked to a CCW holder, never had a problem. They don’t freak out, they don’t call for backup, they don’t walk up to your window with guns drawn.

      I’m not going to say that I’m for or against cops having access to a CCW holder database, I’m simply saying that I haven’t had a problem with cops knowing I carry from running my plates.

    2. avatar irock350 says:

      It is similar in TX, your CHL is tied to your DL (but your Insurance is tied to your License plate?) so you are supposed to hand over your DL and your CHL when they knock on the window. IF YOU DON’T hand over your CHL, but you only give them your DL, they get pissed issue you a huge fine and confiscate your weapon. However in TX you can constitutionally carry in your vehicle cocked locked and loaded and in full view, so if you only carry in your vehicle you don’t need a CHL, just make sure you inform the officer if he/she intends to search your vehicle. It’s really not a big deal.

    3. avatar Rob Crawford says:

      And in Ohio, you’re required to notify the officer if you have a permit and are carrying.

      (Unfortunately, the law isn’t clear on how to handle the situation of having a permit and not carrying. Unless the new bill just passed clears that up.)

      1. avatar Raph84 says:

        When the law is silent on something it means it is allowed/not prohibited.

        Ohio law is silent on the issue of notifying when not carrying so you allowed not to notify…there is just about a 100% chance that if you are in a vehicle registered to a CCW Licensee that the first question when you are pulled over (if you don’t notify) is going to be do you have any firearms.

    4. avatar Greg Camp says:

      In Arkansas, we’re required to notify the officer during an official contact if we’re carrying. I always have my license in my wallet and my weapon somewhere on my person. It’s no big deal really, since it lets the officer know that I’m a state-approved good guy. I’ve never had an officer point a gun at me or act worried.

  2. avatar stateisevil says:

    Anything a prosecutor or district attorney wants, I automatically want the opposite.

  3. avatar Chaz says:

    “hiding behind a constitutional right,hiding behind a constitutional right, special interest groups’ paranoia and extreme views put our officers at risk put our officers at risk”

    Is this an example of statism? It’s also fallacious to mix something objective “a constitutional right” with something subjective “hiding behind … special interest groups’… paranoia… extreme views…” Spin, spin. It’s like complaining that gravity is too strong and consequently is inconvenient for bridge engineers.

    With gub’mt officials like this I’m happy to have the amendments to hide behind. The erosion of the 4th amendment is worrisome.

    1. avatar James Felix says:

      Slightly off topic: I am officially fed up with the use of “extreme” to mean “any position a liberal politician doesn’t agree with”.

      1. avatar AK says:

        So that’s why they don’t drink Mt. Dew

  4. avatar James Felix says:

    I’ve read that when “shall issue” laws are passed it’s typical for 2% of the population to get them. For sake of argument I’ll be generous and cut that in half. So, 309 million American citizens comes to about 3 million CCW holders (I’ll be even more generous and round down) nationwide.

    Now, I found varying numbers on Google but general consensus seems to be we have in the neighborhood of 800,000 LEOs on the streets (federal, state and local). Again, for the sake of argument I’ll round that number up and call it an even million.

    Out of those 3 million CCW holders I was able to find seven cases of legally armed citizens firing at cops. Not seven thousand, not seven hundred… seven. In all seven cases the circumstances are in dispute but let’s assume the CCW holder was wrong 100% of the time. That means that .0000023% of CCW holders have abused their rights in the way the DA is afraid of.

    Now out of that 1 million LEOs how many of them have been documented using excessive or illegal force against civilians? I don’t know, because I don’t have time to sort through the 2.6 million hits I got when I googled “cops excessive force”. But I’d bet my entire net worth that it’s orders of magnitude more than .0000023%.

    So I offer the DA a compromise: I’ll smile and agree to his instant CCW access if he agrees to a smartphone app that lets me see the disciplinary file on the cop pulling me over before I have to roll my window down. Fair’s fair, right?

    1. avatar AK says:

      Excellent comment Mr. Felix!

    2. avatar pro.0s says:

      Plus I want to see his qualification score. Just for laughs.

    3. avatar Mattd says:

      Love it!

    4. avatar William says:

      I am totally for this…

      Although in AK you are required to inform LEOs if you are carrying concealed. Since we have Constitutional carry, only people who desire an actual permit get one – usually because they want reciprocity. I have no desire to leave AK and visit the 48 – seems that y’all have too few rights from what I have living here.

  5. avatar Andrew Wiggins says:

    I’m pretty sure the guns that do pose a danger for the police, won’t show up on that little screen in the car.

  6. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Andrew is right on target. The people with permits pose almost no risk to the cops, while the bad guy with an illegal gun poses the greatest danger to everyone.

  7. avatar Sean says:

    Maybe their LEOs should consider EVERY stop a potentially life threatening one.

    The citizens with CCWs are the squeaky clean ones. It’s the non-CCW citizens that are a greater concern.

  8. avatar Rob says:

    Irock – maybe a dumb question. Do you have to give them your CHL if you are not carrying at the time of the stop?

    1. avatar Chris says:

      Rob—

      No. In the state of Texas, a CHL holder only has to give an officer his carry license if the person is actively carrying at the time (or even if the weapon is simply within reach, say in a Gunvault lockbox behind the passenger seat).

      What’s always tripped me up is what happens if a CHL holder is using his/her Constitutional Carry right within the car, but has no intention of carrying outside the vehicle on a particular trip. The way the law’s written (to me at least), CHL holders don’t have any way to exercise CC in their car without having their carry license with them. That pesky “on or about” clause…

      Also, I should point out that if you CC in your car and your pistol is in plain view, your ass is in serious trouble. CCers are still obligated to keep their weapons hidden from view.

  9. avatar Rob Crawford says:

    It is outrageous when, hiding behind a constitutional right, special interest groups’ paranoia and extreme views put our officers at risk…

    I believe you wish to talk to the rappers.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Peel the thin veneer off a DA and you’ll find a Nazi.

    1. avatar Raph84 says:

      I deal with a lot of ADA’s at work, and overall they are pretty good people. As they say though absolute power corrupts absolutely so I’m sure the average (head) DA is usually less stellar on the morals than those below him who have bosses to answer to.

  11. avatar Joe Grine says:

    In Oregon, the LEO will know if you are a CCP holder by simply running your plates. So, he will have the info before he or she even steps up to the car. If anything, what it is really telling him / her is that the owner of the vehicle (not necessarily the driver) has not committed any felonies or other crimes that would justify denial of a CCP.

  12. avatar KW says:

    Couldn’t you find a photo that made him look more like Fat Bastard?? LMAO Not that there’s anything wrong with being fat :0 These politicians need to stop crying this nonsensical crap every time they are forced to comply with the constitution. We will be hearing a lot of similar drivel in the future with all the pending 2A litigation in the nation. Funny part is the DA probably bears a lot of responsibility for criminals with guns being on the street instead of in jail.

  13. avatar Bob H says:

    In VA there is no requirement to notify… However, I have on both occasions I have been stopped. (once was a tail light out, the other was swerving wildly to avoid a skunk at night – He was 25 yards up the road and saw my lights go all over the place but too far to see the skunk) I have presented both my DL and CCW. I had and have no desire for an officer to see my gun or holster before I have shown my permit. Accidents happen that way.

  14. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    I’ve got an idea. How about if all CCW guys are required to wear one of those three-cornered hats. This way they can be readily identified and at the very same time they can honor the founding fathers whom they love so much.

    1. avatar Condition1Kimber says:

      Yeah, because that flows with the whole concealed carry thing. How about you wear a badge that says “unarmed”, or “easy pickings”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email