Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit
Governor Brewer signs legislation into law
The Arizona Republic.
Starting later this summer, U.S. citizens 21 and older can begin carrying a concealed firearm without a permit in Arizona.
 Arizona immigration bill faces Senate vote Monday

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.
"I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution," Brewer said in a news release. "I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well."
The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session, which could happen in the next couple of weeks.
Arizona joins Vermont and Alaska in not requiring such permits.
"If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it," bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has said of his bill. "It's a freedom that poses no threat to the public."
National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said the new state law would not violate any current federal requirements.
"There is no federal requirement for a permit or lack thereof," Dogali said.
The federal government oversees the background-check program required to purchase a weapon, which will still be required in Arizona in most cases.
Brewer last week did sign a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.
Arizona had 154,279 active permits as of April 4. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety data.
The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to DPS. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles.
Arizona's permit process will remain in place, and many gun owners may still choose to get a permit. Permits would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol. They would also be needed if an Arizonan wants to carry his or her gun concealed in most other states.
For those who do choose to get a permit, the education requirements do change under the new law. Classes are no longer required to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon. Those who don't get a permit would not be required to get any training or education.
Retired Mesa police officer Dan Furbee runs a business teaching permit and other gun safety classes. He said if most people choose not to get a permit, it will put several hundred Arizona firearms instructors out of business.
"It's going to hurt," he said.
But he said what really concerns him is that the new law will allow people who have had no education about Arizona's laws and no training on the shooting range to carry a concealed gun. The eight-hour class currently required to get a permit includes information on state law and gun safety, as well as requires students to be able to hit a target 14 out of 20 times. Furbee said his class at Mesa-based Ultimate Accessories costs $79, plus $60 for the five-year permit.
"I fully agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms," Furbee said. "But if you are not responsible enough to take a class and learn the laws, you are worse than part of the problem."
He said it's not uncommon for students to walk into his classroom and pull a new gun out of a box with no idea how to hold it and no understanding of the laws surrounding it.
"If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have some kind of training and show that you are at least competent to know how the gun works and be able to hit a target," he said. "You owe the people around you a measure of responsibility."
This new law is the latest of several that have passed over the past year since Brewer took over the office from former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.
Napolitano vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.
In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Brewer became governor.
During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.

Balancing act for cops who must enforce law

Balancing act for cops who must enforce law
Mike Sakal, Tribune
April 23, 2010 - 7:00PM , updated: April 23, 2010 - 7:13PM

Vowing to hold law enforcement accountable if a new immigration law is misused, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday issued an executive order to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop training to properly implement the law.
Brewer issued the order moments after signing SB 1070 into law.
Lyle Mann, board executive director, said officials have not had sufficient time to review the executive order. But he said the board will do “all it needs to do” to meet the governor’s demands.
“Anytime there’s a new law, we have to start thinking about what we’re going to do,” Mann said. “This is a training issue and we do what we have to do to facilitate training of police officers. That’s our business. We’ll do what has to be done.”
The new law allows police officers to arrest those they believe are in this country illegally. Those in violation are subject to the misdemeanor offense of trespassing punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine before deportation.
The bill raises concerns by some in law enforcement because it is unfunded and may lead to racial profiling. It also allows individuals to sue local police departments if they believe they were wrongly targeted or arrested. Municipalities could be fined between $1,000 to $5,000 per day in such instances.
Brewer said that she hopes the law enforcement board will have a training program developed and returned to her by May. The AZPOST board of directors includes the Arizona Attorney General, the directors of the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Department of Corrections, several county sheriffs, and local police departments. Brewer also is requesting the board make recommendations on possible improvements to SB 1070 before the end of the year. Mann said it was too early to tell whether the group will make any recommendations.
As the bill progressed through the state House of Representatives and the Senate, it divided police chiefs and officers.
The Arizona Police Association, which represents 18 Valley law enforcement associations and about 9,000 sworn officers, supports the measure.
“This bill provides us with another tool which will allow us to receive intelligence and take dangerous people out of neighborhoods,” said Brian Livingston, association executive director. “Our main concern was that it was extremely important to ensure that peoples’ constitutional rights were protected. Racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops a person for none other than the color of their skin. Police can’t stop someone without cause. They have to have a reason.”
Among East Valley cities, the Mesa Police Association, which represents 600 sworn police officers, initially opposed the bill. But it now supports it after seeing the its final version.
The Tempe Officers Association, Chandler Law enforcement Association and the Gilbert Police Leadership Association also are among the unions that support the new law.
However, the Arizona Association of Police Chiefs oppose the measure. It contends that it would hinder the investigation of more serious crimes and erode the trust between police and immigrant communities.
“We’ve opposed the law from the beginning,” said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the group.
Bryan Soller, president of Fraternal Order of Police’s Mesa Lodge No. 9, said the law is “not going to change the way we do business and officers have the discretion in enforcing it.”
“I don’t see us running amuck with the law,” Soller said. “This law isn’t going to stop drug trafficking, human smuggling or illegal immigration. That’s going to take a bigger thing than us. Our concerns are what this is going to cost our cities, jails and prisons, or if we have to pay the $200 booking fee to take them to the county jail if our jail is full. But, we’ll have to wait and see. We’ll make it work.”
The Mesa City Jail can hold 24 inmates, but most nights it’s overbooked, Soller said.
Even the he day before Brewer signed the bill, Mesa’s elected officials worried about the cost of jailing those arrested under the law. Mesa police told the City Council to expect more arrests and substantially higher jail costs, though they couldn’t provide an estimate. While council members did not criticize the bill, they blasted lawmakers for passing the cost on to cities.
“This is an unfunded mandate,” Mesa Mayor Scott Smith said. “There’s no money, just demands.”
Success depends on training (this is a subhead)
The success of law depends on the training local police officers receive from federal immigration officers so they can properly enforce the law, according to Neville Cramer of Scottsdale, a retired special agent in the Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Services.
Cramer, who worked for the agency for nearly 30 years, said he fully supports the law, which he believes will send a strong message to Washington.
“Training is going to make or break this law,” said Cramer, who has written two books that chronicle immigration problems throughout the United States and offers suggestions on how to fix them. “It’s a great bill and will serve a purpose.”
Cramer said that there’s three things that are needed for the bill to be a success.
“One, officers need to be taught about different nationalities,” he said. “Two, officers need to be trained about different documents — and not just by being given a book with four or five different pictures in it. And three, give officers training on how to prevent racial profiling.”

Police, firefighter unions see chance to expand collective bargaining rights
By Kevin Bogardus - 03/12/10 06:00 AM ET

Firefighter and police lobbyists view this Congress as the best chance in years to expand collective bargaining rights for public safety workers.
On Wednesday, a House Education and Labor Committee subpanel held a hearing on legislation that would direct federal authorities to review state laws and issue regulations regarding collective bargaining rights for public safety officers.
 
 But the bill would have to be squeezed in an already crowded legislative calendar before the midterm elections, competing with healthcare reform and new regulations for Wall Street.

That has public safety worker unions racing to make their case on Capitol Hill.

“We aren’t worried about the votes. We are worried about the time,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police. “We know that they are going to take their recesses and we are running out of days.”

The bill could also be this Congress’s best shot for major labor law reform as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), also known as card-check legislation and the labor movement’s No. 1 legislative priority, stalled in the Senate.

The public safety worker bill has bipartisan support, with heavy Democratic backing in both chambers, five Senate Republican supporters — including Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) — and approximately 40 House Republican co-sponsors.

“This is probably the most favorable climate we have seen overall since the beginning effort,” Pasco said.

“For the first time in eight years, we have a president who has indicated he is going to sign it. We have leadership in both houses who have committed to put it on the floor. And we have the votes to pass it,” said Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, an AFL-CIO member.

Democrats are projected to experience big losses in November, and if that happens, union officials fear there might not be enough votes to pass the bill in the next Congress.

In 2007, the bill passed the House with more than 300 votes and was in a strong position to clear the Senate. But President George W. Bush issued a veto threat and the Senate bill’s lead Democratic sponsor, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), fell ill. The legislation then became overrun with amendments and subsequently fizzled on the Senate floor.

This Congress, Capitol Hill aides expressed enthusiasm for the legislation but would not commit to a timeline for the bill that would see it passed before the year is out.

Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the House Education and Labor Committee, said he expects the panel will mark it up soon. In addition, the bill has the support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“Sen. Reid has been a longtime supporter of this bipartisan legislation,” said Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokeswoman. “We remain hopeful that we will consider the legislation on the Senate floor in the near future.”

Firefighter and police unions have been battling for the bill since it was first introduced in the mid-1990s. They have been pushing for the legislation because they believe only 25 states offer adequate protections for public safety employees’ collective bargaining rights.

“This bill mandates a process. It does not mandate an outcome,” Schaitberger said. “What we are saying is let’s afford collective bargaining rights to the last group of people who haven’t been afforded it: public safety employees.”

Some municipalities oppose the bill, however, believing it could lead to protracted contract negotiations with unionized firefighters and policemen, straining budgets already under severe stress from the poor economy. Conservatives see it as undermining state laws. At the hearing Wednesday, Doug Stafford, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, blasted the bill, saying it would lead to “unfunded mandates” and “override state laws.”
Further, not all Republicans are on board with the bill.

“Washington will make the decision of whether these laws pass muster. And in imposing such mandates, Congress will expand the scope of a state’s obligations, liabilities and costs,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a senior committee member, said at the hearing. “Put more simply, we are empowering

Washington to substitute its judgment for that of reasoned decisions by state legislatures, courts and agencies.”

But some of the business groups that have shut down progress on labor’s goal of passing card-check legislation this Congress are taking a pass on the bill.
 
For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not hold a position on the bill and does not plan to lobby against it, according to Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits.

Considering this bill is the most pressing priority for firefighters and police unions, lawmakers can expect to be lobbied hard on the bill.

“We are going to absolutely hold members accountable for their votes on this issue,” Pasco said.

Due Process Rights for Law Enforcement Officers                                                              
The adoption of legislation creating a "bill of rights" for law enforcement officers has long been a top priority for the Grand Lodge. To this end, the FOP strongly supports the "State and Local Law Enforcement Officers' Discipline, Accountability and Due Process Act," which was introduced in the House by Representative Jim Ramstad (R-MN), the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, and in the Senate by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE).

Law enforcement officers have, arguably, one of the toughest jobs in the nation. They alone are charged with keeping the streets and neighborhoods of this country safe from crime. Every day, police officers put their lives on the line—life and death decisions are in the job description. Because of the enormous responsibility that comes with a badge, law enforcement officers are held to a much higher standard of personal and professional conduct—as well they should be. This higher standard and increased visibility renders police officers vulnerable to false accusations from the criminal element and others in society whose sole motivation in making these allegations is to disrupt law enforcement activities.

The legal protections afforded all citizens, including suspects and convicted criminals, from illegal and improper police procedures are provided by the U.S. Constitution as well as Federal and State statutes. Moreover, most law enforcement agencies also implement a wide array of departmental procedures that govern the conduct of their officers during traditional police activities. Unfortunately, rank-and-file police officers are sometimes subjected to abusive and improper procedures and conduct on the part of the very departments or agencies they serve. In some instances, the basic rights that most citizens or employees would take for granted are either denied or simply unavailable to police officers. In a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.

The need for a minimal level of procedural protections for police officers accused of administrative wrongdoing, the gravity of the potential harm to officers created by the lack of uniform safeguards, and the patently unfair disparity in rights afforded criminal suspects but not police officers are compelling reasons to enact this legislation. We need legislation to create a uniform minimal level of procedural due process for police officers and codify the core holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in two landmark decisions: Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner v. Broderick (1968). Both cases dealt with the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by public employees (police officers in both cases) when confronted with the threat of termination. These two decisions articulated a balanced approach between the legitimate exercise of constitutional rights by police officers and those of a law enforcement agency to maintain internal discipline. Taken together, the two rulings establish that, absent the provision of immunity to the police officers for their testimony, neither the testimony nor the assertion of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination may serve as the basis for termination of employment.

Since the Court's pronouncements in Garrity and Gardner, the rights of police officers have been anything but secure. For one thing, the lower Federal courts have frequently misunderstood and misapplied the holdings of these two seminal decisions, creating a situation in which the rulings are consistently upheld while yielding inconsistent results. While many States have enacted statutes to address the rights of police officers, the cumulative result of these laws has been a confusing jumble with the "rights" protected sometimes dependent on either the classification or location of the officer involved. Further, some State statutes permit localities to "opt out" of the provisions guaranteeing public safety officers basic procedural protections. Federal legislation would establish a minimum level of procedural protections available while at the same time making the law on this issue unambiguous. The FOP is developing legislation which would guarantee law enforcement officers the following basic rights:
• Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office;
• Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators;
• Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply;
• Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location;
• Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank and command of the officer conducting the investigation;
• Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation;
• Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question;
• Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing;
• Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file; and
• Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, State or local law.
The legislation also establishes an effective means for the receipt, review and investigation of public complaints against law enforcement officers that is fair and equitable to all parties.

The bill does not protect the jobs of "bad cops" or officers unfit for duty. Nor does it apply to allegations of minor violations of internal departmental rules or regulations or employment-related performance of officers, thus preserving the discretion of the individual agency in disciplining its employees. This measure does not afford police officers any greater rights than those possessed by other citizens; it simply reaffirms the existence of those rights in the unique context of the law enforcement community.

The FOP strongly supports the "State and Local Law Enforcement Officers' Discipline, Accountability and Due Process Act."

Of course any organization likes to have its leadership photographed with influential politicians and leaders in our society, yet the hard work of improving working conditions for public sector employees is usually done quietly without notoriety, building bipartisan support and setting the conditions for wide consensus.  That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has been so successful over the years in improving the working conditions for the public sector employee through the legislative process.

In 2007, the F.O.P. passed the ‘Ordinary Disability’ for CORP with CORP shouldering the cost in the future.  In the 2008 legislative session, another organization decided the employees should shoulder the expense through a CORP increase which was approved.

The F.O.P. will continue to negotiate to improve the working conditions and standards of employment for public sector employees without asking those employees to be directly responsible for any further benefit costs or reductions.  During these extreme financial times, it is our position that no public safety jobs should be reduced to reconcile any budget deficit, and to that end, we will work with the legislature, employers and the Governor’s Office.

Arizona Fraternal Order of Police 2008 Legislative Agenda
Re:       SB 1339 (law enforcement; officers; investigations)

Our FOP Due Process bill, SB 1339, which has four due process provisions, was signed by the Governor.

As you can see, unanimous votes in committees and in the legislative bodies are made possible only by hard work and the development of effective bipartisan support.  Reasonable negotiation is necessary, so we are proceeding incrementally.  This session we certainly moved the ball forward substantially. The legislators and employers understand that we will continue to ask for due process improvements in future legislative sessions.
 
Importantly, we started our legislative agenda negotiations in August of last year.  We gained the support of legislators and employers not by pointing fingers, or by taking aggressive postures, but, by asking them to carefully consider our views of what should be considered fair treatment of law enforcement officers.  As you can see, we have been successful.

Jim Mann, Executive Director
Fraternal Order of Police
Arizona Labor Council
 
When the rights are available

The rights in A.R.S. Section 38-1101 are not available for every discipline that an officer might be subject to. Some minor items may only call for a reprimand or warning of some kind; those have not been considered significant enough to bring in the rights needed in more serious cases, such as those that might result in dismissals or demotions.
 
The current law does not apply the rights to those cases where discipline is not likely to be as great as a forty hour suspension.  It has been found, however, that even a one-day suspension has severe repercussions in an officer’s career. Such a suspension signals to future employers that something was amiss in the officer’s past. However, as the officer may not have been afforded the right to a hearing on those charges, the effect is to quite seriously and detrimentally harm an officer’s career without a chance to disprove the charges.  
 
This bill as amended extends the rights to any suspension over twenty four hours, along with demotions and dismissals

Polygraph examinations in internal investigations

Throughout the country, a number of approaches to polygraphs have arisen. In some states, polygraphs are simply forbidden. In others, their use is limited.  As amended, this bill adopts a limited standard in providing that a law enforcement officer may be required to take a polygraph where during the investigation the employer discovers differences between what the officer says and what other evidence shows, and it a polygraph is needed to complete the investigation. The bill would allow for the officer to be tested by polygraph provided that the officer is provided with some sort of recording of the procedure.

Hearing officer “strikes”
 
In litigation, parties are given the opportunity to “strike” one judge, that is, to require that the assigned judge not hear the case and another judge is chosen. By allowing this to occur, parties have the ability to avoid a judge that they may know to be particularly hostile to persons in their position.  That right was given to law enforcement officers in most cases before single hearing officers (as opposed to boards or panels, where there are multiple people hearing the case.)  However, the right was not extended to officers in those situations where a jurisdiction only had one hearing officer available; that is, in those places, like the Officer of Administrative Hearings where there are many Administrative Law Judges to choose from, the officer had the right, but in small jurisdictions where there was only a single judge, they were not given that ability.
 
Unfortunately, experience has shown that it is those smaller jurisdictions where this right may be the most needed.  Frequently in a smaller jurisdiction, the sole hearing officer may well know or be related to the head of the employer agency.  This bill merely extends the right to officers in the smaller agencies.

Burden of proof           
 
Because an officer has a valuable right in their occupation, courts have recognized that for the employer to take away that right, the employer has a burden of proving that some grounds exist to discipline an officer.  Unfortunately, a very small number of jurisdictions have not accepted this settled law.  The bill merely codifies the case law by confirming that the burden of proof on the employer.

Action in the House of Representatives

The House considered and passed H.R. 738, the "Death in Custody Reporting Act," on a 407-1 vote.  The bill would require States receiving Federal criminal justice assistance grants to report to the U.S. Attorney General the name, gender, race, ethnicity, and age of any person who dies while they are detained, under arrest, or incarcerated in a municipal or county jail, State prison, state-run boot camp, contract facility, or other state or local correctional facility (including any juvenile facility).  States would be required to report, on a quarterly basis, the date, time, and location of death as well as the law enforcement agency that detained or arrested the deceased and a description of the circumstances surrounding the death.  In two years after the passage of this bill, the U.S. Attorney General will report the information to Congress.

FOP NEWS:

FOP Wins Changes to Bill to Recognize All Law Enforcement Officers for Acts of Bravery
                                                                               
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, applauded the signing of S. 2565, the “Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act,” into law last week.  The bill signed by the President was markedly different than it was as introduced, largely because of the efforts of the FOP.

“The original bill created a medal for Federal, and only Federal, law enforcement officers who were injured in the line of duty,” Canterbury explained.  “Given that more than ninety percent of all law enforcement officers in the United States work at the State or local level, it seemed a gross oversight to ignore their daily acts of bravery.”
       
The bill as originally introduced, H.R. 4056, passed the House in April and, during its consideration by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the FOP weighed in with the sponsor of the Senate companion bill, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), as well as Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, respectively.  As a result of our intervention, the legislation now establishes a Congressional Badge of Bravery, one for Federal law enforcement officers and another for State and local law enforcement officers, to recognize acts of bravery by these everyday heroes.  Two separate review boards, both of which are required by statute to have FOP representatives, will select from a pool of nominees to make an award to an officer or officers that were injured in the line of duty while performing an act of bravery. 

“The FOP strongly believes that we, as a nation, need to do a better job of recognizing the bravery, the sacrifice, and commitment of law enforcement officers at every level of government, particularly those who are injured while protecting their fellow citizens,” Canterbury said.  “We are particularly indebted to Senators Leahy and Biden, who worked extensively with us to craft language that would afford all officers the recognition they deserve.”

The bill, S. 2565, was signed into law and is now Public Law No. 110-298.

CWA’s Employee Free Choice Act

The Employee Free Choice Act is currently being considered by Congress. This Act will allow the national affiliate CWA to more effectively organize private sector works; it enables employees to form unions when a majority signs authorization cards.   CWA is fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act.  EFCA provides for the certification of a union as the bargaining representative if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have signed written forms designating the union as its collective bargaining agent.

This Employee Free Choice Act is a "card check bill" specifically beneficial to the CWA and Teamsters because of the tactics they utilize.  The bill would eliminate the right of employees to have a secret vote.   You should now understand the techniques the CWA uses to get members. 

The FOP opposes this Employee Free Choice Act because it is a CWA effort designed to eliminate an employee’s right to a secret vote.