Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: I don't think Van Hollen listened to the public for input

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    I don't think Van Hollen listened to the public for input

    I thought Van Hollen was all for 'Constitutional' carry. Yah right. He is piling more rules even after the 'listening' sessions






    Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s attack on your right to keep and bear arms continues.

    A few months ago, Van Hollen made this chilling statement about your new concealed weapons law:

    “The final rule even has more requirements... I am not prepared to lay all of them out.”

    Van Hollen is following through on his threat now, and his secret plan contains more extensive requirements, beyond what was authorized by law.

    Last year, when you swatted Van Hollen for his attempt to mandate a minimum four-hour training requirement, the legislature reacted and took action.

    But now, he's cramming as many government-mandates into that required training class as he possibly can.



    Van Hollen’s made-up rules will force you to sit through a lecture about how to “stay out of trouble” and how to properly lock up and store firearms, just to exercise your constitutional rights.

    Again, this was NOT a part of the concealed carry law passed by the Legislature, but it is a stunning example of how bureaucrats will seize on every chance they can to crack down on your rights.

    But that’s not the worst part.

    What other assaults on concealed carry will we see from the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office?

    • Will we see longer, even more extensive government-mandated training requirements?

    • An increase in the permit “fees” for “administrative costs?”

    • How about a requirement to demonstrate “good character” or “good cause” before you can get a permit?

    After all, this is how they do it in gun-grabbing strongholds like California and New York.

    And if this is how a so-called “Republican” treats concealed carry, just imagine what will happen if an anti-gun Democrat someday holds this office.

    This bureaucratic rigmarole is why it's vital you contact your lawmakers.

    You see, other states are lifting permit fees, background check requirements, and moving forward with Constitutional Carry legislation.

    Constitutional Carry is the basic principle that if you are legally eligible to purchase a firearm, you should be able to carry that weapon, concealed, for self-defense without government “permission.”

    Since the 2010 Republican gains, Constitutional Carry has been introduced in 23 states, passed four legislative chambers, and became law in Wyoming.

    Wisconsin’s concealed carry bill was originally a Constitutional Carry bill, but lawmakers rejected the concept that the Second Amendment is your permit.

    Thanks to weak-kneed Republicans like Tommy Thompson who threatened to veto concealed carry in the 1990’s, Wisconsin finished second to last on concealed carry.

    Will Attorney General Van Hollen’s made-up “rules” be the standard for concealed carry?

    Will Wisconsin finish second to last, and be forced to wait another 15 or 20 years before adopting Constitutional Carry as well?

    Not if you pick up the phone right now and put a stop to it!

    Here is what you can do to help:

    1. Give Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen an earful by calling him at (608) 266-1221. Tell him it isn’t his job to rewrite legislation. Demand he stop jerking around with Wisconsin’s permit system.

    2. Call your state lawmaker at (608) 266-9960.
    Tell them you are sick and tired of JB Van Hollen’s assault on your rights.

    Demand they follow the lead of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont and Arizona and pass a Constitutional Carry law now!

    For Freedom,

    Dudley Brown
    Executive Vice President

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Law Abider,

    Dudley Brown is Executive Vice President of what?

    ------------

    2 months ago the DOJ website put up links to the proposed Permanent rules to implement Concealed Carry statutes from 11 ACT 35.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...egislative.asp

    Here is the thread where the changes from the current emergency rules were discussed:

    http://forum.opencarry.org./forums/s...ed-Carry-Rules
    Last edited by E6chevron; 08-06-2012 at 01:50 AM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    Law Abider,
    Dudley Brown is Executive Vice President of what?
    NAGR.

    Caveat emptor.
    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/126...un_Rights.html

    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=446542

    http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.ht...&f=5&t=1188013


    Could they be honest? yes. Do we need Yet Another Gun Rights Group (YAGRG) out there to fragment the message? I don't think so. My money goes to the SAF currently.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Color me shocked...
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  5. #5
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    All this jumping to conculsions and hatin' on on the best AG's in the country is getting really old.

    Newsmakers: Attorney General JB Van Hollen on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=6416


    Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=5435
    JB's testimony before the JCRAR on 11/7/2012 starts after 37:00 of Part 1.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    All this jumping to conculsions and hatin' on on the best AG's in the country is getting really old.

    Newsmakers: Attorney General JB Van Hollen on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=6416


    Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=5435
    JB's testimony before the JCRAR on 11/7/2012 starts after 37:00 of Part 1.
    I don't trust Lena taylor so far. Glenn heck yes

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    amaixner,

    Thanks for the information.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    All this jumping to conculsions and hatin' on on the best AG's in the country is getting really old...
    The hatin' is well earned with some of these proposed training rules. He, along with the DOJ, is ignoring the Statute as written. They are ignoring the "OR" found in the required "firearm safety OR training course". His and their personal "feeling" is that only a firearms training course which contains deescalation of violent confrontation and use of force is acceptable.
    In general our AG is a proponent of the 2A, the WI Constitutional affirmation of our RTBA and few restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammo. I personally believe that he is off of the mark regarding the training requirements proposed.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 08-11-2012 at 02:03 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    The hatin' is well earned with some of these proposed training rules. He, along with the DOJ, is ignoring the Statute as written. They are ignoring the "OR" found in the required "firearm safety OR training course". His and their personal "feeling" is that only a firearms training course which contains deescalation of violent confrontation and use of force is acceptable.
    In general our AG is a proponent of the 2A, the WI Constitutional affirmation of our RTBA and few restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammo. I personally believe that he is off of the mark regarding the training requirements proposed.
    Did you watch his testimony?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Did you watch his testimony?
    I certainly did. For someone who expresses such a strong belief in gun rights, he sure is a training proponent.
    As I said in the post above. He is ignoring the "OR". He is mandating a firearms training course and mandating use of force and deescalation of violent confrontation. He is absolutely ignoring the "firearms safety course" option. If it were up to him, hunter safety would not be good enough. He is very careful to not openly advocate changing the Statute but he is advocating a backdoor change by requiring more stringent training than the Statute dictates.

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    I certainly did. For someone who expresses such a strong belief in gun rights, he sure is a training proponent.
    As I said in the post above. He is ignoring the "OR". He is mandating a firearms training course and mandating use of force and deescalation of violent confrontation. He is absolutely ignoring the "firearms safety course" option. If it were up to him, hunter safety would not be good enough. He is very careful to not openly advocate changing the Statute but he is advocating a backdoor change by requiring more stringent training than the Statute dictates.
    I really think you should watch it again with an open mind.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I really think you should watch it again with an open mind.
    I really think that you have completely missed my point regarding the training standard he is proposing. You may not personally believe it to be a big deal but there are legitimate firearms safety courses which issued certificates that individuals used to get their license so far which would not meet the more stringent standard proposed by JB and the DOJ.
    He used the excuse of industry standard and comparing what other States require instead of keeping it simple like it is defined currently on the application.
    Firearms safety or training course means a course that is reasonably calculated to instruct and practice the student’s comprehension and application of firearm safety rules and safe firearm handling, that includes instructor-led training and that provides a certificate or affidavit of successful completion that satisfies the content requirements of s. Jus 17.05(2).
    How does he go from here to "Use of force" and "Deescalation of violent Confrontations"?
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 08-14-2012 at 02:23 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    This is the email I just sent to Governor Walker:

    Governor Walker,

    I respectfully ask that you do NOT approve the new proposed 'permanent' rules that the DOJ is sending you regarding the issuance of concealed carry licenses.


    While I wasn't a big fan of some of the temporary rules, as adjusted, the new rules put in restrictions that go far beyond legislative intent.


    The one part that is particularly troublesome is the 50 person per instructor limit.


    We have been offering FREE concealed carry classes at our church (yes, I said church) in the Town of Delavan in Walworth County, your old stomping grounds.


    We average 170 people per class and limiting the size to 50 would most likely cause us to stop offering the class due to the logistical costs of setting up the class.


    In all the feedback we have received from the over 700 participants, they all said that the class was informative and they learned the subject well.


    We have had class participants young and old. Our youngest was 18 and our oldest was 89. We have had a good mix of men and women as well. 40%+ of the participants have been women!


    Please Governor Walker, send the rules back!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    The DOJ representative at the hearing in Pewaukee, started out by stating that the 50 students per instructor was a ratio and not a class size limit. If you have 4 instructors at a class with 170 students you would be complying with the proposed permanent rules.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...rules-2012.pdf

    Jus 17.03(8) “Instructor-led” means training that is conducted face-to-face individually or in groups with an instructor-student ratio that does not exceed 50 students per instructor...
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    The DOJ representative at the hearing in Pewaukee, started out by stating that the 50 students per instructor was a ratio and not a class size limit. If you have 4 instructors at a class with 170 students you would be complying with the proposed permanent rules.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...rules-2012.pdf
    That's fine we only have one certified instructor at the time. Now we need to get 4 of them to show up.

    Why don't they just follow the law?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Emailed also

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    This is the email I just sent to Governor Walker:

    I also emailed Gov. Walker as well. I did ask for a response from him as well.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    All this jumping to conculsions and hatin' on on the best AG's in the country is getting really old.

    Newsmakers: Attorney General JB Van Hollen on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=6416


    Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules
    http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/Vi...px?evhdid=5435
    JB's testimony before the JCRAR on 11/7/2012 starts after 37:00 of Part 1.
    What a bunch of crap. He says they want to change the requirements "to protect the consumer from fly-by-night" bad trainers, and then when asked if his office has stopped any people like that he says they've stopped themselves since word of bad trainers etc travels fast. ...so why the need to mess with my constitutional rights and the current law to "protect the consumer"?
    Last edited by DangerClose; 08-16-2012 at 01:52 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    Panel extends Wis. concealed carry rules

    http://www.channel3000.com/news/Pane...z/-/index.html

    Write The Govenor direct


    http://walker.wi.gov/contact-us


    Lets get Gov.Walker to hear our voices....

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Sounds like they are getting pressure if they extended the temp. rules

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    The current temporary emergency rules would expire on Saturday Aug. 18, 2012. The proposed permanent rules had public hearings in July, and the period for comment by email or fax or mail, ended at 4pm Aug. 1, 2012.

    These proposed permanent rules have not been approved yet, so it was necessary to extend the current emergency rules another 60 days.

    I'm a little suprised how few posts there were on the thread about the hearings, and the changes from the current emergency rules to the proposed permanent rules:

    http://forum.opencarry.org./forums/s...ed-Carry-Rules
    Last edited by E6chevron; 08-16-2012 at 06:46 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  21. #21
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    This brings up Gun Control just before the election, a good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    The current temporary emergency rules would expire on Saturday Aug. 18, 2012. The proposed permanent rules had public hearings in July, and the period for comment by email or fax or mail, ended at 4pm Aug. 1, 2012.

    These proposed permanent rules have not been approved yet, so it was necessary to extend the current emergency rules another 60 days.

    I'm a little suprised how few posts there were on the thread about the hearings, and the changes from the current emergency rules to the proposed permanent rules:

    http://forum.opencarry.org./forums/s...ed-Carry-Rules
    So a gun control proposal gets debated just before the November election. This is a very good thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •