Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: WI DOJ Rule Change reply From 'Walker' Regarding My Concern

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

    WI DOJ Rule Change reply From 'Walker' Regarding My Concern

    Here it is for what it is worth. He didn't exactly answer my specific objection regarding DOJ implementing the change.


    Dear Concerned Citizen,



    Thank you for contacting me regarding the rule to implement 2011 Wisconsin Act 35 related to, among other things, the carrying of concealed weapons. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.



    Act 35 finally allowed Wisconsin to become the 49 th state in the nation to allow for concealed carry, and I was proud to sign it into law.



    As you wrote, the permanent rule does have a training instructor to student ratio component of 50 to 1. However, this does not limit the number of students in a training course. This sets a ratio, not a maximum.



    This rule was approved by the Legislature and needs to be in effect so individuals pursuing a concealed carry license in Wisconsin can do so without interruption. Of course, no law or rule is perfect and if improvements can be made in the future, I and the Legislature could revisit them.



    As Governor, I take public safety and the protection of Second Amendment rights seriously. Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing to move Wisconsin forward.




    Sincerely,


    Governor Scott Walker
    Last edited by Law abider; 08-30-2012 at 05:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    WI DOJ Rule Change reply From 'Walker' Regarding My Concern

    Sorry to be out of the loop but what was the original concern so that I can read this with context. Thanks!
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Sorry to be out of the loop but what was the original concern so that I can read this with context. Thanks!
    They want to limit the class size for 50 students per 1 instructor so organizations like Wisconsin Carry, Inc can't do 1,000+ classes without a lot of help. Nothing in Act 35 said anything about a ratio.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I received exactly the same response to my inquiry, word for word.

  5. #5
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    For the sake of arguement, let's assume that its the RATIO of 1:50 that the want to keep. Whats keeping WCI from having 10 instructors present (all sitting in chairs up front) while 1 other guy instruct the 500 students....The ratio is maintained while having a large class.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Re: WI DOJ Rule Change reply From 'Walker' Regarding My Concern

    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    For the sake of arguement, let's assume that its the RATIO of 1:50 that the want to keep. Whats keeping WCI from having 10 instructors present (all sitting in chairs up front) while 1 other guy instruct the 500 students....The ratio is maintained while having a large class.
    Nothing other than you have to coordinate schedules with 10 instructors, they can't be teaching a different class somewhere else and the law says nothing about class size.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    WI DOJ Rule Change reply From 'Walker' Regarding My Concern

    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    They want to limit the class size for 50 students per 1 instructor so organizations like Wisconsin Carry, Inc can't do 1,000+ classes without a lot of help. Nothing in Act 35 said anything about a ratio.
    Thanks! That does seem like reason for concern. His response also makes little sense. How can it be a set ratio but not a maximum? It's saying a maximum of 50 students per teacher, seems pretty straighforward to me, it also sounds stupid. Hope you guys get it worked out!
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  8. #8
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Looks like WCI might have to produce a few more instructors...

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    Looks like WCI might have to produce a few more instructors...
    Why don't we fix the CAUSE of the problem instead of masking the symptoms? Write JB, write Walker, write your legislator.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Why don't we fix the CAUSE of the problem instead of masking the symptoms? Write JB, write Walker, write your legislator.
    The CAUSE is the legislature not supporting Constitutional Carry. JB and Walker are not interested in our opinions. They are too busy pushing their own which are contrary to ours. The only practical way now to keep the DOJ in check is for the legislature to do so. That is where I believe the phone calls and letters will make the largest impact.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    They want to limit the class size for 50 students per 1 instructor so organizations like Wisconsin Carry, Inc can't do 1,000+ classes without a lot of help. Nothing in Act 35 said anything about a ratio.
    More importantly and what most people failed to mention is the contradiction formed between the actual statute and the administrative rules.

    The law specifically states "Hunter Safety" is sufficient training. So if firearms safety training is all that is required, then how can the rules require use of lethal force and conflict avoidance training? Neither is taught as part of Hunter Safety, so we will have people carrying with two completely different sets of backgrounds and information.

    How does the DOJ/Walker rectify this? Anybody ask him that question?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    More importantly and what most people failed to mention is the contradiction formed between the actual statute and the administrative rules.

    The law specifically states "Hunter Safety" is sufficient training. So if firearms safety training is all that is required, then how can the rules require use of lethal force and conflict avoidance training? Neither is taught as part of Hunter Safety, so we will have people carrying with two completely different sets of backgrounds and information.

    How does the DOJ/Walker rectify this? Anybody ask him that question?
    Yes, he was asked about Hunter Safety compared to the proposed Permanent Rules. Hunter Safety and a DD214 are listed as acceptable minimum proof of training. This is Statutory and the Admin Code can not mess with it. The standards for instructor led training which is not Hunter Safety training are what the proposed Admin Code is addressing. There is no contradiction. The real issue is that the proposed standard of training is more stringent than the applicable Statute requries.
    (4) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The proof of training requirement under sub. (7) (e) may be met by any of
    the following:
    1. A copy of a document, or an affidavit from an
    instructor or organization that conducted the course or
    program, that indicates the individual completed any of
    the following:
    e. A firearms safety or training course that is conducted by a firearms instructor who is certified by a
    national or state organization that certifies firearms
    instructors or who is certified by the department.
    The DOJ is absolutely ignoring the "or". They are skipping right over "a firearms safety" course and requiring a minimum of a firearms "training course" which meets their inflated requirements.

Posting Permissions

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