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

Sorry to be out of the loop but what was the original concern so that I can read this with context. Thanks!

thebigsd said:

Sorry to be out of the loop but what was the original concern so that I can read this with context. Thanks!

Click to expand...

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.

I received exactly the same response to my inquiry, word for word.

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.

GlockRDH said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

protias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Looks like WCI might have to produce a few more instructors...

GlockRDH said:

Looks like WCI might have to produce a few more instructors...

Click to expand...

Why don't we fix the CAUSE of the problem instead of masking the symptoms? Write JB, write Walker, write your legislator.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Why don't we fix the CAUSE of the problem instead of masking the symptoms? Write JB, write Walker, write your legislator.

Click to expand...

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.

protias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

bnhcomputing said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.