palmprep
New member
Deleted until all this is over. I will update as I find more out.
Thank you for the Support and help.
Alexander
Thank you for the Support and help.
Alexander
Last edited:
A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).
Alexander, my cite is legit. Certain people on this forum tend to conveniently leave out information that they deem unfavorable to them. Seek out an attorney of your choice.
Your own cite said what she said
Your own cite said what she said
Then it made up it's own law and said there may be circumstances outside the scope of the document.
Well, a FAQ is not law...As for the troll, just report it.
Palmprep,
Delete this thread until this is all over. Your not out of the woods yet. Talk to these people privatly.
JJC
Troll said:according to Wisconsin Department of Justice FAQ concerning firearms instructors, the trainer may possibly have legal liability or responsibility for the conduct of persons provided training.
Troll said:Certain people on this forum tend to conveniently leave out information that they deem unfavorable to them.
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.Troll said:She conveniently left out the Wis DOJ information on possible liability issues for a firearms instructor on my cite.
Firearms instructor intentionally submitting false documentation indicating that a person has met the CCW training requirements.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.175.60(21)(d) said:A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).
Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.
Even I the WI blog bozo knows that. I believe even homeowners who have invited a CCL holder and have an incident where the CCL holder goes beserk are immune from prosecution Further WI is also a state where if stopped does not have to declare his CCL as the DOJ says we should automatically. They believe we should automatically bec it is safer Right MKE???Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.
Safer for whom?Law abider said:WI is also a state where if stopped does not have to declare his CCL as the DOJ says we should automatically. They believe we should automatically bec it is safer Right MKE???
Safer for whom?
Follow me here...
Officer stops someone for some reason which to him seems like RAS.
Officer asks if the person is armed.
1) person is a citizen, is not armed, says he's not armed
2) person is a citizen, is armed, says he's armed
3) person is a criminal, is not armed, says he's not armed
4) person is a criminal, is armed, says he's not armed
The only one of those which could harm the officer is #4. (Potentially #3, but less likely.)
I'm willing to bet that the only one which would raise the stress level is #2.
Only a citizen (one who hasn't had a bad experience with LEO) would admit to being armed.
How does that make a LEO safer?
I have heard the argument that it makes me safer because if they see it they won't go crazy on me, but that supposes that officers are idiots who can't read body language & would fire on someone with a holstered pistol. Even with what I've been through, I wouldn't make that generalization.
That section of 941.23 is the "dwelling, business, land you own, lease, or legally occupy" exception.175.60 (2g) (c)
Unless the licensee or out-of-state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card ... to a law enforcement officer upon the request by the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.
You are required to show your licenses IF the officer asks and IF the officer had RAS to stop you in the first place. Note the underlined part above.only when requested by officer to present the CCL or if he asks are you armed should you say yes as opposed to the DOJ FAQ which states that you should AUTOMATICALLY present the CCL even if not asked
For criminal defense, I've worked with Rebecca Coffee. Craig Mastantuono is also a partner in the firm (it's named after him) & I know both are experienced with defending gun cases.any advice on a good lawyer?