The downfalls of licenses and permits.
Do not submit to statists and their 'carrots' because they wield the left's whip arrantly.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Schudson, JJ.
¶1 SCHUDSON, J. Jerry Lu Epstein appeals from the circuit court
order affirming the 1998 administrative decision of the Department of Public
Instruction (DPI) revoking all of her DPI-issued licenses.1 Challenging DPI’s
decision, Epstein presents numerous arguments, several of which overlap. We
focus on three of her theories: (1) that DPI’s decision “was an abuse of
departmental discretion in light of the record as a whole”; (2) that Superintendent
John T. Benson’s executive assistant “subtly changed several factual findings
without consulting the examiner,” thus rendering the decision “procedurally
flawed”; and (3) that DPI erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that her actions
¶2 We conclude that DPI’s conduct following this court’s remand of
Epstein’s previous appeal was unconscionable; its delays and evasions fully
support Epstein’s request for reversal “in light of the record as a whole.” We also
conclude that DPI’s decision was procedurally flawed; Superintendent Benson’s
executive assistant, to whom he delegated the decision-making authority in this
case, did not confer with the hearing examiner before rendering her decision and,
therefore, improperly altered at least one of the hearing examiner’s most
1 Epstein held three licenses issued by DPI: a five-year license as a teacher for hearingimpaired
(grades K-12); a five-year license as a teacher for elementary education (grades 1-6);
and a lifetime license as a school social worker. In 1994, DPI revoked her two teaching licenses,
but not her school social worker license; in 1998, however, DPI revoked all three.
“license” and “licenses” appear throughout the record and the parties’ briefs, without any
apparent significance being attached to this distinction, or to the difference between Epstein’s
licenses for teaching and social work, or to the difference between the revocation of two licenses
in 1994 and three in 1998. Therefore, for convenience in this opinion, we will simply refer to
The downfalls of licenses and permits.
And meaningless certification by private-closed associations. They assume no liability for the actions of their clients, NRA like. Certification buys nothing.
Sure it does. It buys standardized training. Those who hold certification are recognized as having received and completed the training successfully. Although you are correct that there is no guarantee of thegreater competenceof the certificate holder, it is but 1 measure whichis used in conjunction with others and not a solo guarantee of predictable performance. That is why there are so many more things which can disqualify you versus the things which "qualify" you.
First disqualifier skepticism and frugality. Cost/benefit ratio is unknown. Heck cost AND benefit are unknown.
ETA: This caution is of state permitting and the ease with which the state controls the process. Private certification is worth only what are the contracted quid pro quo.
Stop selling PIGS in pokes.
Master Doug Huffman wrote:Don't pee down our backs and tell us it's raining..... Frugality is your #1 disqualifier.....First disqualifier skepticism and frugality.
I wonder how many times I avoided use of that trite simile.
Master Doug Huffman wrote:It isn't a smile Doug, it is laughter out loud....I wonder how many times I avoided use of that trite simile.
Interceptor_Knight wrote:So much for critical reading skills. I wrote what I meant to write, Ed.Master Doug Huffman wrote:It isn't a smile Doug, it is laughter out loud....I wonder how many times I avoided use of that trite simile.
Master Doug Huffman wrote:My mistake. You are not immune to typos.So much for critical reading skills. I wrote what I meant to write, Ed.
This banter back and forth has only limited entertainment value andhas zerovalue added benefit to our cause. We are in agreement that the ideal bill will include no required permit or training. The reality is that there will be a permit system if only for reciprocity. A small group may be opposed to including reciprocity, but that group's voice will fall on deaf ears. In an ideal bill, this permit system will require no training. I think that we can agree on this.
Let's stick to working together in getting the bill we want.
It is an improvement to see and preferred that you address me as Ed instead of the list of baseless demonizing labels you enjoy deploying....I tire quickly in the game of flames on message boards such as this one. They only make every one involved look silly and make those who read them feel more dumb for reading it as their time is being wasted.
Although you seem to enjoy making debates personal, I really do not have anything against you personally. I still would have no objections to sitting down over a few adult beverages and discussingthe future of gun rights in WI and the potiential ways we can reach our goals..
At this point, I am willing to bet large sums of money that if Doug or myselfsimply stated "In Wisconsin, it is dark outside at 10:00 PM, in Early November ".
You wouldbe inclinedto try and argue that too.
We need to take care of ourselves, in our home state, before trying to fit every single little Would've, could of, should of, to cover every single minor contingency that may ever need to be addressed for mutual reciprocity with other states.
Ifother stateswant to set up reciprocity with us,then they will need to accept our rules.
If they cannot live with that, then that is there problem, Not ours!
You have the option to apply for a non-resident permit for other states. Please consider going that route instead of creating lowlyprivileges out of inherited rights.
Just because the state of MI will not let you go skiing with a concealed firearm is no reason to sell out home rule. If carrying in other states is so imprtant to you, You have 2 options just like you do right now, You either avoid that state, or you get a non-resident permot for that state, or from another state that has reciprocity with the state you find so important to be armed in.
Absolutely flawed logic. You are making zero sense. Your premise that even an optional premit system would somehow erode your right to carry is obsurd. The very simple fact is that there will be a permit system at least for reciprocity whether you like it or not as part of the next bill submitted. Of the potential pool of people who may have their hands in drafting a bill, none are so shortsighted that they would exclude reciprocity.
Please take the time to read your own words 2 or 3 or 10 more times. However times it takes for the implications to sink in.If carrying in other states is so imprtant to you, You have 2 options just like you do right now, You either avoid that state, or you get a non-resident permot for that state, or from another state that has reciprocity with the state you find so important to be armed in.
If it is not "SO" important to you to carry a firearm, then why are you wasting your time on a board which is dedicated to thesupport of carry? If youwish to carry a firearm as just a fashion accessory, then you are wasting your time. I would expect that you carry and have a desire to carryas a means to defendyourself against a threat to your life. The need to do so does not end when you hit thevirtual barrierwhich is our State border. In order to do so in most states requires a permit. Non-resident permits are available and are recognized by many of these states. For those states which do not recognize a non-resident permit it is necessary to have a permit from your state of residence. Anyone who cares about carrying for protection will naturally have a vested interest in a resident permit system. YOU should find it "SO" important to be armed wherever you may wish to go and recognize that others share this sentiment....
Interceptor_Knight wrote:Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******Absolutely flawed logic. You are making zero sense. Your premise that even an optional premit system would somehow erode your right to carry is obsurd. The very simple fact is that there will be a permit system at least for reciprocity whether you like it or not as part of the next bill submitted. Of the potential pool of people who may have their hands in drafting a bill, none are so shortsighted that they would exclude reciprocity.
Master Doug Huffman wrote:Then tell me Doug, if you believe your crutch of a statement why would you deliberately prevent someone from legally arming themselves???? Good people can not be armed with guns in many states without a permit. And this is the truth which is recognized by those still in possession of their wits....Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
I challenge you to find a single person either currently in Madison or who has a chance to be elected the next time around who is in support of our carry rights including concealed carry who is so short sighted that they would exclude a permit for reciprocity (so that WI residents may carry out of State). This has precisely zero to do with $$$..... and all to do with tangible rights of the people.