They're on to us...

wild boar · Jul 11, 2011

I'm glad we have you Paul.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
As I said in another thread. I have talked to several people in the Capital building and they said they were trying to write the legislation as tight as possible so that there was little leeway in regulations so that, for example, an anti 2A AG gets elected so they can't make up their own rules.

That is why there is such language as 'no effect on open carry' and 'not too exceed' and spells out specifically which out of state permits will be recognized as well as 'live fire is not required'. They could of been vague and allowed DOJ to write rules but they didn't.

Even if I'm wrong about most things

boar out.:lol:

Captain Nemo · Jul 11, 2011

The point of my post was not to debate what MD does or doesn't do. My intent was to draw attention to the fact that we advertised the process and the media has already snatched it up and ran with it. I also intended to draw attention to the fact that if the MD police does not wish to get embroiled in our politics they can very easily shut the door to non-residents by using driver license restrictions, whether or not the current requirement for DL information is optional is not the point. That can be changed at a moments notice with a minor software change. As with many issues on this forum things rapidly moprh to a "he said, she said" and comments that the proper t's aren't crossed and all the i's aren't dotted.

As for the 10 year old getting a certificate. That is bothersome to me that there isn't an age filter but it is really a moot point. So what if she gets a certificate. It is of no value to her. She can't get a Wisconsin concealed carry permit with it. She can't pass the age requirement for the permit. In order to get the permit she must show proof of age that she is 21 years old or older.

MKEgal · Jul 12, 2011

Da Po-lock said:
I also read the additional spin put on it saying basically that the DOJ will have to review this more closely to see if it is a valid form of training.

IcrewUH60 said:
It's now open for interpretation...

paul said:
they were trying to write the legislation as tight as possible so that there was little leeway in regulations so that if, for example, an anti 2A AG gets elected they can't make up their own rules.
They could of been vague and allowed DOJ to write rules but they didn't.

The WI law very clearly says that the DOJ can't add requirements that aren't already in the law.
See 175.60 (2)(b) middle of the RH column on pg. 7 of the PDF down there in the top line of my sig:

The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.

Also see 175.60 (4)(c) RH column, pg. 8:

a firearm safety or training course that is available to the public and offered by a law enforcement agency,
OR if the course is taught by an instructor (insert conditions)...

So unless they want to change the law, which we should be alert for, the DOJ has to accept MD.
And if they try not to, I want to see them explain how they're going to let people w/ MD permits carry here using the same thing.

Captain Nemo said:
My intent was to draw attention to the fact that we advertised the process and the media has already snatched it up and ran with it.

Good! Hopefully more people will get to know about it this way, esp. if the DOJ quits lying about their being able to deny accepting it as training.

CCW412 · Jul 12, 2011

your interpretation does not matter........

The only interpretation that does matter IS THE DOJ'S!!

The DOJ could say the the Maryland on-line course does not qualify because it was developed and offered by the "Maryland Police Training Commission", and by definition they are not a "Law Enforcement agency" they are only the Training commission for the police dept.

Again it is all open to their interpretation and not your own!!

HandyHamlet · Jul 12, 2011

Your opinion.

CCW412 · Jul 12, 2011

Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission

Here are some FACTS for you all, so please stop saying......"WE KNOW THIS WILL QUALIFY"!!
They are NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, THEY DO NOT ENFORCE ANY LAWS!!
THEY ONLY ENFORCE TRAINING AND HIRING STANDARDS FOR THE POLICE DEPT

Headquartered in Sykesville, MD, the Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions (MPCTC) is a state oversight agency for all law enforcement and correctional agencies in Maryland.

The MPCTC is responsible for setting minimum hiring standards as well as training objectives for all personnel hired by law enforcement or correctional agencies in Maryland. The MPCTC also maintains training records, mandates in-service training, and operates a training academy.

MKEgal · Jul 12, 2011

So you're saying that this agency isn't LEA itself, but can make LEOs?
That doesn't make sense.
If you've got a pony, it came from a horse.

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/aboutdpscs/

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS)
With nearly 12,000 employees, and a budget of close to $1.2 billion, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is one of the largest state agencies in Maryland.

So the DOJ has to contact MD & ask if their State Police training commission is part of the State Police, then if their State Police is a LEA.

Besides, have a look at WI 2011 Act 21http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/acts/11Act21.pdf:
Esp. the part that starts on pg. 2, 227.10 (2m) about how no agency can set standards for a license that aren't in the law, unless they get the Governor's approval.

And on top of that, as I've said before, the WI cc law also very clearly says that the DOJ can't add requirements that aren't already in the law.
See 175.60 (2)(b) middle of the RH column on pg. 7 of the PDF:

The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.

CCW412 · Jul 12, 2011

It EXACTLY meets the letter of the law, being:
1) a firearms safety or training course
2) available to the public
3) offered by a law enforcement agency
[See 175.60(4)(1)(c), on page 8 of the bill.]

So you're saying that this agency isn't LEA itself, but can make LEOs?
That doesn't make sense.

WHY DON'T YOU READ IN THE WI STATE STATUES WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS, INSTEAD OF MAKING UP YOUR OWN!!!!

Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions (MPCTC) is a state oversight agency

So the DOJ has to contact MD & ask if their State Police training commission is part of the State Police, then if their State Police is a LEA.

NOPE THEY JUST HAVE TO READ THEIR OWN DEFINITION, and THE MD State police are not the ones performing the training, it is Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions a separate dept.

WISCONSIN'S DEFINITION OF A law enforcement agency
343.237

343.237(1)(ar) (ar) "Law enforcement agency of another state" means a governmental unit of one or more persons employed by a state other than this state or by a political subdivision of a state other than this state for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing laws or ordinances of that state or a political subdivision of that state, employees of which unit are authorized to make arrests for crimes while acting within the scope of their authority.

I DON'T THINK THAT Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ARRESTS!!!

CCW412 · Jul 12, 2011

So again by wi definition.......not a law enforcement agency

Also if you would like the definition of a Wisconsin law enforcement agency

175.46(1)(f)
(f) "Wisconsin law enforcement agency" means a governmental unit of one or more persons employed by this state or a political subdivision of this state for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing state laws or local ordinances, employees of which unit are authorized to make arrests for crimes while acting within the scope of their authority.

And on top of that, as I've said before, the WI cc law also very clearly says that the DOJ can't add requirements that aren't already in the law.
See 175.60 (2)(b) middle of the RH column on pg. 7 of the PDF:
The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO.... impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.

JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT WITH THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCORDING TO WI LAW!

Captain Nemo · Jul 12, 2011

CCW412:

Where were you when the going was tough. Now that we have tasted victory you become an all-knowing critic? MPCTC is chartered by Maryland law to provide firearms training for Maryland law enforcement and et al. Of course they are a Law enforcement Agency by definition. No court in Wisconsin would question it's credentials. I think if you do some research you will find that some members of MPCTC do in fact carry a badge and have powers of arrest. The question is not MPCTC authenticity. The question is; will the Wisconsin DoJ accept that the online training course presented by the MPCTC has the training content needed to meet the intent of s175.60. My opinion after taking both the MD certification and the hunter's safety training conducted by the Wiscons DNR is that the two are nearly equivalent. With the difference being that the DNR course requires firearm shooting. However, s175.60 says that actual firearm handling is not a requirement of training so that difference is moot. My opinion is that the MD certification does meet the intent of the law. How the Wisconsin DoJ will view it is anybody's guess.

IcrewUH60 · Jul 12, 2011

CCW412 said:
[...]
I DON'T THINK THAT Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ARRESTS!!!

[emphasis added] to help clarify where you were coming from.

I am not a lawyer, a plumber or a musician. I am also not an arborist. Only time will tell how this new law gets "interpreted".

Brass Magnet · Jul 12, 2011

IcrewUH60 said:
[emphasis added] to help clarify where you were coming from.

I am not a lawyer, a plumber or a musician. I am also not an arborist. Only time will tell how this new law gets "interpreted".

WHAT!? But I demand a shrubbery!

IcrewUH60 · Jul 12, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
WHAT!? But I demand a shrubbery!

"Ni"

CCW412 · Jul 12, 2011

Where were you when the going was tough.

Sorry it was so "TOUGH" but I was in AFGHANISTAN

Now that we have tasted victory you become an all-knowing critic?

Just giving the definition of a law enforcement agency as per WI statues and not assuming because police is in the name that it fits!

MPCTC is chartered by Maryland law to provide firearms training for Maryland law enforcement.

This online video is not one of them! It is ONE requirement for "MD residents" to purchase a firearm.

Of course they are a Law enforcement Agency by definition.

Really??...Where does this (Maryland Police And Correctional Training Commissions (MPCTC) is a state oversight agency for all law enforcement and correctional agencies in Maryland.The MPCTC is responsible for setting minimum hiring standards as well as training objectives for all personnel hired by law enforcement or correctional agencies in Maryland. The MPCTC also maintains training records, mandates in-service training, and operates a training academy.
fit in to here???
343.237(1)(ar)."Law enforcement agency of another state" means a governmental unit of one or more persons employed by a state other than this state or by a political subdivision of a state other than this state for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing laws or ordinances of that state or a political subdivision of that state, employees of which unit are authorized to make arrests for crimes while acting within the scope of their authority.

I think if you do some research you will find that some members of MPCTC do in fact carry a badge and have powers of arrest.

I am sure they do, but the MPCTC purpose is not preventing and detecting crime and enforcing laws or ordinances

My opinion

DOES NOT MATTER TO THE DOJ

How the Wisconsin DoJ will view it is anybody's guess.

BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW

I don't think that for hunters safety all you had to do was click next, they do cover more than just how to handle a firearm.

The DOJ will make the determination and that is my point! For people to put out that they "KNOW" it will qualify is just wrong, we all have waited for this a long time SO why would anyone risk delaying the process any longer by trying to using this online video as your training.

They're on to us...

wild boar

Regular Member

Captain Nemo

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

CCW412

Regular Member

HandyHamlet

Regular Member

CCW412

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

CCW412

Regular Member

CCW412

Regular Member

Captain Nemo

Regular Member

IcrewUH60

Regular Member

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member

IcrewUH60

Regular Member

CCW412

Regular Member