Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: A couple more JSOnline editorials on cc

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    A couple more JSOnline editorials on cc

    A couple of [IMO] idiotic editorials about cc.
    They invite comments, but after the first one, mine aren't showing up.
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/125920483.html
    The state Department of Justice should ensure that new rules governing the state's concealed-carry law are clear and stringent.
    ...until the state Department of Justice writes the rules governing this new law, there will be some unknowns - including just how stringent training requirements will be.
    ...The department has to settle on the rules before Nov. 1...
    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/125819938.html
    James Causey: My Concealed Carry Wish List
    Concealed carry will become the law in Wisconsin on Nov. 1, and as the state Department of Justice determines the type of training that is needed to legally carry a gun, I decided to come up with my own list of who should not be allowed to carry.
    Where does the Urinal get the idea that the DOJ determines required training?
    It's already in the law.
    All DOJ gets to do is look at proof people send in w/ their applications & compare it to what the law says to see if they match.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I agree MKEgal. The DoJ does not have any rule making authority. It is an enforcement and advisory agency. It can only enforce or interpret via the Attorney General the statutes presented to it. statute 175.60 defines the training requirements needed to qualify for a CC permit. The DoJ can only enforce the minimum requirements. When an application is presented to the DoJ the DoJ can only determine if the evidence of training meets the demand of 175.60. The DoJ can not reject an application based on whether or not the evidence of training meets it's opinion of minimum requirements. It also can not add restrictions over and above those in the statute.

    It pi**es me of on how the media can take an absolute falsehood and try to influence public opinion under the guise it did nothing wrong but publish an opinion. The media has no obligation to cite it's sources. MJS is the worst of the bunch.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    You Both Are Nice People

    But the DoJ does have rule-making authority, including in relation to Act 35. While the department cannot promulgate rules that contradict what the statute says, they can define what the ambiguous means and fill in the blanks. It is no different than any other executive department/agency in that it generates administrative law. Statutes are rarely that detailed and often vague. To be sure --- keep a sharp eye on what DoJ does but it doesn't help to make unsupportable claims. I know everybody thinks it's a simple as reading the text of the law but the reality is different.

    One issue I've mentioned before is training. There is no doubt that a WCWL requires training as described in the statute. No specific requirement is listed for an OOSL to be recognized. The legislature intended that training be a part of the scheme to some degree. Does it make sense that an OOSL can carry in WI without training while a WCWL cannot? The same applies to using an OOSL as proof of training. Does it make sense that that an OOSL that did not require training for issuance be used as a substitute for required training by a WCWL? Logically it doesn't but it doesn't have to be logical - it's the law unless DoJ in interpreting the statute establishes a rule to the contrary. Then it's off to court. I cannot figure out why the "signs have no legal weight" crowd comes up with unbelievably unlikely scenarios to support their position but the same people, when it comes to Act 35, say the only thing that matters are the black letters on the white page. Maybe some people find thinking too difficult.

    Whenever you have phrases such as "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" - interpretation is inevitable. And as a general rule, courts defer to administrative agency interpretations if they are within the outer boundaries of reasonable. Does "small arms" training require pistol training? Is a rifle training enough? We all have our concepts of what the law means but they are not necessarily what DoJ will use. Sorry.

  4. #4
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    OOSL? Speak English. I know acronyms make one sound more knowledgeable, but please desist.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    How about NRP? Non Resident Permit. I saved you one letter. I always wanted a NRP, but now instead of OOSL, I can have a WCWL.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    From Act 35

    (b) 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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Grant Guess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    217
    I was not aware that Charlie Sykes was now writing editorials for the Milwaukee Urinal....it sure sounds exactly like something he would say about training.
    Gun Control Defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning or carrying a firearm.

  8. #8
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142
    The content of that editorial is drivel. It is a poorly written knee jerk response to a well earned law and should be treated accordingly.
    Last edited by bluehighways; 07-22-2011 at 06:42 AM.
    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

  9. #9
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Sorry

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    ....
    Whenever you have phrases such as "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" - interpretation is inevitable. And as a general rule, courts defer to administrative agency interpretations if they are within the outer boundaries of reasonable. Does "small arms" training require pistol training? Is a rifle training enough? We all have our concepts of what the law means but they are not necessarily what DoJ will use. Sorry.
    Here are the only sections in 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 35 that contain the language, "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" :
    175.60
    (4) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The proof of train-
    ing 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:
    a. The hunter education program established under s.
    29.591 or a substantially similar program that is estab-
    lished by another state, country, or province and that is
    recognized by the department of natural resources.

    175.60
    1. (h) 2.
    A license or card issued by a state other than Wis-
    consin that is substantially equivalent to a license or card
    under subd. 1.

    175.60
    4. (a) 2.
    Documentation that the individual completed mili-
    tary, law enforcement, or security training that gave the
    individual experience with firearms that is substantially
    equivalent
    to a course or program under subd. 1.
    The first one concerns a hunter education program program not taken in Wisconsin and defers to the DNR for approval, the second is about the permit-to-carry card issued by another state, and the third specifies what military, law enforcement, or security training taken by the applicant will satisfy the training requirement. I fail to see where the DOJ is granted rule-making authority in this bill.... And lest we forget:

    175.60
    (2) ISSUANCE AND SCOPE OF LICENSE. (a) The depart-
    ment shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to
    any individual who is not disqualified under sub. (3) and
    who completes the application process specified in sub.
    (7). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under
    this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub.
    (2m).
    (b) The department may not impose conditions, limi-
    tations, or requirements that are not expressly provided
    for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or con-
    tent of a license.
    Sorry.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Oosl

    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    OOSL? Speak English. I know acronyms make one sound more knowledgeable, but please desist.
    is a commonly used initialism (not acronym), learn it or ignore it - your choice. People prefer not to write out long strings when a short one will do.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Are they the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    How about NRP? Non Resident Permit. I saved you one letter. I always wanted a NRP, but now instead of OOSL, I can have a WCWL.
    OOSL - document issued by a state other than the one that is being discussed

    Which OOSL are recognized by Wisconsin?

    NRP - document issued by a state to a resident of another state

    I only have a ME NRP so I can't carry in MI.

    You can also combine - NROOSL.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    OOSL - document issued by a state other than the one that is being discussed

    Which OOSL are recognized by Wisconsin?

    NRP - document issued by a state to a resident of another state

    I only have a ME NRP so I can't carry in MI.

    You can also combine - NROOSL.
    "What are we having for dinner tonight?"
    -- "Nroosl"
    "Mmmm, sounds delicious...."

    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    OOSL - Out Of State License

    NRP - Non-Resident Permit

    There, that wasn't so hard, was it?


    Nroosl - Don't have a clue - Brass?


    Acronyms suck! IMHO Mwa-haa-haa-haa!
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post

    Nroosl - Don't have a clue - Brass?
    I just thought it sounded like some sort of foreign food is all...
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    OOSL - Out Of State License

    NRP - Non-Resident Permit

    There, that wasn't so hard, was it?


    Nroosl - Don't have a clue - Brass?


    Acronyms suck! IMHO Mwa-haa-haa-haa!
    Non-Resident Out of State License - example I cannot carry in Michigan. I am from Hawaii but only have a NROOSL from Pennsylvania. I am the NR part (so it doesn't matter if the state of issuance has different licenses for its residents vs non-residents (like Maine) or not (like Minnesota) a resident would have a ROOSL and a non-resident would have a NROOSL. (Pennsylvania contributes the OOSL part.)


    Pronunciation Guide
    OOSL - oo-sul
    ROOSL - roo-sul
    NROOSL - en-rool-sul or n'ru-sool
    NRP - en-rep or nerp
    WiCWL - wick-kool
    Last edited by apjonas; 07-22-2011 at 08:04 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    It's There

    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Here are the only sections that contain the language, "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" :
    And your point is?

    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    I fail to see where the DOJ is granted rule-making authority in this bill.... And lest we forget:
    Then you are not looking hard enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Sorry
    Me too.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Tom Maassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Bend, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    59

    Did anyone see this one yet?

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...126028843.html

    Just came out today. Nothing new to report, but at least it's all info we already knew
    A criminal can have a gun, so why can't I?

    Member - Wisconsin Carry, Inc. http://www.wisconsincarry.org
    Member of West Bend Barton Sportsman's Club - http://www.wbbsc.com

  18. #18
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    ....

    Then you are not looking hard enough.

    ....
    Citation?
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tosa
    Posts
    118
    From Act 35's amendment of the DOJ's authority:

    SECTION 22. 165.25 (12) of the statutes is created to
    read:
    165.25 (12) RULES REGARDING CONCEALED WEAPONS
    LICENSES. Promulgate by rule a list of states that issue a
    permit, license, approval, or other authorization to carry
    a concealed weapon if the permit, license, approval, or
    other authorization requires, or designates that the holder
    chose to submit to, a background search that is compara-
    ble to a background check as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (ac).

    See also SECTION 100:

    SECTION 100.0Nonstatutory provisions.
    (1) Using the procedure under section 227.24 of the
    statutes, the department of justice shall promulgate rules
    required under section 165.25 (12) of the statutes, as
    created by this act, for the period before the effective date
    of the permanent rules promulgated under those sections,
    but not to exceed the period authorized under section
    227.24 (1) (c) and (2) of the statutes. Notwithstanding
    section 227.24 (1) (a), (2) (b), and (3) of the statutes, the
    department is not required to provide evidence that pro-
    mulgating a rule under this subsection as an emergency
    rule is necessary for the preservation of public peace,
    health, safety, or welfare and is not required to provide a
    finding of an emergency for a rule promulgated under
    this subsection.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    But, DOJ is also tasked with instructor certification, and that does seem to entail a judgment call, in that DOJ gets to decide who is "able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge required...":


    (b) 1. The department shall certify instructors for the
    purposes of par. (a) 1. c. and e. and shall maintain a list
    of instructors that it certifies. To be certified by the
    department as an instructor, a person must meet all of the
    following criteria:
    a. Be qualified under sub. (3) to carry a concealed
    weapon.
    b. Be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge
    required for providing firearms safety and training.
    2. The department may not require firing live ammu-
    nition to meet the training requirements under par. (a).(a) A completed application in the form prescribed
    under sub. (5) (a).

  20. #20
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    And your point is?....
    My point is that there are only three minor instances of your "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" language.

    1.The first instance says that hunter education programs in other states may qualify as training under 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 35, but they have to be approved by our DNR. That means the DOJ has no power in that decision.

    2.The second instance says that a non-resident card may qualify as a legal document in Wisconsin if it is "substantially equivalent" to a license or card under subd. 1.
    175.60
    (2m) LICENSE DOCUMENT; CONTENT OF LICENSE. (a)
    Subject to pars. (b), (bm), (c), and (d), the department
    shall design a single license document for licenses issued
    and renewed under this section. The department shall
    complete the design of the license document no later than
    the first day of the 2nd month beginning after the effec-
    tive date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date].
    (b) A license document for a license issued under this
    section shall contain all of the following on one side:
    1. The full name, date of birth, and residence address
    of the licensee.
    2. A physical description of the licensee, including
    sex, height, and eye color.
    3. The date on which the license was issued.
    4. The date on which the license expires.
    5. The name of this state.
    6. A unique identification number for each licensee.
    (bm) The reverse side of a license document issued
    under this section shall contain the requirement under
    sub. (11) (b) that the licensee shall inform the department
    of any address change no later than 30 days after his or
    her address changes and the penalty for a violation of the
    requirement.
    (c) The license document may not contain the licens-
    ee’s social security number.
    (d) 1. The contents of the license document shall be
    included in the document in substantially the same way
    that the contents of an operator’s license document issued
    under s. 343.17 are included in that document.
    That doesn't leave the DOJ with much latitude to decide on qualifying or disqualifying the non-resident card.

    3. The third occurrence of the language in question has to do with
    Documentation that the individual completed mili-
    tary, law enforcement, or security training that gave the
    individual experience with firearms that is substantially
    equivalent to a course or program under subd. 1.
    Since training in Wisconsin can not even require live fire,
    2. The department may not require firing live ammu-
    nition to meet the training requirements under par. (a).
    it would seem that the DOJ will be approving many, many non-Wisconsin training programs. Can you say, "Rubber Stamp"? So where is all this power you say the DOJ wields in the application of 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 35?
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  21. #21
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Thank you, LaBamba, now we have something to discuss!
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    From Act 35's amendment of the DOJ's authority:

    SECTION 22. 165.25 (12) of the statutes is created to
    read:
    165.25 (12) RULES REGARDING CONCEALED WEAPONS
    LICENSES. Promulgate by rule a list of states that issue a
    permit, license, approval, or other authorization to carry
    a concealed weapon if the permit, license, approval, or
    other authorization requires, or designates that the holder
    chose to submit to, a background search that is compara-
    ble to a background check as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (ac).
    There is no latitude for the DOJ here; the state either has a background check that is equivalent to:
    (9g) BACKGROUND CHECKS. (a) The department shall
    conduct a background check regarding an applicant for
    a license using the following procedure:
    1. The department shall create a confirmation num-
    ber associated with the applicant.
    2. The department shall conduct a criminal history
    record search and shall search its records and conduct a
    search in the national instant criminal background check
    system to determine whether the applicant is prohibited
    from possessing a firearm under federal law; whether the
    applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under
    s. 941.29; whether the applicant is prohibited from pos-
    sessing a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.;
    whether the applicant has been ordered not to possess a
    firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10
    (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a); whether the applicant is sub-
    ject to an injunction under s. 813.12 or 813.122, or a tribal
    injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a
    court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin
    Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe
    of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that
    he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties
    under s. 941.29 and that has been filed with the circuit
    court under s. 806.247 (3); and whether the applicant is
    prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 813.125
    (4m); and to determine if the court has prohibited the
    applicant from possessing a dangerous weapon under s.
    969.02 (3) (c) or 969.03 (1) (c) and if the applicant is pro-
    hibited from possessing a dangerous weapon as a condi-
    tion of release under s. 969.01.
    3. As soon as practicable, the department shall do the
    following:
    a. If the background check indicates sub. (3) (b), (c),
    (d), or (e) applies to the applicant, create a unique nonap-
    proval number for the applicant.
    b. If the completed background check does not indi-
    cate that sub. (3) (b), (c), (d), or (e) applies to the appli-
    cant, create a unique approval number for the applicant.
    (b) The department shall maintain a record of all
    completed application forms and a record of all approval
    or nonapproval numbers regarding background checks
    under this subsection.
    or it does not.

    End of Section================================================== ================================================== ==========================================

    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    See also SECTION 100:

    SECTION 100.0Nonstatutory provisions.
    (1) Using the procedure under section 227.24 of the
    statutes, the department of justice shall promulgate rules
    required under section 165.25 (12) of the statutes, as
    created by this act, for the period before the effective date
    of the permanent rules promulgated under those sections,
    but not to exceed the period authorized under section
    227.24 (1) (c) and (2) of the statutes. Notwithstanding
    section 227.24 (1) (a), (2) (b), and (3) of the statutes, the
    department is not required to provide evidence that pro-
    mulgating a rule under this subsection as an emergency
    rule is necessary for the preservation of public peace,
    health, safety, or welfare and is not required to provide a
    finding of an emergency for a rule promulgated under
    this subsection.
    This gives the DOJ "power" to do "something" until November 1st. Just what is it exactly that they can do with this power during this time period?

    End of Section================================================== ================================================== ===========================================

    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    ------------------------------------------------------
    But, DOJ is also tasked with instructor certification, and that does seem to entail a judgment call, in that DOJ gets to decide who is "able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge required...":


    (b) 1. The department shall certify instructors for the
    purposes of par. (a) 1. c. and e. and shall maintain a list
    of instructors that it certifies. To be certified by the
    department as an instructor, a person must meet all of the
    following criteria:
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    a. Be qualified under sub. (3) to carry a concealed
    weapon.
    No ambiguity here:
    (3) RESTRICTIONS ON ISSUING A LICENSE. The depart-
    ment shall issue a license under this section to an individ-
    ual who submits an application under sub. (7) unless any
    of the following applies:
    (a) The individual is less than 21 years of age.
    (b) The individual is prohibited under federal law
    from possessing a firearm that has been transported in
    interstate or foreign commerce.
    (c) The individual is prohibited from possessing a
    firearm under s. 941.29.
    (d) The court has prohibited the individual from pos-
    sessing a dangerous weapon under s. 969.02 (3) (c) or
    969.03 (1) (c).
    (e) The individual is on release under s. 969.01 and
    the individual may not possess a dangerous weapon as a
    condition of the release.
    (f) The individual is not a Wisconsin resident.
    (g) The individual has not provided proof of training
    as described under sub. (4) (a).
    End of Section================================================== ================================================== ==========================================

    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    b. Be able to demonstrate the ability and knowledge
    required for providing firearms safety and training.
    This seems like the only aspect of the DOJ's decision-making process that is subject to any interpretation. We can debate this.

    End of Section================================================== ================================================== ==========================================

    Quote Originally Posted by LaBomba View Post
    2. The department may not require firing live ammu-
    nition to meet the training requirements under par. (a).(a) A completed application in the form prescribed
    under sub. (5) (a).
    Again, no latitude here for interpretation.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Going Back to the Beginning

    Whether there are three instances or three hundred, whether they are major, minor or in-between, the fact remains that the language requires interpretation by the Department of Justice. I brought up this point to refute those who say that DoJ is nothing more than a secretary, making up lists the content of which has already been determined. Whether or not their rule-making authority (it does exist and is not limited to that contained in Act 35) has a small impact or a large one is yet to be determined. I just don't want people to delude themselves that DoJ will not be an original source for part the body of rules that will govern concealed carry.

Posting Permissions

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