A couple more JSOnline editorials on cc

MKEgal · Jul 20, 2011

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.

Captain Nemo · Jul 21, 2011

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.

apjonas · Jul 21, 2011

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.

oak1971 · Jul 21, 2011

OOSL? Speak English. I know acronyms make one sound more knowledgeable, but please desist.

oak1971 · Jul 21, 2011

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.

Captain Nemo · Jul 21, 2011

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.

Grant Guess · Jul 22, 2011

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.

bluehighways · Jul 22, 2011

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.

logables · Jul 22, 2011

Grant Guess said:
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.

Mr. Sykes does not write editorials for the dead tree. His opinions about training are just fine with me. OR

davegran · Jul 22, 2011

Sorry

apjonas said:
....
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.

apjonas · Jul 22, 2011

Oosl

oak1971 said:
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.

apjonas · Jul 22, 2011

Are they the same?

oak1971 said:
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.

Brass Magnet · Jul 22, 2011

apjonas said:
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....":uhoh:

davegran · Jul 22, 2011

OOSL - Out Of State License

NRP - Non-Resident Permit

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

Nroosl - Don't have a clue - Brass?

Acronyms suck! IMHO Mwa-haa-haa-haa!

Brass Magnet · Jul 22, 2011

davegran said:
Nroosl - Don't have a clue - Brass?

I just thought it sounded like some sort of foreign food is all...:lol:

apjonas · Jul 22, 2011

davegran said:
OOSL - Out Of State License

NRP - Non-Resident Permit

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

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

apjonas · Jul 22, 2011

It's There

davegran said:
Here are the only sections that contain the language, "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" :

And your point is?

davegran said:
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.

davegran said:
Sorry

Me too.

Tom Maassen · Jul 22, 2011

Did anyone see this one yet?

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

Just came out today. Nothing new to report, but at least it's all info we already knew

davegran · Jul 23, 2011

apjonas said:
....

Then you are not looking hard enough.

....

Citation?

LaBomba · Jul 23, 2011

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).

A couple more JSOnline editorials on cc

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member