davegran
Regular Member
My point is that there are only three minor instances of your "substantially similar" or "substantially equivalent" language.And your point is?....
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.
That doesn't leave the DOJ with much latitude to decide on qualifying or disqualifying the non-resident card.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.
3. The third occurrence of the language in question has to do with
Since training in Wisconsin can not even require live fire,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.
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?2. The department may not require firing live ammu-
nition to meet the training requirements under par. (a).