• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A couple more JSOnline editorials on cc

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
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?
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Thank you, LaBamba, now we have something to discuss!
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==============================================================================================================================================

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===============================================================================================================================================

------------------------------------------------------
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.
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==============================================================================================================================================

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. :banana:

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

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.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top