Going from nothing to as you put it 99 percent is extremely satisfying. Wisconsin will not see the constitutional carry for a long, long time.
-
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.
-
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.
Letter to Senator/Representative regarding MD training
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
Going from nothing to as you put it 99 percent is extremely satisfying. Wisconsin will not see the constitutional carry for a long, long time.
Never give up, never surrender. They've pissed on us for far too long. If they are no willing to listen to We The People, then they are no longer servants to us and must be removed from office.
So cite a legitimate source that says the DOJ is not obeying the law. Rumors are not legitimate.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I believe some people keep arguing that the MD online course isn't offered by a police agency.
http://www.mdsp.org/downloads/licensing_faq.pdf page 5
It sound to me like THEY believe they are police training.
http://www.mdsp.org/downloads/licensing_faq.pdf page 5
It sound to me like THEY believe they are police training.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Their FAQ says that they don't know if online only is acceptable. I am trying to nip this in the bud so that when they issue the rules on 11/1, the answer is correct. Please read my letter, it says there are 'rumblings'. I will only bring suit if I am denied a permit because I sent in the MD course completion.
The DOJ might do the right thing, I'm just being proactive.
Page 9 and 10 http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw_frequently_asked_questions.pdf
Since they are 'studying the issue', I am trying to help them make the right decision.
Last edited:
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
"... 99 percent..." is NOT how I put it... I was quoting from another post.....
But, I guess if...
handyman, logables, santana, spartacus, and whoever else the troll has or will call himself, feels that "99 percent is extremely satisfying", well then...
My orginal point that 99% of a stinky pile still stinks" is re-inforced by the troll thinking the opposite....
Thanks handyman for helping to prove my point....
Outdoorsman1
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Just got this back:
There is nothing to nip, the DOJ will interpret the law as they see fit anyway, regardless of the letters they receive from people. I guess you might have to file a lawsuit.
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
Thanks For The Letter Paul!
Yes, we didn't get Constitutional Carry but as you all have stated: We don't give up any rights. No more sitting around waiting for the "elected ones" to do the right thing. We all know that will never happen. Take the fight to them and let them know we are the People.
On another note I see the "Handyman", err..logables, Stalkinghorse, Spatacus, etc...has been removed, once again from this site. Thanks! Keep the trolls out.
Carry On!
Yes, we didn't get Constitutional Carry but as you all have stated: We don't give up any rights. No more sitting around waiting for the "elected ones" to do the right thing. We all know that will never happen. Take the fight to them and let them know we are the People.
On another note I see the "Handyman", err..logables, Stalkinghorse, Spatacus, etc...has been removed, once again from this site. Thanks! Keep the trolls out.
Carry On!
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Maryland Police Training Commission in not a Law ENFORCEMENT Agency.
Maryland Police Training Commission is just one division of Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). While another division like Maryland Division of Parole and Probation could possibly see thought of a law enforcemtent, the Maryland Police Training Commission is not a Law Enforcement Agency.
Edited to Add: I firmly believe that the WI-DOJ should accept the MD-Firearm Training Certificates, but following the letter of the law, they 'might' not.
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
So glad our public servant Scott Walker decided to back out on his promise.
This whole permitting thing is clear as mud.
This whole permitting thing is clear as mud.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
He said he would sign whatever got to his desk, and he did that. What I am upset about is that he made sure that Constitutional Carry did not get to his desk.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
And I am STILL waiting for my pony.
This whole thing is becoming absurd. It would almost be funny if we weren't paying for this asshattery.
This whole thing is becoming absurd. It would almost be funny if we weren't paying for this asshattery.
Last edited:
Packfanatic
Regular Member
+1000
This is better than what we had or could have had. There is never no perfect solution to any issue. We should be happy as the laws are pretty darned good for the first time and way better than even the one that was passed and vetoed ( thanks diamond jim) so baby steps are good things. If this pans out it may not take long to go to constitutional carry. Most states enacted a CC law and some have moved on to constitutional carry. hell, even worse we could all live in illinois .... imagine that.
This is better than what we had or could have had. There is never no perfect solution to any issue. We should be happy as the laws are pretty darned good for the first time and way better than even the one that was passed and vetoed ( thanks diamond jim) so baby steps are good things. If this pans out it may not take long to go to constitutional carry. Most states enacted a CC law and some have moved on to constitutional carry. hell, even worse we could all live in illinois .... imagine that.
Last edited:
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
But...they are firearms instructors, I'm guessing certified by the state of MD...and therefore,
175.60(4)(a)(1)(c) A firearms safety or training course that is available to the
public and is offered by a law enforcement agency or, if the course
is taught by an instructor who is certified by a national or state
organization that certifies firearms instructors
no?
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
They might better fit under the part you bolded. But, all I saying is the Maryland Police Training Commission in not an enforcement agency, but rather a training agency.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Here is the response from the DOJ
I emailed back that they do allow non-residents to do it.
I emailed back that they do allow non-residents to do it.
outdoorsman53
New member
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
'Sprocket:
Explain to me why the MD situation is significantly different than the following.
175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon. (1)
DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(bv) “Law enforcement agency” does not include the
department.
(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
ammunition to meet the training requirements under par.
(a).
This from the DoJ FAQ.
Does DOJ certify instructors?
DOJ will only be certifying law enforcement officers as instructors. It will not be certifying civilian instructors.
Those persons certified by DOJ must also comply with the DOJ approved training program.
Explain to me why the MD situation is significantly different than the following.
175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon. (1)
DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(bv) “Law enforcement agency” does not include the
department.
(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
ammunition to meet the training requirements under par.
(a).
This from the DoJ FAQ.
Does DOJ certify instructors?
DOJ will only be certifying law enforcement officers as instructors. It will not be certifying civilian instructors.
Those persons certified by DOJ must also comply with the DOJ approved training program.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
99%?
Let's face it the legislature and the governor sold us out with Act 35. There are 5 activities contained in Artile I section 25 of the state constitution. They are: security, defense, hunting, recreation and any lawful purpose. All are of equal weight. That is until Act 35 came along. Case in point the word security: It's meaning varies slightly according to which dictionary you cite but basically it means the protection of person's, and/or property from portential harm. In the 2003 case of Hamdan the WSC fractured the definition of security by saying that it would only consider the portion of the definition as applied to the Hamdan case. That is, it would only consider the definiton that addressed security of business or property. In the WSC final decision it ruled that under the butchered definiton that it was indeed unconstitutional to prohibit Hamdan from carrying a concealed weapon in order to provide security for his store, totally disregarding the part of the definition of security that involved security of self, family or others.
Would the WSC also butcher the definitions of defense, hunting, recreation or any lawful purpose? Probably, if it would help maintain a police state. What about defense. The amendment does not say self-defense. It just says defense. So can one surmise under the logic the WSC used for security that the carry of a concealed weapon is also constitutionally protected if one is defending his business and/or property? The only distinction between the two words is that in the WSC's own words defense requires a condition of imminent harm where as security a perceived harm. The whole situation stinks.
In the name of common sense how can the carry of a concealed weapon be considered constitutional for one portion of a definition and not the whole definition. Especially for a word so simple as security. The authors of Act 35, the legislature and the governor marched in quick step with the nonsensical opinion of Hamdan. They say that under their state constitutional right a person may carry a concealed firearm in his home, business or land without need of training or permits or fees. However if that same person wants to carry a firearm for thier personal or family security they must train, apply and pay a fee for the state issued privilege to do so.
Finally. Don't hold your breath that we will ever get the other 1%. Wish in one hand. Poop in the other. See which fills up first.
My opinion
Let's face it the legislature and the governor sold us out with Act 35. There are 5 activities contained in Artile I section 25 of the state constitution. They are: security, defense, hunting, recreation and any lawful purpose. All are of equal weight. That is until Act 35 came along. Case in point the word security: It's meaning varies slightly according to which dictionary you cite but basically it means the protection of person's, and/or property from portential harm. In the 2003 case of Hamdan the WSC fractured the definition of security by saying that it would only consider the portion of the definition as applied to the Hamdan case. That is, it would only consider the definiton that addressed security of business or property. In the WSC final decision it ruled that under the butchered definiton that it was indeed unconstitutional to prohibit Hamdan from carrying a concealed weapon in order to provide security for his store, totally disregarding the part of the definition of security that involved security of self, family or others.
Would the WSC also butcher the definitions of defense, hunting, recreation or any lawful purpose? Probably, if it would help maintain a police state. What about defense. The amendment does not say self-defense. It just says defense. So can one surmise under the logic the WSC used for security that the carry of a concealed weapon is also constitutionally protected if one is defending his business and/or property? The only distinction between the two words is that in the WSC's own words defense requires a condition of imminent harm where as security a perceived harm. The whole situation stinks.
In the name of common sense how can the carry of a concealed weapon be considered constitutional for one portion of a definition and not the whole definition. Especially for a word so simple as security. The authors of Act 35, the legislature and the governor marched in quick step with the nonsensical opinion of Hamdan. They say that under their state constitutional right a person may carry a concealed firearm in his home, business or land without need of training or permits or fees. However if that same person wants to carry a firearm for thier personal or family security they must train, apply and pay a fee for the state issued privilege to do so.
Finally. Don't hold your breath that we will ever get the other 1%. Wish in one hand. Poop in the other. See which fills up first.
My opinion