Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: MATC WEST SIDE offers DOJ Approved training

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North of Madison
    Posts
    177

    MATC WEST SIDE offers DOJ Approved training

    http://madisonnorth.channel3000.com/...-safety-course

    What do they know that no one else knows?
    Last edited by Packfanatic; 09-13-2011 at 07:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Grant Guess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    217
    Students are encouraged to bring their own handguns and holsters but not required; students will be required to bring their handguns encased and unloaded and weapons will be inspected by instructional staff. Students should arrive 20 minutes early for a safety check.

    Bring your gun to school...in Madistan?

    Bet there are some Lefties having a fit over this...
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    I guess I don't understand your meaning???

    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 or by the department, by a technical college, a college or a university, a private or public institution or organization, or a firearms training school.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 09-13-2011 at 07:56 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283
    Seems to me MATC (or any other tech college) can put together whatever course of training they like and it would qualify under the new law. The only real speculation out there yet is what info will be required to be on the certificate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North of Madison
    Posts
    177

    the meaning

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendon .45 View Post
    Seems to me MATC (or any other tech college) can put together whatever course of training they like and it would qualify under the new law. The only real speculation out there yet is what info will be required to be on the certificate.
    I agree with this statement +1000 guess i should have stated something before but was just putting this post out there. The Utah class will suffice of it's own merits then IMHO

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendon .45 View Post
    Seems to me MATC (or any other tech college) can put together whatever course of training they like and it would qualify under the new law. The only real speculation out there yet is what info will be required to be on the certificate.
    And the more I think about it I don't expect anything very surprising about what needs to go on a certificate. They're already accepting hunters safety and all sorts of other training, such as NRA courses. I would not expect them to require more information on any other certificate than what is included on certificates of completion for these other courses.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  7. #7
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    And the more I think about it I don't expect anything very surprising about what needs to go on a certificate. They're already accepting hunters safety and all sorts of other training, such as NRA courses. I would not expect them to require more information on any other certificate than what is included on certificates of completion for these other courses.
    As I have said before, the DOJ can require information on the certificate that helps them verify the training qualifies. An NRA certificate is easy. As I understand it, the NRA keeps centalized record of all the certifactes that every NRA instructor issues, so I imagine that there is a was to call an verify.

    Conversely, If they get a certificate that they cannot verify because the instructor is a one or two man opertation and only put on the certificate the name of the instructor on name of company and no contact information so that the DOJ can verify that this company qualifies under 175.60(4) and that the training did infact occur, that certifiacte will probably get denied.

    With Hunters Safety, it's not hard for the DOJ to confirm with the DNR that training did occur.

    Some kid could make certificates in thier parents basement that look very authentic and sell them on the blackmarket. That is why the DOJ has to have a way to correspond or communicate with instructors to verify that they qualify and said training can be verified. They are not going to just accept training certificates at face value.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-14-2011 at 12:15 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I guess I don't understand your meaning???

    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 or by the department, by a technical college, a college or a university, a private or public institution or organization, or a firearms training school.
    Other than your point, I imagine that DOJ has finalized thier recommended curriculum and released it already to the Technical Colleges, which would be considered political subdivisions before they release it to the general public.

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Other than your point, I imagine that DOJ has finalized thier recommended curriculum and released it already to the Technical Colleges, which would be considered political subdivisions before they release it to the general public.
    I don't think DOJ is producing a recommended curriculum for anyone other than, perhaps, the DOJ-certified instructors (some of whom may be teaching at Technical Colleges.) These technical college courses that we've seen have been offered for years so I believe it's their standard course, with a few things about the new CC statutes thrown in for good measure.

    I'd be surprised if DOJ spends the time and money to verify the authenticity of the evidence of training people submit with their applications. How are you going to verify that somebody's DD214 from the Korean War era is authentic? Or that the gun safety course somebody took 30 years ago in Colorado by a long-dead instructor is authentic? Well it can be done probably in most instances, but at great cost in time and money. I think at most they'll question only the more flaky looking things that come in. My guess is that they'll rely on the penalties for falsely swearing on the application to prevent somebody from sending in made-up junk. False swearing is a felony. I doubt someone who can pass the background check wants to flirt with a felony conviction just to get a CCW license by fudging the "evidence of training" portion of the application-- something anyone can easily get legitimately. The minimal training requirements under this law are so low that they're almost a joke. I doubt DOJ wants to put a lot of effort into verifying a near-joke requirement.

    My hope is that people would honestly assess their own need for training and get good training, and not just want to meet the minimal requirement under the law. And I would hope the same would be true if there was simply no training requirement whatsoever.

    It's true that forgery has become a cottage industry and almost anyone can turn out a convincing forgery of gun training experience, but the penalties for submitting that are quite a bit tougher than the penalty for getting past a bouncer in a bar when you're under 21.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  10. #10
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    As I have said before, the DOJ can require information on the certificate that helps them verify the training qualifies. An NRA certificate is easy. As I understand it, the NRA keeps centalized record of all the certifactes that every NRA instructor issues, so I imagine that there is a was to call an verify.

    Conversely, If they get a certificate that they cannot verify because the instructor is a one or two man opertation and only put on the certificate the name of the instructor on name of company and no contact information so that the DOJ can verify that this company qualifies under 175.60(4) and that the training did infact occur, that certifiacte will probably get denied.

    With Hunters Safety, it's not hard for the DOJ to confirm with the DNR that training did occur.

    Some kid could make certificates in thier parents basement that look very authentic and sell them on the blackmarket. That is why the DOJ has to have a way to correspond or communicate with instructors to verify that they qualify and said training can be verified. They are not going to just accept training certificates at face value.
    Can you please cite where the DOJ has the authority to authenticate the 'proof of training'?

  11. #11
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Can you please cite where the DOJ has the authority to authenticate the 'proof of training'?
    As far as their authority to make rules, I submit the following:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/..._questions.pdf
    IMPORTANT NOTE: DOJ is currently in the rule-making process and is evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training. We will not have specifics until the rule-making process is complete.


    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf
    The Wisconsin Constitution delegates to the legislative branch the power to make laws and assigns to the executive branch the power to enforce and execute laws. Although the legislature is highly capable of adopting public policies and setting the agenda for the state, it does not always have the administrative expertise or resources to implement public policies. Also, the implementation and enforcement of the laws may require consideration of details and the adoption of procedures that cannot be foreseen when legislation is enacted. For these reasons the legislature has delegated to the executive branch the power to promulgate—to make known and put into effect—administrative rules.

    Administrative rules have the effect of law and, as stated in the Wisconsin Statutes, are “issued by an agency to implement, interpret, or make specific legislation enforced or administered by the agency or to govern the organization or procedure of the agency.” State agencies are granted rule-making power to actualize the legislature’s public policy decisions.



    Rule making authority is granted to agencies by the legislature in WI ss 227.11
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...atutes/227.pdf
    http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/227/227.11

    If you have any more questions about this, you can call the LRB at (608) 266-3561

  12. #12
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    As far as their authority to make rules, I submit the following:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/..._questions.pdf
    IMPORTANT NOTE: DOJ is currently in the rule-making process and is evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training. We will not have specifics until the rule-making process is complete.


    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf
    The Wisconsin Constitution delegates to the legislative branch the power to make laws and assigns to the executive branch the power to enforce and execute laws. Although the legislature is highly capable of adopting public policies and setting the agenda for the state, it does not always have the administrative expertise or resources to implement public policies. Also, the implementation and enforcement of the laws may require consideration of details and the adoption of procedures that cannot be foreseen when legislation is enacted. For these reasons the legislature has delegated to the executive branch the power to promulgate—to make known and put into effect—administrative rules.

    Administrative rules have the effect of law and, as stated in the Wisconsin Statutes, are “issued by an agency to implement, interpret, or make specific legislation enforced or administered by the agency or to govern the organization or procedure of the agency.” State agencies are granted rule-making power to actualize the legislature’s public policy decisions.



    Rule making authority is granted to agencies by the legislature in WI ss 227.11
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...atutes/227.pdf
    http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/227/227.11

    If you have any more questions about this, you can call the LRB at (608) 266-3561
    Wouldn't this violate:

    Wisconsin 2011 Act 35 Section 38 created Wisc. Stats. § 175.60(2)(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."

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Wouldn't this violate:
    Wisconsin 2011 Act 35 Section 38 created Wisc. Stats. § 175.60(2)(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."
    175.60 (2)(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.


    We do know the difference between may and shall in legal language, don't we?

    You did read the Governing Wisconsin document that I provided a link to, right?

    All Administrative Rules go through the Wisconsin Legislative Council and the Joint Committee for Review of Adminstrative Rules. There is a process.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-14-2011 at 05:46 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    We do know the difference between may and shall in legal language, don't we?
    Actually, no. Can you please enlighten us? I do know that when my wife I may not buy myself another gun or if she says shall not buy myself /another gun they mean the same thing. I have to buy HER a gun.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 09-14-2011 at 06:06 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Actually, no. Can you please enlighten us?
    Are you being sarcastic because you took my post as condencending?

  16. #16
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Are you being sarcastic because you took my post as condencending?
    Actually, for once, no!!!

    I understand what you are implying "Shall issue", "May issue" but I believe that unless I am missing something, the NOT modifier makes them the same. What I am saying is "shall not" and "may not" mean the same thing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Actually, for once, no!!!

    I understand what you are implying "Shall issue", "May issue" but I believe that unless I am missing something, the NOT modifier makes them the same. What I am saying is "shall not" and "may not" mean the same thing.
    No Paul,it does not.

    Examples:

    I "may not" believe you.

    I "'shall not" believe you.

    The NOT modifer does not make them mean the same thing. And NO, it doesn't work on a case by case basis.

    MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-14-2011 at 08:43 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No Paul,it does not.

    Examples:

    I "may not" believe you.

    I "'shall not" believe you.

    The NOT modifer does not make them mean the same thing. And NO, it doesn't work on a case by case basis.

    MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
    Not in the context of the bill. The context of the sentence dictates the meaning.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
    Please provide a citation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No Paul,it does not.

    Examples:

    I "may not" believe you.

    I "'shall not" believe you.

    The NOT modifer does not make them mean the same thing. And NO, it doesn't work on a case by case basis.

    MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
    OK, let's think about this logically.

    Why would they even put in the wording "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." if it was to be interpreted as "the department can if they want to 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."

    Doe that even make ANY sense? If that was the case, why not just leave that part out?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Yep I think you nailed it there, Paul.

    I was leanin' towards BS' interpretation based on his last example but you won me over when you pointed out how illogical the wording is if they meant it to be read as in your last example.

  22. #22
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    OK, let's think about this logically.

    Why would they even put in the wording "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." if it was to be interpreted as "the department can if they want to 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."

    Doe that even make ANY sense? If that was the case, why not just leave that part out?
    The DOJ concedes that they cannot mandate curriculum for anyone that is not DOJ ceritified.When they say they are currently in the rule-making process and is evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training, I believe that have the authority to do so. The DOJ is full of lawyers.

    I implore you read this document again on Adminstrative Rule Making. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf


    There is another point that I did not bring up in my last post. Lets look at 175.60(2)(b) again.

    175.60 (2)(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.

    So what are we talking about here?

    The issuance of a license.
    The scope of a license.
    The effect of a license.
    The content of a license.

    None of that applies to a copy of a document or affidavit submitted as proof of training in the application process. If it does, tell me how and provide a citation.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    No Paul,it does not.

    Examples:

    I "may not" believe you.

    I "'shall not" believe you.

    The NOT modifer does not make them mean the same thing. And NO, it doesn't work on a case by case basis.

    MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
    I respectfully disagree. While "may" and "shall" have clearly different meanings, "may not" and "shall not" are legally equivalent.

    I can't believe this made it to any state's supreme court, but there is a MT SC case that deals with this very issue. Read it all if you like, the important bits start at para 9.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-suprem...t/1108634.html

  24. #24
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    I respectfully disagree. While "may" and "shall" have clearly different meanings, "may not" and "shall not" are legally equivalent.

    I can't believe this made it to any state's supreme court, but there is a MT SC case that deals with this very issue. Read it all if you like, the important bits start at para 9.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-suprem...t/1108634.html
    I hereby concede.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/may

    May v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.

    MAY. To be permitted; to be at liberty; to have the power.
    2. Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall. For example, the 23 H. VI. says, the sheriff may take bail, that is construed he shall, for he is compellable to do so. Carth. 293 Salk. 609; Skin. 370.
    3. The words shall and may in general acts of the legislature or in private constitutions, are to be construed imperatively; 3. Atk. 166; but the construction of those words in a deed depends on circumstances. 3 Atk. 282. See 1 Vern. 152, case. 142 9 Porter, R. 390.

    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 09-15-2011 at 04:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

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