Packfanatic
Regular Member
http://madisonnorth.channel3000.com...e-offer-concealed-carry-handgun-safety-course
What do they know that no one else knows?
What do they know that no one else knows?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
As far as their authority to make rules, I submit the following:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw_frequently_asked_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/statutes/statutes/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
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."
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."
We do know the difference between may and shall in legal language, don't we?
Actually, no. Can you please enlighten us?
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.
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.
MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.
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.