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:
-
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.
MATC WEST SIDE offers DOJ Approved training
- Thread starter Packfanatic
- Start date
Grant Guess
Regular Member
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...
Bring your gun to school...in Madistan?
Bet there are some Lefties having a fit over this...
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I guess I don't understand your meaning???
Last edited:
Brendon .45
Regular Member
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.
Packfanatic
Regular Member
the meaning
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
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
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
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.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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:
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
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.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Can you please cite where the DOJ has the authority to authenticate the 'proof of training'?
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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:
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
Are you being sarcastic because you took my post as condencending?
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
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:
oak1971
Regular Member
Not in the context of the bill. The context of the sentence dictates the meaning.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Please provide a citation.
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
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?