• 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.

Van Hollen responds, "Why can't DoJ come up with training rules?"

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
If the fools would have passed Constitutional Carry as written, there would have been no need for any of this. Then again, who is more the fool...the fool, or the fool who follows him? The fools know who they are, or they would were they not so foolish.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
If the fools would have passed Constitutional Carry as written, there would have been no need for any of this. Then again, who is more the fool...the fool, or the fool who follows him? The fools know who they are, or they would were they not so foolish.

Often fools don't know they are fools.
 

sheller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
45
Location
milton, wi
It was a decent response by the AG, no need for name calling. It does a disservice to gun toters like me who are extremely pleased with the current law.
 

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
like me who are extremely pleased with the current law.
Back for more I see log-in-pants, how's the posse doin'
raisedeyebrow.gif
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
<teeth gnashing>

DOJ can only publish the rules on the 1rst or the 15th of the month. It didn't make 10/1, so the rules will be published 10/15 or 11/1 (or maybe 12/15, or 2/1/12, or........<sigh>).

If the rules require any revision to certifications already issued, etc. it's going to be a scramble.

I don't think DOJ is deliberately trying to obstruct Act 35. Everything they've said, though, implies that this is all a monumental PITA that's been dumped on their poor overworked state-paid a**es. There's not a word recognizing the importance of acting swiftly, mentioning avoiding causing pre-November 1 chaos, etc.

Politically, I think Van Hollen is missing an opportunity to seen as a supporter of a new law that affects a heck of a lot more people in Wisconsin than the lawbreakers, LEOs and lawyers DOJ usually dances with.
 

kemo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
92
Location
Antigo,WI
I had talked to the DOJ a couple of weeks ago and just from that conversation, THEY ARE CLUELESS. I do have the feelin we will get crapped on in the end.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
protias said:
Often fools don't know they are fools.
Last night I had quite a long conversation w/ my information source, & from what he said of their attitude, this fits 100%. They don't even admit they need help.

labomba said:
If the rules require any revision to certifications already issued, etc. it's going to be a scramble.
As IK pointed out, instructors can issue stickers with any 'required' wording.
I still think it'd be simpler to teach the people processing the applications what the law says is acceptable.

I don't think DOJ is deliberately trying to obstruct Act 35.
I do.
Their law specialists (lawyers) don't seem to be able to read the plain English of the law as well as we normal people can.
They seem determined to make implementation of this law as difficult & costly as possible for the citizens of WI.

The latest thing I'm told they're going to try to require are a photo & fingerprints.
The law says they can't*,
the law doesn't say those are required**,
but they'll try.


* 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)(m)(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

** 175.60(5)(a)
The forms shall require the applicant to provide only his or her name, address, date of birth, state identification card number, race, sex, height, and eye color...
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Note also, 2011 Act 35 Section 38, creating § 175.60(2)

ISSUANCE AND SCOPE OF LICENSE. (a) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to
any individual who is not disqualified under sub. (3) and who completes the application process specified in sub.(7).

(7) SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION. An individual may apply for a license under this section with the department
by submitting, by mail or other means made available by the department, to the department all of the following:
(a) A completed application in the form prescribed under sub. (5) (a).
(b) A statement that states that the information that he or she is providing in the application submitted under
par. (a) and any document submitted with the application is true and complete to the best of his or her knowledge.
(c) A license fee in an amount, as determined by the department by rule, that is equal to the cost of issuing the
license but does not exceed $37. The department shall determine the costs of issuing a license by using a 5−year planning period.
(d) A fee for a background check that is equal to the fee charged under s. 175.35 (2i).
(e) Proof of training as described under sub. (4) (a).

There is no mention of fingerprints or photograph, both of which are entre to extended databases precluded/avoided by §175.60(2m)(c) prohibiting requiring SSN.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
As IK pointed out, instructors can issue stickers with any 'required' wording.

Thanks, but I don't take much comfort from a lame sticker workaround. If the rule's published 10/15 instructors would have 11 business days to analyze the new requirement, prepare stickers and instructions, and get out a mailing to every student in time to be received 11/1..... And that's IF DOJ even made it clear on the 15th that modifying original certificates with stickers would be allowable. Issuing new certificates would probably be simpler.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
And it's exactly because of people like this that I wonder why I bother. And it's exactly because of people like this, who DO dump on the knowledgeable people why many knowledgeable people stay away.

Word.




You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

We are lucky to have a DOJ that is soooooooooooooo devoted to our best interests they work till their fingers bleed.

Mark my words. When we (finally) get our permits to exercise our Constitutional Right, in about a year and a half if we are lucky, they will be the B-E-S-T permission slips money can buy.
 
Top