• 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.

Response from DoJ

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
I wrote to AG Van Hollen and received this response. Same as anybody else? Take it for what it is worth
Mr. xxxx,

Thank you contacting our office about the Department of Justice’s efforts to implement the concealed carry legislation.

As you may be aware, responsibility for accepting applications, issuing permits, and other matters relating to the new concealed carry legislation, falls primarily on the Department of Justice. From the start we have been working extraordinarily hard to make sure that all qualified individuals who want to obtain a permit can do so as soon as possible, once the law formally takes effect on November 1, 2011. One of our responsibilities has been to create administrative rules to provide guidance to permit-holders and others on the process for becoming licensed.

Attorney General Van Hollen has long been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, as evidenced by his long-standing support for concealed carry legislation, prior endorsements and recognition by the National Rifle Association, and his participation in key U.S. Supreme Court cases that have defined individual rights to bear arms.

The concealed carry law requires that, before issuing a permit, the Department of Justice must determine if someone has met the statutory requirements for eligibility. One of those requirements is proof of training which, by statute, means either a hunter safety program or something that the statute refers to as a “firearms safety or training course.”

It was clear to us that the legislature obviously meant something when it chose to require a “firearms safety or training course,” as opposed to a testing requirement or a system where a qualified instructor could merely vouch for someone who wants a license.

It was also clear to us that, based on the language of the legislation itself--which the law requires us to follow--the legislature effectively placed the burden on the Department of Justice to define what is meant by a “firearms safety or training course.” Without a workable definition, we would have been bound to accept anything that a qualified instructor chose to call a “firearms safety or training course,” whether it was a week-long program costing $1000 or a 15 second video warning people not to leave loaded guns within the reach of children.

The Department of Justice did a great deal of research and talked to many different training organizations and other interests before it settled upon an appropriate definition. Based on that research, it became apparent that the gun community itself has already determined that a minimum of four hours was necessary to provide reasonable gun safety training. In fact, many national organizations have basic courses that are longer than four hours. Had we defined a training course to mean something less, we would not have been faithful to the language that the legislature used.

We are aware of the criticism that, by defining what is meant by a training “course,” we’ve created new burdens on people who want to carry a concealed weapon. That simply isn’t true. Defining terms used by the legislature is a regular and necessary part of rule-making and that is what we did here.

And, by defining the term up-front, as part of a rule-making process that includes the Governor’s review, we have been open and transparent about what the statute requires. If we had abdicated our duty to define what is meant by a ““firearms safety or training course,” the result would be that permit applicants and training organizations would have to guess as to what was meant. It would also mean that, instead of one standard definition, you would have every qualified trainer, every applicant, and even low level application-processors, trying to guess at what was meant.

Finally, it is also important to understand that if we were to shy away from the responsibility to make rules, someone else will define what is meant by a training course, whether it be a new Attorney General who opposes gun rights, a Dane County court, or a new Governor who is asked to review proposed rules.

By putting together reasonable rules at the front end, we are complying with the law and making sure that qualified people who want to carry a concealed weapon will be able to do so now, and in the future.

As for the timing of the process, we have moved as quickly as possible. Even when rules are expedited, as these rules are, the statutory rulemaking process takes time. The first step in emergency rulemaking is a comprehensive "scope statement" that preliminarily outlines the substance of the proposed rules. Before this could occur, we had to thoroughly analyze the law, consider how it could be effectively administered and decide what components were the appropriate subject for administrative rules.

While this work involved many individuals and considerable research, we were able to submit the scope statement on the rules to the Governor's office on Aug. 16, less than a month after the law was published. On Aug. 31, we received the Governor's approval and immediately forwarded the scope statement to the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Administrative Register. That publication occurred on Sept. 15. According to Wisconsin law, we then had to wait at least 10 days after publication in the Administrative Register before giving final approval of the scope statement, and only then can rules be formally developed and proposed. I gave final approval to the scope statement on the first possible day, Sept. 26th. The next step is to formally submit them to the Governor, which we are prepared to do as soon as the Governor is ready to receive them. The Governor may then reject the proposed rules, in whole or in part, or approve them.

Attorney General Van Hollen and this office have one agenda: to follow and implement the concealed carry law as clearly, faithfully and fairly as possible. Those who believe we are trying to stand in the way of concealed carry are misinformed.

Thank you for your interest in this important issue.

Steven P. Means

Executive Assistant Attorney General

Wisconsin Department of Justice

17 W. Main Street

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707 7857

DID (608) 266-3860

FAX (608) 267-2779

meanssp@doj.state.wi.us
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
This letter is a hoot and half.

"The Department of Justice did a great deal of research and talked to many different training organizations and other interests before it settled upon an appropriate definition. Based on that research, it became apparent that the gun community itself has already determined that a minimum of four hours was necessary to provide reasonable gun safety training."

One wonders why, if they "talked to many training organizations," the most prominent "training organization", i.e., the NRA apparently disagrees with them.

So we are to believe that the definition of "training" revolves around how long it lasted, not the content. Imagine if you told that special lady in your life that she had "great sex" because "it lasted over 4 minutes" because "great sex" was defined as "any sex lasting 4 minutes or longer."
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
So we are to believe that the definition of "training" revolves around how long it lasted, not the content. Imagine if you told that special lady in your life that she had "great sex" because "it lasted over 4 minutes" because "great sex" was defined as "any sex lasting 4 minutes or longer."

DUDE! BRO CODE! BRO CODE! BRO CODE!

My Russian Mail Order Bride reads this site!

On'tday entionmay ethay overway 4 (2 in my case) inutemay ingthay!


also...

As for the timing of the process, we have moved as quickly as possible.

Right. Months and months to come up with that 4 hour tripe. What a racket. My mother was right. I should never have dropped out of the fifth grade.
 
Last edited:

FretlessMayhem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
46
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Pretty funny.

Imagine if you told that special lady in your life that she had "great sex" because "it lasted over 4 minutes" because "great sex" was defined as "any sex lasting 4 minutes or longer."

Ha!

Hi Wisconsin forum members! I'm from Virginia, but closely followed the various concealed carry bills you guys had tried to pass since 2006 or so. It's ironic how the anti's could have had a much more restrictive bill, but Mr. Doyle decided to veto it, twice. Now you guys have one of the better CCW laws in the country.

All of this training requirement determination would be moot if you guys could have gotten Constitutional Carry. I was rooting for you guys, but what passed isn't bad.

I'm hopeful VA and WI can work out reciprocity, and even more hopeful that Constitutional Carry will pass the next legislative year! At least by then you'll have proof that blood didn't line the streets, and that fender benders didn't turn into shootouts in a Wild West scenario.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Shotgun said:
Imagine if you told that special lady in your life that she had "great sex" because "it lasted over 4 minutes" because "great sex" was defined as "any sex lasting 4 minutes or longer."
I'm thinking you'd get one of Those Looks, & little close personal contact until you realized your mistake.
(4 minutes isn't even a quickie!)

In this case, I'm thinking that JB & the legislators (new name for a band?) will get an earful & then some from the citizens they're supposed to represent.
And if they persist in their error, they'll be replaced.
The letter from Annette to JB is masterful.
 
M

McX

Guest
big article in the local rag this am; nra calls out vanhollen. i'm getting pretty tired of nra this, nra that. we all know as the new laws were considered, and proposed by the legislature, that members of Wisconsin Carry worked tirelessly, and endlessly to help craft an acceptable law, and their input had a large effect on the proposed new laws. now all the sudden the nra is the acclaimed expert(s)? sorry the only experts i see are the members of Wisconsin Carry, who all in this matter have now thrown under the bus, and those in authority dont seem to be listening, nor giving them credit.

today's avitar: my wife said; clean up the garage, or else!
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
....we all know as the new laws were considered, and proposed by the legislature, that members of Wisconsin Carry worked tirelessly, and endlessly to help craft an acceptable law, and their input had a large effect on the proposed new laws. now all the sudden the nra is the acclaimed expert(s)? sorry the only experts i see are the members of Wisconsin Carry, who all in this matter have now thrown under the bus, and those in authority dont seem to be listening, nor giving them credit.

Like them or hate them, the NRA has always had a presence in Madison and had the ear of the representatives throughout the process of crafting ACT 35....
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Yeah. Unfortunately WCI doesn't put out an annual report card that all politicians live in mortal fear of. Although one must ermember that this forum and the WCI org. is oriented toward open and constitutional carry. Concealed carry is and never was one of the objectives of either group. They have both tolerated the CC Law to this point because it also partly fulfills some of their goals, loaded, uncased carry in vehicles and carry in the 1000 foot school zone. One of the biggest disapointments to WCI is that just as constitutional carry looked like it was a shoo in the NRA stepped in and convinced the legislature to ammend the bill. It used the ploy that it would certain legislature approval. The resulting lopsided bipartisan vote on Act 35 indicated that pure constitutional carry would have had a b etter than even chance of passing. Do I have proof. Probably nothing that will stand up in a court of law but I don't post anything I don't have strong evidence to support and if you review my previous posts on the issue you will find that I prdicted that outcome a year ago. So goes the power of the NRA.

Regardless the role of the NRA let us not forget that if it wasn't especially for the efforts of WCI members
Nik, Brad, Hubert, Paul, Hannah Rock, Lawyer John Monroe, Jesus, MKE gal, J.B. Vanhollen and others that had the guts to not just sit there but do something we would never be where we are today and the NRA would never have rode back into town.
 
Last edited:

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Here is the link to Senator Galloway's Statement on Attorney General’s Remarks on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules

http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/October11/1007/1007galloway.pdf


"On behalf of my colleagues and all the constituents who elect us to write and make the
laws, I demand that Attorney General Van Hollen reconsider his position and leave the
lawmaking up to the Legislature.”

Here is another Alert and update from APG for more information
http://eepurl.com/ghPez
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Regardless the role of the NRA let us not forget that if it wasn't especially for the efforts of WCI members
Nik, Brad, Hubert, Paul, Hannah Rock, Lawyer John Monroe, Jesus, MKE gal, J.B. Vanhollen and others that had the guts to not just sit there but do something we would never be where we are today and the NRA would never have rode back into town.

I do not deserve credit. My harassment by the MPD was not planned. It did, however, motivate me to become more active.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
big article in the local rag this am; nra calls out vanhollen. i'm getting pretty tired of nra this, nra that. we all know as the new laws were considered, and proposed by the legislature, that members of Wisconsin Carry worked tirelessly, and endlessly to help craft an acceptable law, and their input had a large effect on the proposed new laws. now all the sudden the nra is the acclaimed expert(s)? sorry the only experts i see are the members of Wisconsin Carry, who all in this matter have now thrown under the bus, and those in authority dont seem to be listening, nor giving them credit.

today's avitar: my wife said; clean up the garage, or else!

Amen.
 

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Can someone help me spell "pandering bureaucrat and a card-carrying member of a self-deluded infrastructure"?? :confused:
 
M

McX

Guest
I do not deserve credit. My harassment by the MPD was not planned. It did, however, motivate me to become more active.

shut up Paul, and bow, the applause is for you, and you have definitely earned it, hour by hour, minute by minute, event by event. It is an honor to know you, an honor to call you my friend, all of you!
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
shut up Paul, and bow, the applause is for you, and you have definitely earned it, hour by hour, minute by minute, event by event. It is an honor to know you, an honor to call you my friend, all of you!

Oh trust me! I count you as my friend as well. Springfield1911 is an honorable and trustworthy soul as well. Mlutz, well, he wears pink shirts but I consider him a friend as well and Motofixxer is as well.

Not to say I don't like and don't consider others friends as well.

:sniff:
 
M

McX

Guest
Oh trust me! I count you as my friend as well. Springfield1911 is an honorable and trustworthy soul as well. Mlutz, well, he wears pink shirts but I consider him a friend as well and Motofixxer is as well.

Not to say I don't like and don't consider others friends as well.

:sniff:

i shouldnt have to remind you of what we all know so well: i shudder to think of what bill we would be debating, arguing over, and lamenting over had it not been for your endless efforts, to learn the law, better than the men who wrote it, to bug, to call, to persuade. we are indeed witnessing the most historic of times, i also laud the efforts of all others to cumulate this moment we will all remember for the rest of our lives. i never stood with the Founding Fathers, but i can count myself lucky to have stood with all of you.

added on edit; if we get a spot on Mt. Rushmore, make sure they get my good side.
 
Last edited:

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Paul -

Just accept the heartfelt thanks for the work you have done. And, if I have not adequately expressed my own personal gratitude before - thanks Paul, for a job well done.

Carry on my friend, proudly carry on.

Yellow Cat Out -
 
Last edited:
Top