• 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

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,431
Location
northern wis
Response from Sen. Galloway

Sen. Galloway: Statement on attorney general’s remarks on proposed concealed carry rules
10/7/2011

Contact: Senator Pam Galloway
(608) 266-2502

State Senator Pam Galloway (R‐Wausau) released the following statement on Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s comments following the release of the NRA letter on proposed concealed carry rules:

“Early this evening, media outlets ran comments from Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen following the letter sent to him yesterday by NRA Executive Director Chris Cox. The letter outlines concerns raised by the NRA in regards to the rulemaking process that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is undertaking to implement the concealed carry law. As the author of this legislation, I have reached out repeatedly to the Department of Justice to share my own concerns, especially as it relates to the training requirement in the law.

Instead of imposing a “one-size-fits-all” training requirement, legislators overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion, passed a bill that did not include a set number of hours for a training course. Instead, the law clearly allows applicants to take a qualifying course conducted by a firearms instructor who is certified by a national or state organization. In addition, applicants can take a course taught by a DOJ-certified instructor. We provided the flexibility to applicants for a reason.

For the Attorney General to come out and state that a four hour training course is required of permit applicants is outrageous and a clear overreach. By going far beyond the legislative intent, the Attorney General is usurping the power of the State Legislature and engaging in activism unlike any I’ve seen before.

When I ran for office, I did so hoping to change the culture in Madison. I’m disappointed because I thought the days of agency bureaucrats using administrative rules to change the law would come to an end. Instead, lawmakers continue to be plowed under and people all across the state are left wondering why.

I’ve been flooded with calls from constituents that have either taken or taught courses which fall short of the four hours the Attorney General is proposing. They are confused, concerned, and they deserve a straight answer. Since the rules have not been released, there is still time for the Attorney General to do the right thing and follow the statutes and language that lawmakers clearly laid out in this legislation.

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.”
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Captain Nemo said:
Unfortunately WCI doesn't put out an annual report card that all politicians live in mortal fear of.
I like the idea. Can we get our hands on the questionnaire the NRA (or even the Brady Bunch) sends out, to have a starting place for questioning the various legislators in WI? Or do we want to start from scratch.

if it wasn't especially for the efforts of WCI members Nik, Brad, Hubert, Paul, Hannan-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
Eh, some of us 'just' got arrested, & were annoyed enough to stand up & fight back (with help).
(Frank several times...)
Not sure that's really worthy of recognition.
Nik & Hubert have done immeasurable amounts of work to advance 2A rights in WI.
John has all but donated his time/talents... I wish he could bill the various cities at his usual rate for each case he wins, instead of having to accept part of the (small) settlements.
Paul had been a constant "squeaky wheel", meeting with & calling/emailing his legislators, & somehow getting them to actually listen.

And JB???? He seems to have pretended to support our rights in order to get elected.

phred said:
Here is the link to Senator Galloway's Statement on Attorney General’s Remarks on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules
Galloway for governor!

scm54449 said:
Can someone help me spell "pandering bureaucrat and a card-carrying member of a self-deluded infrastructure"??
I believe it starts out with a J & B...
 

cheezhed

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
70
Location
Sheboygan
Is the e-mail link the link that I can use to let my feelings be known.
I am referring to the ssmeans link.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
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:

Group Hug....

Poo Group Hug.jpg

Outdoorsman1
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Ok... one more....

I found a picture of JB Van Hollen and the HONORABLE Ms. Galloway, as they were in the Holloween costumes see if you can guess which is which...

Charlie Brown Lucy Football.jpg

Outdorsman1
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Snip....

Not at all funny and disrespectful as well.

Why thank you, I appreciate the input from one who has so many previous posts in this forum, that it remains to be seen the vast knowledge from wence they speak....

Here's one for you...

Clouds.jpg

How's that for not funny and disrespectful

Outdoorsman1
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
It's That Troll Again....Good One Outdoorsman1

Snip....



Why thank you, I appreciate the input from one who has so many previous posts in this forum, that it remains to be seen the vast knowledge from wence they speak....

Here's one for you...

View attachment 7094

How's that for not funny and disrespectful

Outdoorsman1

It's the same ole Troll that keeps coming back. It will soon be banned and back again with another "name". My "Ignore" list only has banned Trolls in it.
 

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
After reading Phred's response, I had to send an email to "Mr. Means". Written in a state of continued frustration it isn't a work of art but FWIW I will share it with the group:

"Mr. Means -
In your boilerplate letter to individuals who write you with concerns over the DOJ acting outside its authority regarding Act 35, one of your statements is:

"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."

In the attached .pdf is a statement by Pam Galloway, the author of SB93. She states unequivocally the intent and purpose of the legislation was to not define training requirements. She further states, "By going far beyond the legislative intent, the Attorney General is usurping the power of the State Legislature and engaging in activism unlike any I've seen before."

In your letter you also state: "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."

This is a straw man argument. A new, anti-gun governor or Attorney General who wished to severely curtail gun rights would use any and every means possible whether an official memo of the AG's office, influence of administrative rules, or influence over the legislature. Your proposed addition is not going to safeguard the rights of the people of Wisconsin in the least. Your letter gives you the appearance of a pandering bureaucrat who is a card-carrying member of a self-deluded infrastructure. I am certain you are not alone.

Sincerely Outraged By The DOJ,

XXXXX X XXXXXX



"Mr. Means" has graced me with this reply:


"Mr. XXXXXX,

We review all of the correspondence we receive and do our best to provide a proper response. Sometimes we "cut and paste" language because we address similar concerns in multiple letters. It is certainly not intended to minimize the importance of citizen views.

The Attorney General is a member of the NRA, has been endorsed by the organization, and has been a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights. If he had been a member of the legislature, I expect he would have supported a constitutional carry bill over the current permit regime that has been adopted. There is no motive to restrict gun rights.

We have done our best to follow the law in an area where there is a disagreement about the scope of our authority. The arguments presented by the NRA and in Senator Galloway's letter have been known to us for several months and we considered them very carefully. We understand and respect what they are saying, but have come to a different conclusion.
[SUB](Bold font and underline added by me for emphasis.)[/SUB]

I wish you well.

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
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Snip...

The arguments presented by the NRA and in Senator Galloway's letter have been known to us for several months and we considered them very carefully. We understand and respect what they are saying, but have come to a different conclusion.

Yep.... We are screwed....

Snip...

"Several Months"...

???????

It has not been that long since the Bill was signed by Gov. Walker..???

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

cheezhed

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
70
Location
Sheboygan
You know what tics me off the most? Well it is the time and effort that I put into getting this dope (Van Hollen) elected.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Dear Exec Ass Steve-o,

The arrogance and ignorance displayed by your office with regards to Act 35 is inexcusable. Hope you and JB can master "Would you like fries with that?" in your next occupation. Instead of just coming to a different conclusion...

Signed,
We the People
 
Last edited:

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
Dear Exec Ass Steve-o,

The arrogance and ignorance displayed by your office with regards to Act 35 is inexcusable. Hope you and JB can master "Would you like fries with that?" in your next occupation. Instead of just coming to a different conclusion...

Signed,
We the People

+1

what political or otherwise pressure could the DOJ be under to go against the grain on this one? I don't get it.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
what political or otherwise pressure could the DOJ be under to go against the grain on this one? I don't get it.
DoJ, generally not elected, are not responsible to the electorate, but to their bosses, the governor and the attorney general.
 

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
DoJ, generally not elected, are not responsible to the electorate, but to their bosses, the governor and the attorney general.

that's what so confusing here. Either there is an "outside" influence or someone else (within the republican party) pulling the strings here. Why all the doubletalk about being an NRA member and being in support of constitutional carry, then saying we came up with a different conclusion?

Governor = Republican, supports ACT 35 as passed
AG = Republican, NRA Member, would have been in favor if Constitutional Carry, but somehow does NOT support ACT 35 as passed.


NRA loves selling training, right?
 

professor gun

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
178
Location
, ,
I wonder how many Doyle appointees still are present in DOJ and if this crap isn't due to a lot of Doyle administration appointees still hanging around?
 
Top