this is the response I got
Thanks for your email. I respect your opinions and appreciate the fact that you took the time to let us know what you are thinking. I'll explain below why we decided we had to clarify the training requirement in the law. I do this not to be argumentative or to change your mind, but because we want to be open and transparent.
The concealed carry bill was heavily debated and eventually passed by a majority of both houses of the legislature. The language requiring a "firearms safety or training course" was viewed by many as an essential part of the bill and, in the view of some, was necessary to make concealed carry legal. There are certainly some people who voted for the bill who believe that this provision allows any certified trainer to decide what a "firearms safety or training course" means, whether it is a four hour course, a twenty hour course or a fifteen minute course. However, others who voted for the bill understood and intended that the Department of Justice would need to do some rule-making in order to effectively implement the law. As often happens with legislation, the actual language of the bill is such that both sides have a legitimate argument.
When we were faced with the decision of whether to define the term "firearms safety or training course," we carefully considered all of the arguments and concluded that it was our legal duty to do so. It is not a job that we sought or wanted. However, the language of the bill, and the law on rule-making, convinced us that we needed to do so in order to implement the law.
As you are aware, one of the statutory requirements for a concealed carry permit is proof of training which, by statute, means either a hunter safety program or a "firearms safety or training course." We believe the legislature used the term "firearms safety or training course," to mean some type of formal teaching program that was adequate to convey the basic principles of firearm safety. If it had meant to allow permits to people who could pass a test or get a qualified instructor to vouch for their competence, they would not have required a "course."
Our research concluded that the gun community itself recognizes that a minimum of four hours is 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.
It is also significant that the law prohibits the DOJ from requiring live fire as part of a training course. By specifically stating what can't be included, the law specifically contemplates that we would have to define what is required.
Attorney General Van Hollen supports the Second Amendment and supports concealed carry. However, his first job is to set aside his personal views and to follow the law as closely and faithfully as possible.
Again, I thank you for providing your perspective and 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
-----Original Message-----
