• 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.

Senator Galloway's response to DOJ's minimum requirements

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
From time to time I get e mail updates from other senators and reps who are not in my district. Senator Pam Galloway has responded to the NRA concern regarding the DOJ's interpretation of the CC requirement for training.



Senator Galloway Statement on Attorney General's Remarks on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules

Madison---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."
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Senator Galloway has my note of appreciation.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Ok, I am starting to get a real bad feeling about all this DOJ doing what it wants as compared to following the law....

The HONORABLE Ms. Galloway said....

Snip...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.....

If the "Author Of The Legislation" has "Reached Out Repeatedly" to share her own concerns, and YESTERDAY, Van Hollen (lack of respect by not using Mr. or his title intended), was still spewing his own rethoric (NBA should be thankfull)... Then WOW.... What next... I wonder how Mr. Walker feels about this and if he has the testicle fortitude to step in and "to do the right thing and follow the statutes and language that lawmakers clearly laid out in this legislation" as in The HONORABLE Ms. Galloway's words... But I suppose Mr. Walker has the re-call to think about so he can be bothered with following the letter of the law HE signed....

I am now wondering what kinda of delay this will have in making the applications available on Nov. 1.

I was real happy when I read the NRA letter to Van Hollen thinking that maybe he would listen to them being what they are... but I was foolishly mistaken on that hope and now if he will not even listen to the HONORABLE Ms. Galloway... :mad: :mad: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Did I mention that I think Pam Galloway is HONORABLE and above reproach....

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Remember separation of powers.

Remember separation of powers. A department belongs to the executive branch. The legislative branch can only address the executive through legislation. Legislation must be written with enforceable language and language that the judiciary must understand.
 

Outdoorsman1

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

Thanks for the link... e-mail sent....

So what are your thoughts on what (if anything) could Mr. Scott Walker do about all this crap....?????????

Outdoorsman1
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Paul...

Thanks for the link... e-mail sent....

So what are your thoughts on what (if anything) could Mr. Scott Walker do about all this crap....?????????

Outdoorsman1

Well, from what I understand, he can 'veto' (not correct term) certain rules, approve them or send them all back.

I emailed him as well.
 

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
Well done Sen. Galloway...

I just got done calling the following to nag about this whole DOJ rule making thing and STRONGLY express my opinion:

Walker
Kleefish
Scott Fitzgerald
Galloway
Mursa
Van Hollen / DOJ
Klenke
Hansen

Had to talk to aids or whatever cuz NONE were available to talk to me.
Nobody knows anything or weren't taking calls

What a crock........
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
Senator Galloway Statement on Attorney General's Remarks on Proposed Concealed Carry Rules

I don't even live in WI...but Ill be more than happy to donate to her reelection fund. :)

Ok, I am starting to get a real bad feeling about all this DOJ doing what it wants as compared to following the law....


This is what I've been saying....as soon as DOJ started creating terms of training...:rolleyes:
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That Pam chick is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo funny!

She obviously has not met our esteemed fellow members. Members in the know and with secret associations (that will not be named) in the DOJ office!

The very members who quite clearly post how the DOJ's actions have been perfectly acceptable.

What did that lawyer guy/member say again about how we need to show him more respect when he was pimping his rumors here a few weeks ago? Guess he was right and this Pam chick must have hit her head on something.




{and..... que Intercepter Knight- " this DOJ rule does not violate blah blah blah blah... "}

:p





p.s. Pam for president! :cool:
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That Pam chick is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo funny!

She obviously has not met our esteemed fellow members. Members in the know and with secret associations (that will not be named) in the DOJ office!

The very members who quite clearly post how the DOJ's actions have been perfectly acceptable.

What did that lawyer guy/member say again about how we need to show him more respect when he was pimping his rumors here a few weeks ago? Guess he was right and this Pam chick must have hit her head on something.




{and..... que Intercepter Knight- " this DOJ rule does not violate blah blah blah blah... "}

:p





p.s. Pam for president! :cool:
No doubt about it, she Rocks!
The problem is that her intent is irrelevant when it comes to this obscene compromise which was passed. Those who penned it hastily butchered the bills from which it was spawned and like some horrible monster created by Dr Frankenstein, it will be stumbling around bumping into walls until some Representatives with balls are willing to fix it. Act 35 violates my sense of decency and is a bitter pill to swallow because I know it is a cobbled together mess although it is better than the PPAs which preceded it and were vetoed by Doyle. This is little consolation since we are stuck with it for an undetermined amount of time.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
No doubt about it, she Rocks!
The problem is that her intent is irrelevant when it comes to this obscene compromise which was passed. Those who penned it hastily butchered the bills from which it was spawned and like some horrible monster created by Dr Frankenstein, it will be stumbling around bumping into walls until some Representatives with balls are willing to fix it. Act 35 violates my sense of decency and is a bitter pill to swallow because I know it is a cobbled together mess although it is better than the PPAs which preceded it and were vetoed by Doyle. This is little consolation since we are stuck with it for an undetermined amount of time.

Very well said !
 

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
Hamlet its funny that you mention the know it all lawyer dude cuz today on my 3 hr calling rampage I talked to a real nice lady at the DOJ who asked me what my concerns were and we discussed them for a while.

I also mentioned the supposed lawyer here who was spouting off all of his inside information.
She got real interested then. I told her it was my opinion just internet trash talk but I did say that if in fact it turns out to really be true then I have a problem with their security and confidentiality policies. She wanted to know the web site and I told her.

Soooooo....... Who knows what might happen.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Hamlet its funny that you mention the know it all lawyer dude cuz today on my 3 hr calling rampage I talked to a real nice lady at the DOJ who asked me what my concerns were and we discussed them for a while.

I also mentioned the supposed lawyer here who was spouting off all of his inside information......
Way to "shoot" the messenger...
WTF would you attempt to "out" someone who is doing you a favor by trying to give you the heads-up about what is coming? :banghead:
 
Last edited:

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Way to "shoot" the messenger...
WTF would you attempt to "out" someone who is doing you a favor by trying to give you the heads-up about what is coming? :banghead:

^^^ This. What happens in OCDO, stays in OCDO.

The guy wasn't trying to hurt you by passing along info in which many of us were interested.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
snip
I also mentioned the supposed lawyer here who was spouting off all of his inside information.
She got real interested then. I told her it was my opinion just internet trash talk but I did say that if in fact it turns out to really be true then I have a problem with their security and confidentiality policies. She wanted to know the web site and I told her.

Soooooo....... Who knows what might happen.

I have a problem with their security and confidentiality policies too: I don't like the fact that they're drafting rules that will have the force of law in secret.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Ok, I am starting to get a real bad feeling about all this DOJ doing what it wants as compared to following the law....

Outdoorsman1

You are late to the party, but better late than never. Some here still don't get it, or are in bed with the forces behind it.
 
Top