Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: WBAY Channel 2 Green Bay reports Walker has DOJ rules

  1. #1
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131

    WBAY Channel 2 Green Bay reports Walker has DOJ rules

    Report says Walker received the rules on Fri. 10/7 and has until 10/21 to either accept or reject them.
    Any one of you lily livered, flea bitten, bow legged varmints care to slap leather with me?

    A.S.N.F.
    A Son NEVER Forgets

  2. #2
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    He had better send them back if they have not adhered to the letter of Act 35.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Da Po-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    131
    Damn straight

    He got the training he wanted

    Now stick to the letter of the law
    Any one of you lily livered, flea bitten, bow legged varmints care to slap leather with me?

    A.S.N.F.
    A Son NEVER Forgets

  4. #4
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Come on guy. Don't be like that. We should be grateful we have all those lawyers looking out for our best interests. After all, they spent months and months figuring out how they might bypass the law that is act 35.

    It's for your own good.


    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The governor has no role in the rule-making process.

    How is an administrative rule promulgated?
    A rule is created, amended, or repealed through what's known as a "promulgation process." Rule promulgations generally take at least about 6 months from start to finish, and may take much longer. The purpose of the promulgation process is to ensure that the public and the legislature have an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and that all perspectives are considered in the development of a final regulation. Rule promulgations may be for either permanent or emergency rules.

    Each permanent rule promulgation process begins with the agency's issuance of a "Statement of Scope," which is the agency's public notice that it intends to begin the development of a permanent rule. The agency may submit an initial proposed rulemaking order to the Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse no sooner than 10 days after the Statement of Scope is published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register. The Clearinghouse generally submits comments on the initial proposed rule within the following 30 days. Subsequently, the agency usually schedules one or more public hearings on the initial proposed rule. Following the hearings, the agency may modify the rulemaking order based on the Clearinghouse and public comments. Once it does, the agency submits the final proposed rulemaking order to the presiding officers of the Senate and Assembly for legislative review. The presiding officers assign the rule to a standing committee that has 30 calendar days to review and comment on the rule. Once the legislative standing committee's jurisdiction ends, the agency is free to file the rule with the Secretary of State. Normally, the rule will take effect about 45-75 days later.

    If the agency determines that it must take action immediately, it issues an emergency rule. Emergency rules are effective for 150 days and, with the legislature's approval, may be extended up to an additional 120 days. Usually, an agency will promulgate an emergency rule and, at the same time, begin to promulgate a permanent rule.

    https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/FAQ#

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I better clarify my previous post. The governor does have an approval role concerning an administrative rule but only as the top dog of the Executive branch, of which the DoJ is an agency. That is different than his veto authority concerning statutes. Apparently the only role Walker has is approval of submission of the rule or to send it back to the DoJ for rework. Looks to me there could be a turf war looming. Under the emergency rule making authority legislative approval of an emergency rule isn't required for 150 days. The argument then is how much authority do the specific instructions the legislature gave to the DoJ in Act 35 have over the emergency rule making authority.

  7. #7
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Can these 'rules' go beyond the scope of the law or create situations NOT found in the actual law? Can a law suit be filed IF that were to happen? And what would happen if an individual were in violation of the rules, but still in compliance with the law?

  8. #8
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    Can these 'rules' go beyond the scope of the law or create situations NOT found in the actual law? Can a law suit be filed IF that were to happen? And what would happen if an individual were in violation of the rules, but still in compliance with the law?
    Seems quite analogous to state firearms ordinance preemption. Wink, wink, nod to a blind eye.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Appears the Madison based DOJ staff have decided to restrict constitutional rights of Wisconsin citizens, much to the glee of the WAVE gouls. The ghouls are making fun of JB on their Facebook page. JB better start cleaning house at DOJ and get control of the worker bees. Seems he doesn't realize that most of the staff there have been working for a Democrat Attorney General for nearly all their careers.
    Last edited by Flipper; 10-10-2011 at 11:49 AM.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    It will be as important to show up and testify at any public hearing on the rule as it was for the initial law passage. The rule is the actual implementation of the law, and "under the radar" changes (likely to restrict our rights) will be attempted by future Attorney Generals.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    GlockRDH:
    The rule making process is controlled and managed under ch227 of state statutes. Below is the statute that bestows rule making authority permanently (until removed by the legislature) to the DNR. Carte Blanche rule making authority is rare but the DNR is one agency that has it. The DNR rules can be found under category DR in the Administrative Rules library. The next two quoates are from ch227 of the state stautes. They are pertinent to my post. The question I am pondering is, under ch.227, how much leniency does the DoJ have in regards to the specific instuction the legislature gave it in Act 35, where the legislature granted the DoJ emergency rule making authority in regards to training.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DNR example

    29.014 Rule−making for this chapter. (1) The department
    shall establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish
    and game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions
    governing the taking of fish and game that will conserve the fish
    and game supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued
    opportunities for good fishing, hunting and trapping.
    (2) (b) All of the rules promulgated under this chapter are
    prima facie reasonable and lawful until found to be otherwise in
    a final determination by a court.
    (c) Any reference to this chapter includes any rules promulgated
    under this chapter and any reference to any provision of this
    chapter includes any rules promulgated under that provision.
    (3) Any rule of the department is subject to review in the manner
    provided in ch. 227, except that if the rule affects only the
    county in which the appellant resides, the appeal shall be to the circuit
    court of that county.
    (4) No person may challenge the validity of a rule promulgated
    under this chapter in any prosecution of that person for a
    violation of this chapter or rules promulgated under this chapter
    unless the person has previously brought a separate action under
    s. 227.40 seeking a declaratory judgment on the validity of the
    rule.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------



    Statutes pertinent to Act 35 rule makig

    175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.

    (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). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under
    this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub.
    (2m).
    (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.



    227.24 Emergency rules; exemptions. (1) PROMULGATION.
    (a) An agency may promulgate a rule as an emergency rule
    without complying with the notice, hearing and publication
    requirements under this chapter if preservation of the public
    peace, health, safety or welfare necessitates putting the rule into
    effect prior to the time it would take effect if the agency complied
    with the procedures.
    (b) An agency acting under s. 186.235 (21), 215.02 (18) or
    220.04 (8) may promulgate a rule without complying with the
    notice, hearing and publication procedures under this chapter.
    (c) A rule promulgated under par. (a) takes effect upon publication
    in the official state newspaper or on any later date specified
    in the rule and, except as provided under sub. (2), remains in effect
    only for 150 days.

    227.185 Approval by governor. After a proposed rule is in
    final draft form, the agency shall submit the proposed rule to the
    governor for approval. The governor, in his or her discretion, may
    approve or reject the proposed rule. If the governor approves a
    proposed rule, the governor shall provide the agency with a written
    notice of that approval. No proposed rule may be submitted
    to the legislature for review under s. 227.19 (2) unless the governor
    has approved the proposed rule in writing.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 10-10-2011 at 05:06 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I better clarify my previous post. The governor does have an approval role concerning an administrative rule but only as the top dog of the Executive branch, of which the DoJ is an agency. That is different than his veto authority concerning statutes. Apparently the only role Walker has is approval of submission of the rule or to send it back to the DoJ for rework. Looks to me there could be a turf war looming. Under the emergency rule making authority legislative approval of an emergency rule isn't required for 150 days. The argument then is how much authority do the specific instructions the legislature gave to the DoJ in Act 35 have over the emergency rule making authority.
    The Governor does infact have to approve EMERGENCY RULES. That change went into effect with the contraversial Act 10.

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    GlockRDH:
    The rule making process is controlled and managed under ch227 of state statutes. Below is the statute that bestows rule making authority permanently (until removed by the legislature) to the DNR. Carte Blanche rule making authority is rare but the DNR is one agency that has it. The DNR rules can be found under category DR in the Administrative Rules library. The next two quoates are from ch227 of the state stautes. They are pertinent to my post. The question I am pondering is, under ch.227, how much leniency does the DoJ have in regards to the specific instuction the legislature gave it in Act 35, where the legislature granted the DoJ emergency rule making authority in regards to training.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DNR example

    29.014 Rule−making for this chapter. (1) The department
    shall establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish
    and game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions
    governing the taking of fish and game that will conserve the fish
    and game supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued
    opportunities for good fishing, hunting and trapping.
    (2) (b) All of the rules promulgated under this chapter are
    prima facie reasonable and lawful until found to be otherwise in
    a final determination by a court.
    (c) Any reference to this chapter includes any rules promulgated
    under this chapter and any reference to any provision of this
    chapter includes any rules promulgated under that provision.
    (3) Any rule of the department is subject to review in the manner
    provided in ch. 227, except that if the rule affects only the
    county in which the appellant resides, the appeal shall be to the circuit
    court of that county.
    (4) No person may challenge the validity of a rule promulgated
    under this chapter in any prosecution of that person for a
    violation of this chapter or rules promulgated under this chapter
    unless the person has previously brought a separate action under
    s. 227.40 seeking a declaratory judgment on the validity of the
    rule.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------



    Statutes pertinent to Act 35 rule makig

    175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.

    (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). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under
    this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub.
    (2m).
    (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.



    227.24 Emergency rules; exemptions. (1) PROMULGATION.
    (a) An agency may promulgate a rule as an emergency rule
    without complying with the notice, hearing and publication
    requirements under this chapter if preservation of the public
    peace, health, safety or welfare necessitates putting the rule into
    effect prior to the time it would take effect if the agency complied
    with the procedures.
    (b) An agency acting under s. 186.235 (21), 215.02 (18) or
    220.04 (8) may promulgate a rule without complying with the
    notice, hearing and publication procedures under this chapter.
    (c) A rule promulgated under par. (a) takes effect upon publication
    in the official state newspaper or on any later date specified
    in the rule and, except as provided under sub. (2), remains in effect
    only for 150 days.

    227.185 Approval by governor. After a proposed rule is in
    final draft form, the agency shall submit the proposed rule to the
    governor for approval. The governor, in his or her discretion, may
    approve or reject the proposed rule. If the governor approves a
    proposed rule, the governor shall provide the agency with a written
    notice of that approval. No proposed rule may be submitted
    to the legislature for review under s. 227.19 (2) unless the governor
    has approved the proposed rule in writing.
    .

  14. #14
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    This is still a "wait and see" type situation I think.

    In my eyes Walker has a chance to redeem himself a little bit here. So far, my plan of "vote for Walker to get gun rights better recognized" plan is not working. It is my hope I won't have to join the "inside-the-Beltline" liberals in ousting his well-polished behind over it. I'd prefer not to have to, but as a single-issue voter November 1st date of having the concealed carry permits all set up and the November 15th start of the recall... it's going to be on my mind.
    "I can only be held responsible for my own stupidity." - Captain Nemo

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Wi
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by RR_Broccoli View Post
    This is still a "wait and see" type situation I think.

    In my eyes Walker has a chance to redeem himself a little bit here. So far, my plan of "vote for Walker to get gun rights better recognized" plan is not working. It is my hope I won't have to join the "inside-the-Beltline" liberals in ousting his well-polished behind over it. I'd prefer not to have to, but as a single-issue voter November 1st date of having the concealed carry permits all set up and the November 15th start of the recall... it's going to be on my mind.
    So you would vote with the people that have held us back for all of these years? I understand that he has not always been there for us but at least I do not think that he worked against us as much as our previous gov.IMO

  16. #16
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Spare me.

    Hold them ALL accountable for their lies. Time to grow a pair people. They work for us.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •