• 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.

DOJ Concealed Carry rules out

Outdoorsman1

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

Page 18 /187 - 193 (h)... A copy of a current or expired license held by the applicant indicating that the applicant is or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, in another state, or in a county or municipality of this state or of another state, provided that the current or expired license has not been revoked for cause. The copy of the current or expired license must be accompanied by the applicant’s signed affirmation that the current or expired license has not been revoked for cause. This affirmation shall be submitted on an affirmation form that shall be prepared by the department and made available to the public on the department’s Internet site.

It looks like the Utah Permit will be good to use
IF... "The copy of the current or expired license must be accompanied by the applicant’s signed affirmation that the current or expired license has not been revoked for cause. This affirmation shall be submitted on an affirmation form that shall be prepared by the department and made available to the public on the department’s Internet site"...

So now I need to get the application form AND an AFFIRMANTION FORM available on the DOJ Website...

Also looking at time frames involved maybe the Nov. 1 meet at the DOJ office could turn from a "Hand In Application" event to a "Protest The DOJ's Emergency Rules" event... To be clear... If the applications are not going to be available on Nov. 1, as I have the means for only 1 trip in the near future, I will postpone my trip until the applications do become available...

Just sayin....

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
Could not complying with the Nov 1 deadline result in a lawsuit also?

Snip...

FINDING OF EMERGENCY RULES

Under section 101 of 2011 Wis. Act 35, most of the provisions of that Act including the provisions governing the licensing and certification processes covered by the rules proposed here and the provisions authorizing the carrying of a concealed weapon by the holder of a license, an out-of-state license, or a certification card will have an effective date of November 1, 2011. In particular, s. 175.60(9), Stats., will require DOJ to begin receiving and processing license applications and issuing or denying licenses as soon as that provision takes effect onNovember 1, 2011.

The Legislature has thus determined that the public welfare requires the licensing system to take effect on November 1, 2011. DOJ cannot comply with the requirements of s. 175.60(9), Stats., and related statutory requirements until it has in effect administrative rules establishing the procedures and standards that will govern DOJ’s enforcement and administration of those requirements. It follows that, in order for DOJ to meet its statutory duties that take effect on November 1, 2011, it must complete the promulgation of such administrative rules prior to that date. Under the non-emergency rulemaking procedures of ch. 227, Stats., before the proposed rules could be promulgated, numerous notice, hearing, and publication requirements would have to be fulfilled including, but not limited to a public hearing on the proposed rules, preparation of a detailed report including a summary of public comments and DOJ’s responses to those comments, and legislative review of the proposed rules. DOJ has determined that it is impossible for all of the required steps in that non-emergency rulemaking process to be completed by November 1, 2011. Only if DOJ utilizes the emergency rulemaking procedures of 24s. 227.24, Stats., can the requisite rules be promulgated and in effect in time for DOJ to meet its statutory duties that take effect on November 1, 2011. The public welfare thus necessitates that the proposed rules be promulgated as emergency rules under s. 227.24, Stats. [/COLOR]Once the proposed emergency rules have been promulgated, DOJ will promptly follow up with the promulgation of a permanent version of the rules under the full rulemaking

So they are doing this for the public welfare....????

WTF....??????????????????

Outdoorsman1
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

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



WTF....??????????????????

Outdoorsman1

He who sleeps outdoors,

That section is only justification to use the emergency rule process. The standard wule making process takes many months, at least 6 and they had to do it in 4.

This just shows how screwed up the red tape is in government.
 

markush

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
172
Location
Kenosha
Just my uneducated plea asking the Govener to stop this madness that is the DOJ!

Dear Governor Walker,

concerning the Concealed Carry training requirements that the DOJ is attempting to impose... I implore you to not allow the DOJ to impose the training requirements of 4 hours! Also the requirement of additional information listed on certificates is preposterous! I had chose, on my own doing, to take a two day Firearms Arm Safety training course from a NRA and WI state licensed trainer over 3 years ago. While my certificate states that it took place over 2 days it does not have the specific number of hours listed, and apparently would not be sufficient to pass the requirements that the DOJ is trying to implement. I can no longer locate this trainer to make changes on the certificate so as to comply with the new proposed rules! I have no other training or certificates that would be sufficient to meet the requirements needed to obtain a Concealed Carry license, and in seeking out and paying for said training at this time would incur a great hardship on my family and myself!

I think it is clear that the intent of ACT35 as written is meant to allow the common citizens of Wisconsin a means of self defense of them self and their families. Amendments to SB35 ACT35 requiring training of a certain length of time were shot down! The fact that the DOJ is trying to do an end run around the law as intended is ludicrous! So again, Please do not let the DOJ get away with imposing it's own requirements on the amount of training and that said information be on certificates. Certificates that in my case, and I am sure a great many others, were issued years in the past and are unable to be updated with any additional information!



Thank you for your time and in doing the right thing for the citizens of Wisconsin!
 
Last edited:

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
training is being defined for those who need to take training to comply with the law, correct? the submission of a DD214 showing small arms training should still satisfy the requirement to apply and obtain a permit?!?!?

or do these new "rules" void the submission of a DD214?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
training is being defined for those who need to take training to comply with the law, correct? the submission of a DD214 showing small arms training should still satisfy the requirement to apply and obtain a permit?!?!?

or do these new "rules" void the submission of a DD214?

The DD214 is still there. The DD214 has to show honorable or general discharge under honorable conditions. The DD214 does not and never had to say anything about small arms training.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Honorable Discharge as satisfying the JUS 17 Rules

143SECTION 6. Jus 17.05 is created to read:
144Jus 17.05 Training and documentation requirements.
145(1) The following forms of documentation shall be accepted by the department as 146adequate proof of training sufficient to satisfy the training requirements of s. 175.60(4)(a), Stats., 147and of this section:

194(i) A copy of a DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
195Duty,” issued by the United States Department of Defense, showing that the applicant has
196received an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions from the
197United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard after completion of basic training

or a 198certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small 199 arms training and certification.
 
Last edited:

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
The emergency rules have a way to go to become final but as they stand at this time the requirements listed under JUS17.05(2) do not apply to the Hunter's education certificate, DD-214 or a current or expired license from another state. They apply to paragraphs b,c,d,e,f,g of JUS17.05(1). Reference lines 200 through 203.
 

apierce918

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
276
Location
Appleton, WI
Imo the only thing these rules will accomplish is push people away from good training that they planned on taking towards hunter safety with less red tape.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
And Now Comes the Yellow Cat - After Being Paged

Greeting to my Students,

I anticipated a development such as this and have a solution. It has some drawbacks however as not everyone who has taken my UT CFP course signed in on the sign in document. Ethically, I can only provide this solution to those students who did actually sign up online or signed in on my sign-in roster. If you took my UT CFP Course and did not sign in, and did not send in your application, a scan or photocopy of your application with my signature and Official State of Utah Seal will serve as proof of taking the class and I will issue the supplemental Cert.

For those of you who took my advice and did actually apply for your UT CFP, the UT CFP is adequate proof of training under WI Act 35. For those of you who didn't - get off your duffs and do it NOW. If the application arrives at UT BCI before November 1, 2011, UT will issue a CFP. If it arrives after November 1, 2011, UT will require a WI permit, if and only if, WI recognizes the UT Permit (something that almost certainly going to happen).

My solution is this:

For those who took the UT CFP Course but have not sent it to UT yet, I can create a supplemental Certificate that, together with your signed UT Application, complies with the WI DOJ Emergency Rule. If you signed into my UT CFP Course I can create a Certificate with my Official State of Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor Seal as letterhead. I can then write a statement to the effect that (as an example = Paul Fisher) took my Concealed Firearm Permit Course on September 6, 2011 (or actual date of the course if you took an earlier one), that the course was conducted in-person and involved total participant involvement including an opportunity for all students to ask questions, that the course taught safe firearm loading and unloading including hands on demonstration and that the firearms familiarity and safety portion of the course was based on the NRA Basic Pistol Course Slides, and that the course lasted a minimum of 4 hours. The Cert would include the date and times of the training and would be signed by me with my State of Utah Instructor Permit Number. Your UT application would be a back-up document (important because it has my official State of Utah Seal).

For those who took any NRA Course from me, I can create a "Companion Certificate" using the Official NRA Instructor Seal as letterhead on a Cert that states the date and times of the course, that the course content was the NRA Basic Pistol Course, that this course is a firearms safety course, that the course involved total participant involvement and an opportunity for all students to ask any questions, and that it lasted approximately 8 hours and included live fire range time that resulted in the student earning the NRA-Winchester Basic Marksmanship Practical Rocker (as all my students did indeed qualify for this award). - For those of you who attended the NRA Course on 9-6-11, MKEGAL can also do this for you as she was shown on my report to NRA as an assistant instructor. (NRA has a record of all who take courses from me, including the UT CFP, but only if you signed in.)

To get these supplemental Certs, you must PM me (or email me if you know my email). Include your name, address, date that you took my course, and tell me that you signed in - I will be checking the sign in sheets.

Try to be patient with the WI DOJ. Concealed Carry in WI is so very new to an otherwise very liberal State. And, try to keep in mind that the requirement for 4 hours may not be so much an attempt to limit your freedoms as it might be an attempt to get the WI permit recognized in as many other States as is possible.(By way of example, the statutory requirement that the UT CFP Course last 4 hours is the key to reciprocity with several States that recognize the UT permit.)

So my friends, keep a cool head, and Carry On - Proudly Carry ON.

Yellow Cat Out
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
What part of the following don't the DoJ, AG and governor understand?

(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.
 

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
What part of the following don't the DoJ, AG and governor understand?

(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.

all of it :cuss:

isn't that clear now that they have ruled from upon high?
 
Top