More accurately, the legislators reconfirmed what the law says...
the law they discussed & voted on how many months ago?
If they meant to have a required # of hours of training, it would be in the law!
Um, hello? He admits that the Legislature didn't specify an amount of training.Van Hollen testified Monday in support of the rule, saying it was necessary since the Legislature had said only that training was required but didn't say how much. He said four hours was the industry standard and not having a minimum requirement would make it impossible for the DOJ to verify that applicants had completed any training.
And verification of training is easy: look for the copy of the certificate the applicant includes.
Again, look at the course completion certificate.The committee also removed a requirement that applicants have a signed statement from the instructor verifying that the course had been successfully completed.
Amen!Republican Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, a sponsor of the bill, spoke in support of suspending the training requirement saying the Legislature's intent was to leave it up to applicants to determine how many hours of training they needed.
...The DOJ did not have the authority to specify a minimum number of hours, he said.
Because there have been so many problems in, say, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alaska, etc...?Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison: "I don't know why on earth this committee would want to jeopardize public health and public safety by doing this."
(Places that don't require training.)
How about all the residents of Wisconsin who have lobbied & worked for this?The Republican-controlled Legislature passed Wisconsin's concealed carry law in July after years of lobbying from the NRA.
Wonder how many of those were rejected for lack of proper training, & will now be accepted?As of Monday afternoon, 1,669 licenses to carry concealed weapons had been approved and 339 had been rejected