Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: AB 413 and SB 325 rein in DOJ rules

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    AB 413 and SB 325 rein in DOJ rules

    AB 413 and it's companion SB 325 were introduced. They formalize the restrictions on the rules that the JOINT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVERULES did last month.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-325.pdf

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-413.pdf

    I suggest we write our elected officials and ask them to add

    SECTION 5. 175.60 (4) (c) 1., 2. and 3. of the statutes are created to read:
    175.60 (4) (c) 1. Firing live ammunition.
    2. A test of the individual’s comprehension and application of firearms safety
    rules and procedures for safe firearms handling.
    3. A minimum length of the course or program.
    4. Face to face instruction
    I have bolded the part that needs to be added.

    I have sent the following to my elected officials:

    I generally support these bills, however, adding just one more line would improve them immensely.


    The bills currently have this:


    SECTION 5. 175.60 (4) (c) 1., 2. and 3. of the statutes are created to read:
    175.60 (4) (c) 1. Firing live ammunition.
    2. A test of the individual’s comprehension and application of firearms safety
    rules and procedures for safe firearms handling.
    3. A minimum length of the course or program.


    Please add:


    4. Face to face instruction



    Thanks!
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 01-10-2012 at 07:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Just one more thing....

    Don't forget about nullifying the requirement of signing and sending an affirmation that your out of state license was not revoked.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    SB 325 has been reported out of committee and available for consideration by the Senate.

    Please hit up you Senators to make one more tweak.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    SB 325 has been reported out of committee and available for consideration by the Senate.

    Please hit up you Senators to make one more tweak.
    They won't add that, no matter how many of us call or email. When I talked to Sen. Vukmir and Rep. Ott, they indicated that they wanted the DOJ to hinge on proof of training on 'the certification of the trainer'. Not hours or curriculum. The training, whether 20 minutes or 20 hours, has to be with a certified trainer and internet courses will not be allowed.


    They are not going to go any farther than they had already decided to before the JCRAR hearing with the Attorney General.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    How about pushing them to add an amendment allowing us to skip the stupid two day wait. Even better, allow anyone to skip the stupid wait. Compromise position: Person brings another firearm they own to the retailer for proof that the two day wait is stupid and they walk out with their newly purchased firearm.

    Ugh, I have to admit, I've been focused on the national scene too much of late. I'll have to make some calls and set up some email alerts for this stuff...if I can figure it out...lol

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    With our end goal being constitutional carry, why are we wanting to add more and more hoops to jump through?

    I would rather see something like sprocket mentioned, if you have a valid conceal license, forego the waiting period since we have already proven our "worthiness", and already own other firearms.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    With our end goal being constitutional carry, why are we wanting to add more and more hoops to jump through?

    I would rather see something like sprocket mentioned, if you have a valid conceal license, forego the waiting period since we have already proven our "worthiness", and already own other firearms.
    You guys can do what you want. The key is, contact your Senator and tell them what you want. Personally, I want the face to face removed 1st.

  8. #8
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    With our end goal being constitutional carry, why are we wanting to add more and more hoops to jump through?

    I would rather see something like sprocket mentioned, if you have a valid conceal license, forego the waiting period since we have already proven our "worthiness", and already own other firearms.
    I know that eliminating the 2 day wait for CCL holders is on the agenda of a few legislators. I hope to see it introduced soon.

    If it was not for the recount and recalls, we would be farther along. They can't stop the will of the majority, but they can slow us down a little.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    With our end goal being constitutional carry, why are we wanting to add more and more hoops to jump through?

    I would rather see something like sprocket mentioned, if you have a valid conceal license, forego the waiting period since we have already proven our "worthiness", and already own other firearms.
    Sorry, the part about carrying another firearm into a store for proof was a bad joke to highlight how ludicrous this is.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    You guys can do what you want. The key is, contact your Senator and tell them what you want. Personally, I want the face to face removed 1st.
    Paul,

    If the requirement for training to be face to face (currently defined as instructor led training in JUS17-18 rules), is eliminated, it would allow training over the internet or via CD/VHS/book. Since taking a test is not allowed to be a requirement, there would be no way to tell that the trainee, actually watched or observed any of the training.

    Why do you think this is a good idea?

    Are you just opposed to ANY required training as a condition of receiving a Wisconsin CCL?
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    Paul,

    If the requirement for training to be face to face (currently defined as instructor led training in JUS17-18 rules), is eliminated, it would allow training over the internet or via CD/VHS/book. Since taking a test is not allowed to be a requirement, there would be no way to tell that the trainee, actually watched or observed any of the training.

    Why do you think this is a good idea?

    Are you just opposed to ANY required training as a condition of receiving a Wisconsin CCL?
    Yes. Here is my logic:

    1. I can OC without a license so therefore no training.
    2. I can provide as proof of training, a permit from a state (such as PA) with no training requirement.

  12. #12
    Regular Member littlewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    With our end goal being constitutional carry, why are we wanting to add more and more hoops to jump through?

    I would rather see something like sprocket mentioned, if you have a valid conceal license, forego the waiting period since we have already proven our "worthiness", and already own other firearms.
    IT's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Owner Little Wolf Firearms , US ARMY RETIRED 101st Airborne & 84th DIV TRNG Small arms instructor.
    Remember , Gun Control is " USING BOTH HANDS!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    AB 413 and it's companion SB 325 were introduced. They formalize the restrictions on the rules that the JOINT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVERULES did last month.

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SB-325.pdf

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-413.pdf

    I suggest we write our elected officials and ask them to add



    I have bolded the part that needs to be added.

    I have sent the following to my elected officials:
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    You guys can do what you want. The key is, contact your Senator and tell them what you want. Personally, I want the face to face removed 1st.
    paul in post number 1 you say you want it added now in post number 7 you say you want it removed which is it or are you talking about 2 different things which i missed completely
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclotheshoff View Post
    paul in post number 1 you say you want it added now in post number 7 you say you want it removed which is it or are you talking about 2 different things which i missed completely
    Well..... that is the wonderful thing about the law. I want the wording added which removes the requirement.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 01-12-2012 at 10:01 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    gotchya i missed that one completely
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

Posting Permissions

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