• 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 rulemaking announcement

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
DOJ today announced another CC rulemaking. See it at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code/register/reg669a.pdf

The rule is going to define "firearms safety or training course," national orstate organization, etc.

Looks like some peeps round here owe some other peeps some cheezburgers.

Of course they are going to define terms. Not a big deal. You can not assume that the definition will be in any way exclusive or restrictive until it is actually published.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
DOJ is required to make administrative rules in order to comply with the concealed carry law. So this ought to be no surprise to anyone. I'm not anticipating any surprises when they finish the rules.

They're making "emergency rules" because they don't have time to follow permanent rule-making procedures and have them in effect by November 1. But permanent rules will be made ASAP and those require a public hearing. If there's anything you don't like in the rules, that will be your time to have your say. I've been at rule-making hearings in the past and sometimes you have a full room and at other times you have an empty room.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Of course they are going to define terms. Not a big deal. You can not assume that the definition will be in any way exclusive or restrictive until it is actually published.

You absolutely can assume it will exclude or restrict some training and groups. Why else would DOJ bother? To cut out sham organizations offering BS training, DOJ will establish reasonable definitions that 1) exclude organizations that don't have statewide or national footprints; and 2) don't require instructors the group certifies to meet certain minimal requirements.

What will be interesting to me is whether DOJ looks at the DNR hunter safety courses as the minimum it should require, or the maximum:

  • DNR has an internet option; doesn't that mean MD's online training should count?
  • DNR's course is a minimum of 10 hours; will DOJ set a standard?
  • DNR requires testing; will DOJ?
  • DNR requires instructors to pass background checks, apprentice teach at least two classes, and then teach at least one class a year; will DOJ require instructors certified by groups to meet similar standards?

Not advocating one way or the other, just wondering.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
They're making "emergency rules" because they don't have time to follow permanent rule-making procedures and have them in effect by November 1. But permanent rules will be made ASAP and those require a public hearing. If there's anything you don't like in the rules, that will be your time to have your say. I've been at rule-making hearings in the past and sometimes you have a full room and at other times you have an empty room.

^^^THIS IS IMPORTANT! And the good news is you don't have to attend a hearing to comment. When the draft permanent rule is published, DOJ will announce hearing(s) and also how you can submit written comments. Written comments have the same weight as those made in person at the hearing. Usually, there's a 30-day window for sending in comments.
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
You absolutely can assume it will exclude or restrict some training and groups. Why else would DOJ bother? To cut out sham organizations offering BS training, DOJ will establish reasonable definitions that 1) exclude organizations that don't have statewide or national footprints; and 2) don't require instructors the group certifies to meet certain minimal requirements.

What will be interesting to me is whether DOJ looks at the DNR hunter safety courses as the minimum it should require, or the maximum:

  • DNR has an internet option; doesn't that mean MD's online training should count? MD's course should count as it is a safety course proctored by instructors
  • DNR's course is a minimum of 10 hours; will DOJ set a standard? NRA Basic is only 8 hours, DOJ still has to accept it. UT's class is minimum 4 hours, DOJ still has to accept it as well.
  • DNR requires testing; will DOJ? Testing of applicants? They can't..it's not provided for in the statute.
  • DNR requires instructors to pass background checks, apprentice teach at least two classes, and then teach at least one class a year; will DOJ require instructors certified by groups to meet similar standards? DOJ can't determine certification standards for other groups.

Not advocating one way or the other, just wondering.


My thoughts in red above
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I will reserve judgement on their decision until they publish it. Why get your undies in a bundle over what you don't know and can't know until they tell us?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
[*]DNR's course is a minimum of 10 hours; will DOJ set a standard?

Well if they do, there would be no basis for using the Hunter Education program as the standard. The 10 hours of the DNR course includes a lot of irrelevant (to concealed carry) time covering game identification, field dressing, wildlife management and so on.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
It is difficult for me to comprehend that through the rule making process the DoJ can establish acceptable training requirements more rigid than the minimum required by statute 175.60. Now that the DNR has online test out certification in process it would be difficult for the DoJ to discredit the MD course. However, as demonstrated by the open meeting video taping incident, anything can happen in the political circus of Wisconsin. Shotgun is correct. When the official rules come up for public review we must be ready to boogie.

My opinion
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
The DNR E-course includes a "field" day where you must bring your test and physically perform tasks.
I have it on good authority that the DOJ will require some amount of face-to-face training in order to qualify so anyone planning to take on-line only training will have to change their plans.
Regarding trainers not called out by name in Act 35, the DOJ will require reference to Admin Code on the certificate which has not been written yet. This means that no certificate anyone is currently issuing will be accepted. A Hunter safety certificate will be accepted in its current and past forms. The DNR is not expected to change anything. I am certain that MD has no plans to issue a special certificate just for WI in order to comply with this even if their on-line training were to be accepted (which it will not)
We can expect a minimum number of hours (4-ish is a reasonable guess) and that the organization must have a paper trail to show that it has certified its instructors. The instructors will need to have undergone formal training AND demonstrated themselves.
 
Last edited:

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
The DNR E-course includes a "field" day where you must bring your test and physically perform tasks.
I have it on good authority that the DOJ will require some amount of face-to-face training in order to qualify so anyone planning to take on-line only training will have to change their plans.
Regarding trainers not called out by name in Act 35, the DOJ will require reference to Admin Code on the certificate which has not been written yet. This means that no certificate anyone is currently issuing will be accepted. A Hunter safety certificate will be accepted in its current and past forms. The DNR is not expected to change anything. I am certain that MD has no plans to issue a special certificate just for WI in order to comply with this even if their on-line training were to be accepted (which it will not)
We can expect a minimum number of hours (4-ish is a reasonable guess) and that the organization must have a paper trail to show that it has certified its instructors. The instructors will need to have undergone formal training AND demonstrated themselves.


I can't see the NRA changing their certificates to be state specific either....but those classes still must be accepted.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I can't see the NRA changing their certificates to be state specific either....but those classes still must be accepted.

The NRA certificate is not called out specifically in Act 35 so there is no "must" for a current NRA certificate.
I can definitely see a NRA instructor having to change their certificate. The NRA is not different than AACFI or RWVA, etc when it comes to proof of training.
 
Last edited:

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
This just in...

the DOJ is not setting training curriculum for AACFI. AACFI is free to continue to teach our current curriculum & it WILL be accepted by the Wisc DOJ. Online courses will NOT be accepted as formal training. This is directly from someone high up in AACFI who is in Contact with the Wisc DOJ. A letter of all accepted training organization will be released by the DOJ in early October.
 

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
The NRA certificate is not called out specifically in Act 35 so there is no "must" for a current NRA certificate.
I can definitely see a NRA instructor having to change their certificate. The NRA is not different than AACFI or RWVA, etc when it comes to proof of training.

I can't see ANY national training organization "Bowing Down" to the whims of the WI DOJ.

There are 48 other states that issue CC permits, do you suppose EVERY training group customizes their certificates for each state ?
 

Da Po-lock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
131
Location
Green Bay, WI
the DOJ is not setting training curriculum for AACFI. AACFI is free to continue to teach our current curriculum & it WILL be accepted by the Wisc DOJ. Online courses will NOT be accepted as formal training. This is directly from someone high up in AACFI who is in Contact with the Wisc DOJ. A letter of all accepted training organization will be released by the DOJ in early October.

So neither MD or WI online Hunters Ed training will be accepted then.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I can't see ANY national training organization "Bowing Down" to the whims of the WI DOJ.

There are 48 other states that issue CC permits, do you suppose EVERY training group customizes their certificates for each state ?

According to Act 35 all you need is a copy of a past or current permit issued by another State. You do not have to use "just" the training so the actual training certificate is irrelevant. No other State issues training certificates "for" Wisconsin.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
I have it on good authority...

Which means absolutely nothing without any proof.

Regarding trainers not called out by name in Act 35, the DOJ will require reference to Admin Code on the certificate which has not been written yet. This means that no certificate anyone is currently issuing will be accepted.

Better call Veteran's Affairs so everyone can go through basic again. Just to get the proper "admin code" on their discharge papers.

You do not have to use "just" the training so the actual training certificate is irrelevant. No other State issues training certificates "for" Wisconsin.

Except for your buddy and the AARP actual WI training... Right?
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Which means absolutely nothing without any proof. .
The proof is in the pudding... When the DOJ releases its Admin Code, compare it to my statements.



Better call Veteran's Affairs so everyone can go through basic again. Just to get the proper "admin code" on their discharge papers.

That's just silly. The "code" is already there. It is called an Honorable Discharge..... If you are a veteran or know one, simply look at the DD214 to set your mind at ease..

(4) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The proof of training
requirement under sub. (7) (e) may be met by any of
the following:
4. Documentation of completion of small arms training
while serving in the U.S. armed forces, reserves, or
national guard as demonstrated by an honorable discharge
or general discharge under honorable conditions
or a certificate of completion of basic training with a service
record of successful completion of small arms training
and certification.
 
Last edited:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
WI Hunter Safety does not have an online only program. It does not exist. It differs from the MD training in this aspect. You MUST still attend face to face training at a field day in order to receive your WI Hunter Safety Certificate.

So even though the law says hunter safety training will be good enough for a permit every single person who has hunter safety will have to do it again because they do not have the proper code on their certificate?
 
Top