MATC WEST SIDE offers DOJ Approved training

Yep I think you nailed it there, Paul.

I was leanin' towards BS' interpretation based on his last example but you won me over when you pointed out how illogical the wording is if they meant it to be read as in your last example.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

OK, let's think about this logically.

Why would they even put in the wording "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." if it was to be interpreted as "the department can if they want to 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."

Doe that even make ANY sense? If that was the case, why not just leave that part out?

Click to expand...

The DOJ concedes that they cannot mandate curriculum for anyone that is not DOJ ceritified.When they say they are currently in the rule-making process and is evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training, I believe that have the authority to do so. The DOJ is full of lawyers.

I implore you read this document again on Adminstrative Rule Making. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf


There is another point that I did not bring up in my last post. Lets look at 175.60(2)(b) again.

175.60 (2)(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.

So what are we talking about here?

The issuance of a license.
The scope of a license.
The effect of a license.
The content of a license.

None of that applies to a copy of a document or affidavit submitted as proof of training in the application process. If it does, tell me how and provide a citation.

BROKENSPROKET said:

No Paul,it does not.

Examples:

I "may not" believe you.

I "'shall not" believe you.

The NOT modifer does not make them mean the same thing. And NO, it doesn't work on a case by case basis.

MAY and SHALL have different Legal meanings irregardless of the modifer.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. While "may" and "shall" have clearly different meanings, "may not" and "shall not" are legally equivalent.

I can't believe this made it to any state's supreme court, but there is a MT SC case that deals with this very issue. Read it all if you like, the important bits start at para 9.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1108634.html

Teej said:

I respectfully disagree. While "may" and "shall" have clearly different meanings, "may not" and "shall not" are legally equivalent.

I can't believe this made it to any state's supreme court, but there is a MT SC case that deals with this very issue. Read it all if you like, the important bits start at para 9.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1108634.html

Click to expand...

I hereby concede.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/may

May v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.

MAY. To be permitted; to be at liberty; to have the power.
2. Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall. For example, the 23 H. VI. says, the sheriff may take bail, that is construed he shall, for he is compellable to do so. Carth. 293 Salk. 609; Skin. 370.
3. The words shall and may in general acts of the legislature or in private constitutions, are to be construed imperatively; 3. Atk. 166; but the construction of those words in a deed depends on circumstances. 3 Atk. 282. See 1 Vern. 152, case. 142 9 Porter, R. 390.