phred
Regular Member
I wrote to AG Van Hollen and received this response. Same as anybody else? Take it for what it is worth
Mr. xxxx,
Thank you contacting our office about the Department of Justice’s efforts to implement the concealed carry legislation.
As you may be aware, responsibility for accepting applications, issuing permits, and other matters relating to the new concealed carry legislation, falls primarily on the Department of Justice. From the start we have been working extraordinarily hard to make sure that all qualified individuals who want to obtain a permit can do so as soon as possible, once the law formally takes effect on November 1, 2011. One of our responsibilities has been to create administrative rules to provide guidance to permit-holders and others on the process for becoming licensed.
Attorney General Van Hollen has long been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, as evidenced by his long-standing support for concealed carry legislation, prior endorsements and recognition by the National Rifle Association, and his participation in key U.S. Supreme Court cases that have defined individual rights to bear arms.
The concealed carry law requires that, before issuing a permit, the Department of Justice must determine if someone has met the statutory requirements for eligibility. One of those requirements is proof of training which, by statute, means either a hunter safety program or something that the statute refers to as a “firearms safety or training course.”
It was clear to us that the legislature obviously meant something when it chose to require a “firearms safety or training course,” as opposed to a testing requirement or a system where a qualified instructor could merely vouch for someone who wants a license.
It was also clear to us that, based on the language of the legislation itself--which the law requires us to follow--the legislature effectively placed the burden on the Department of Justice to define what is meant by a “firearms safety or training course.” Without a workable definition, we would have been bound to accept anything that a qualified instructor chose to call a “firearms safety or training course,” whether it was a week-long program costing $1000 or a 15 second video warning people not to leave loaded guns within the reach of children.
The Department of Justice did a great deal of research and talked to many different training organizations and other interests before it settled upon an appropriate definition. Based on that research, it became apparent that the gun community itself has already determined that a minimum of four hours was necessary to provide reasonable gun safety training. In fact, many national organizations have basic courses that are longer than four hours. Had we defined a training course to mean something less, we would not have been faithful to the language that the legislature used.
We are aware of the criticism that, by defining what is meant by a training “course,” we’ve created new burdens on people who want to carry a concealed weapon. That simply isn’t true. Defining terms used by the legislature is a regular and necessary part of rule-making and that is what we did here.
And, by defining the term up-front, as part of a rule-making process that includes the Governor’s review, we have been open and transparent about what the statute requires. If we had abdicated our duty to define what is meant by a ““firearms safety or training course,” the result would be that permit applicants and training organizations would have to guess as to what was meant. It would also mean that, instead of one standard definition, you would have every qualified trainer, every applicant, and even low level application-processors, trying to guess at what was meant.
Finally, it is also important to understand that if we were to shy away from the responsibility to make rules, someone else will define what is meant by a training course, whether it be a new Attorney General who opposes gun rights, a Dane County court, or a new Governor who is asked to review proposed rules.
By putting together reasonable rules at the front end, we are complying with the law and making sure that qualified people who want to carry a concealed weapon will be able to do so now, and in the future.
As for the timing of the process, we have moved as quickly as possible. Even when rules are expedited, as these rules are, the statutory rulemaking process takes time. The first step in emergency rulemaking is a comprehensive "scope statement" that preliminarily outlines the substance of the proposed rules. Before this could occur, we had to thoroughly analyze the law, consider how it could be effectively administered and decide what components were the appropriate subject for administrative rules.
While this work involved many individuals and considerable research, we were able to submit the scope statement on the rules to the Governor's office on Aug. 16, less than a month after the law was published. On Aug. 31, we received the Governor's approval and immediately forwarded the scope statement to the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Administrative Register. That publication occurred on Sept. 15. According to Wisconsin law, we then had to wait at least 10 days after publication in the Administrative Register before giving final approval of the scope statement, and only then can rules be formally developed and proposed. I gave final approval to the scope statement on the first possible day, Sept. 26th. The next step is to formally submit them to the Governor, which we are prepared to do as soon as the Governor is ready to receive them. The Governor may then reject the proposed rules, in whole or in part, or approve them.
Attorney General Van Hollen and this office have one agenda: to follow and implement the concealed carry law as clearly, faithfully and fairly as possible. Those who believe we are trying to stand in the way of concealed carry are misinformed.
Thank you for your interest in this important issue.
Steven P. Means
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice
17 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707 7857
DID (608) 266-3860
FAX (608) 267-2779
meanssp@doj.state.wi.us