DOJ Admin Code

[neoinarien]

I agree completely. I am a couple of posts away from taking a long vactation from this forum.

I was here a few years back and took a break. Looks like there are still those name calling guys that unfortunately control the tone.

It's a shame: could be a nice place.

 

[MKEgal]

When they say they are currently in the rule-making process and are evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training, I believe that have the authority to do so.

They can say whatever they want, but they have to follow the LAW.
(Not that that's stopped them so far.)
The LAW does not give the DOJ authority to decide what must be on the certificate which provdes proof of training (other than the military ones),
nor may DOJ require a minimum number of hours,
nor may DOJ require in-person training,
because all of those affect the issuance of a license by imposing restrictions not specifically provided for in the LAW.

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.

175.60 (4) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) The proof of training requirement under sub. (7) (e) may be met by any of the following:
1. A copy of a document, or an affidavit from an instructor or organization that conducted the course or program, that indicates the individual completed any of the following:

(see the right-hand column on pg. 8 of the PDF of Act 35)

Seems pretty plain English to me.
If the department will not issue a license without
proof of a certain number of hours of training,
or certain wording on the document or affadavit,
they are imposing conditions on the issuance of the license which are not expressly provided for in the LAW.

connections within the DOJ committee who is putting together the admin code, training course, etc.

And I know someone who's working on the inside, from a Federal agency, trying to remind DOJ that they have to follow the LAW...
apparently he's not getting through yet.

1) Whatever any class/organization has issued as far as certificates goes, won't cut it. Period. Classes will need to reissue new certificates when the time comes because the DOJ will be requiring a certificate with some very specific language making reference to law that has not been drafted yet.

See above, about imposing conditions or limitations on the issuance of a license, which are not expressly provided for in the LAW. (That would be Act 35.)

3) There is going to be paperwork and fun things to come on who is a 'certified instructor' and also what constitutes a 'national or state' organization.

Looking at my card, issued by a national organization that certifies firearms instructors, it says I'm certified as a firearms instructor, specifically in pistol.
I'd like to see DOJ try to argue that the plain English of the LAW & the plain English on my card somehow don't add up to my being an instructor certified by a national organization. Pretty sure that national org. would be willing to speak against DOJ in court, on behalf of all its instructors in WI, if it comes to that.

4) There will be a minimum hours requirement for what a course must have, and a component of that will be mandatory in person training... it appears this hours requirement will be around 4-5 hours.

See above, about DOJ being unable (legally) to impose restrictions on the issuance of a license which are not "expressly provided for".
If they won't issue a license without specific wording on a course completion certificate,
or won't recognize certificates from some national or state organizations,
or try to require a certain number of hours of training,
or try to require in-person training,
they'll fail in court.

It'd be much less expensive if VanHollen would start following the LAW & order his underlings to do likewise.

 

[oak1971]

I will be watching to see how that goes for you.

Paul isn't always right, but If I had to bet, my money is on him.

 

[HandyHamlet]

They can say whatever they want, but they have to follow the LAW.

The end.

 

[oak1971]

I am going go out on a limb and call this entire thread a canard to get us riled up.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

They can say whatever they want, but they have to follow the LAW.
(Not that that's stopped them so far.)
The LAW does not give the DOJ authority to decide what must be on the certificate which provdes proof of training
(other than the military ones), nor may DOJ require a minimum number of hours, nor may DOJ require in-person training, because all of those affect the issuance of a license by imposing restrictions not specifically provided for in the LAW.

If the department will not issue a license without proof of a certain number of hours of training, or certain wording on the document or affadavit they are imposing conditions on the issuance of the license which are not expressly provided for in the LAW.

If they won't issue a license without specific wording on a course completion certificate, or won't recognize certificates from some national or state organizations, or try to require a certain number of hours of training, or try to require in-person training, they'll fail in court.

It'd be much less expensive if VanHollen would start following the LAW & order his underlings to do likewise.

For the parts that I highlighted, you are wrong.

The DOJ is following the LAW. They do have Administrative Rule Making Authority under 227.11(2)

I submit the following:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw_frequently_asked_questions.pdf
IMPORTANT NOTE: DOJ is currently in the rule-making process and is evaluating what information will be required on the certificate to substantiate proof of training. We will not have specifics until the rule-making process is complete.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf
The Wisconsin Constitution delegates to the legislative branch the power to make laws and assigns to the executive branch the power to enforce and execute laws. Although the legislature is highly capable of adopting public policies and setting the agenda for the state, it does not always have the administrative expertise or resources to implement public policies. Also, the implementation and enforcement of the laws may require consideration of details and the adoption of procedures that cannot be foreseen when legislation is enacted. For these reasons the legislature has delegated to the executive branch the power to promulgate—to make known and put into effect—administrative rules.
Administrative rules have the effect of law and, as stated in the Wisconsin Statutes, are “issued by an agency to implement, interpret, or make specific legislation enforced or administered by the agency or to govern the organization or procedure of the agency.” State agencies are granted rule-making power to actualize the legislature’s public policy decisions.


Rule making authority is granted to agencies by the legislature in 227.11(2)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/227.pdf
http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/227/227.11

If you have any more questions about this, you can call the LRB at (608) 266-3561

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 on Administrative Rule Making. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_21.pdf

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.

 

[HandyHamlet]

1) This should, and almost certainly will, be done well in advance to allow time for the courses to go about this reissuing process in time for folks to apply on November 1.

May I be the first to thank you for slumming it here with these appallingly ungrateful degenerates.

You offered to entertain questions so if I may... What exactly does this "This should, and almost certainly will, be done well in advance" mean? Since November is a little over a month away? And then if we only count business days...




Thanks again!

 

[Da Po-lock]

And it's exactly because of people like this that I wonder why I bother. And it's exactly because of people like this, who DO dump on the knowledgeable people why many knowledgeable people stay away.

What then ?
Anything wrong with wanting to verify information or is believing rumors the way to go ?

I believe in what I read in the LAW as written.......

 

[apierce918]

but he is saying just that:




NRA certs come from NRA Central...they are all the same no matter what state they are issued. DOJ wants "specific language" which means somebody is going to have to change the NRA certs.

Do you have one? Because the one I have from Michigan has state specific language on it.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Do you have one? Because the one I have from Michigan has state specific language on it.

NRA Basic class that I took in PA

 

[apierce918]

maybe PA doj doesnt care if its on the certificate?

Here is mine from MI

 

[mrjam2jab]

PA doesn't require ANY training.

I'm guessing that was added by the instructor? Does MI require that be on there? I wonder if the NRA knows about/is ok with the altering of their certificate?

 

[apierce918]

PA doesn't require ANY training.

I'm guessing that was added by the instructor? Does MI require that be on there? I wonder if the NRA knows about/is ok with the altering of their certificate?

I don't know if MI requires it, I wasnt nearly involved into gun rights back then and never looked into it.

It does appear that it was added after the fact, same font as where the instructors name is printed

 

[neoinarien]

May I be the first to thank you for slumming it here with these appallingly ungrateful degenerates.

You offered to entertain questions so if I may... What exactly does this "This should, and almost certainly will, be done well in advance" mean? Since November is a little over a month away? And then if we only count business days...




Thanks again!

Yeah...

One would obviously hope this would have been completed already. My impression is that, realistically, this will get done in October. Hopefully early rather than late.

Sorry, wish there was better info to pass along.

 

[neoinarien]

What then ?

<portion edited out>

I believe in what I read in the LAW as written.......

It's clear you do not understand the role or purpose of administrative code. I suggest you re-read this thread as another poster has gone into this several times.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Administrative code written by the DOJ is retroactive?

The horror. The DOJ's code is like a plague that can time travel.

 

[mrjam2jab]

It's clear you do not understand the role or purpose of administrative code.

Apparently I don't either. Is the purpose of administrative code to interpret a law as they see fit? That seems to be what is happening within WIDOJ.

Perhaps you can explain how they go from this:

(4) TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The proof of train-
ing requirement under sub. (7) (e) may be met by any of
the following:
1. A copy of a document, or an affidavit from an
instructor or organization that conducted the course or
program, that indicates the individual completed any of
the following:
a. The hunter education program established under s.
29.591 or a substantially similar program that is estab-
lished by another state, country, or province and that is
recognized by the department of natural resources.
b. A firearms safety or training course that is con-
ducted by a national or state organization that certifies
firearms instructors.
c. A firearms safety or training course that is avail-
able to the public and is offered by a law enforcement
agency or, if the course is taught by an instructor who is
certified by a national or state organization that certifies
firearms instructors or by the department, by a technical
college, a college or a university, a private or public insti-
tution or organization, or a firearms training school.
d. A firearms safety or training course that is offered
to law enforcement officers or to owners and employees
of licensed private detective and security agencies.
e. A firearms safety or training course that is con-
ducted by a firearms instructor who is certified by a
national or state organization that certifies firearms
instructors or who is certified by the department.
2. Documentation that the individual completed mili-
tary, law enforcement, or security training that gave the
individual experience with firearms that is substantially
equivalent to a course or program under subd. 1.
3. A current or expired license, or a photocopy of a
current or expired license, that the individual holds or has
held that indicates that the individual is licensed or has
been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or in another
state or in a county or municipality of this state or of
another state unless the license has been revoked for
cause.
4. Documentation of completion of small arms train-
ing while serving in the U.S. armed forces, reserves, or
national guard as demonstrated by an honorable dis-
charge or general discharge under honorable conditions
or a certificate of completion of basic training with a ser-
vice record of successful completion of small arms train-
ing and certification.

To "document must make reference to administrative code"...?

 

[LaBomba]

Neo Checks Out

At Armed Badger, Neo signs his post with a reference to Wolff & Sonderhouse, LLP. There is such a firm, and it is across from the courthouse. There are only two attorneys on the Wolff website, neither named "Tom". State Bar records, though, list an Atty. Tom ***** practicing at the firm.

One of the partners in the firm is an attorney who does have ties to DOJ and may well be participating in the rulemaking discussion.

To be sure, anybody could post and pretend all of the above...but how likely is that? I think Neo's for real, and I think his info is real, too.

 

[HandyHamlet]

And?

Every corrupt, butt reaming ******* has come out of the woodwork to bask in attention since this thing started rolling. Fake local laws and ordinances are being passed by power hungry elected employees no one has ever heard of. Businesses are posting. The snake oil salesmen have descended like flies.

This is the chance the thick f*cks at the DOJ have been waiting for their whole lives. FINALLY, they get to flex their awesome might and people are actually watching. They perform in front of a packed house. We must all bow down and pay tribute to their magnificence. Why wouldn't they twist this thing any way they can? When our own Governor back stabbed us? Let the soulless DOJ twats bring on their power trip. I'll send my papers over to Yellow Cat for a rubber stamp. Big deal. Then the DOJ can suck my balls. And God help any of them if they ever run for office 'cause they aren't getting my vote. The traitorous scum*.

Constitutional Carry or bust!




*Unless this turns out to nothing more than the internet rumor it currently is. Then... Nevermind!

 

[MKEgal]

re: NRA certificates
They do not come with state-specific language. They look like the one posted from PA. The one from MI apparently had things added by the instructor. I'm told NRA allows such additions.

IF DOJ tries to require such info for WI classes*, I'll either hand-write it or have a stamp made.
(Or if I get really ambitious, use the template NRA provides to do it on the computer.)

I'd like to know what out-of-state people are expected to do, since their instructor likely has no clue what the WI requirements are or will be? Find someone in WI who can add whatever the DOJ comes up with? Write it on the certificate themselves?

I still think it'd be lots easier for DOJ to educate its employees as to what constitutes proof of training.
If all they look for is a statement that "I certify this course meets the requirements of Act 35", doesn't that kind of blow their attempt to control who's an instructor? How will they check? How will they know that students didn't write up their own statement of training?


*and I have it on good authority, independent of anyone here on ODCO/WI Carry, that DOJ will be doing so.
Also that the OP is who he says he is & his info is valid.
Also that they will deny MD, and will require a minimum # of in-person hours.
How that jives w/ the test-out hunter safety course I don't understand, since it won't be enough hours.
Or is that exempt from both the specific wording on the certificate & the hours because it's more clearly explained in the law than anything else?