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:
To "document must make reference to administrative code"...?
I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to dispense legal advice on line (for two reasons: first, my malpractice carrier would have an infarction and I get to watch my rates shoot through the roof (unless someone wanted to cover the difference upfront?
) and two, I can't risk establishing (See, SCR 20) attorney client relationship because then things get really complicated). I can do my best to answer non-legal questions though.
I follow your frustration.
I'm copy and pasting my response from the companion thread in ArmedBadger.com to give you an example of how these seeming leaps can happen.
___________________________
This gets things gummed up with a discussion of the administrative code.
There are many ways on how to explain the meaning, role, function and development of the administrative code. I suppose the easiest one is to say that whereas the legislature develops the big picture and sets the parameters, the admin code nails down the details.
It is still binding law, even though it is authored (largely) by people who may be often referred to as bureaucrats. This does not in and of itself, make it 'bad law': it has its own important function to play.
The biggest way this can get into trouble is where the admin code gets out in front of the capital L law created by the legislature.
So, for instance...
Not to put words in the DOJ's mouth, but there are a few hypothetical examples that come to mind which would explain (at least to me) their desire for a course length minimum.
The Law calls for someone completing (amongst other options to get licensed to fulfill the training requirement) a safety course or firearm training course. It is reasonable (or so the argument may go) to believe that the legislature intended for people to receive a reasonable baseline within industry standards amount of training in either safety, use or both. It is probably not disputed that you need more than 5 minutes to cover this. Same would go for 10 minutes. Probably even an hour. So where does one draw the line, now that we start to enlarge a prospective requirement?
Well, if I were in the DOJ or were tasked with solving this, I would look at other courses out there. How long is, more or less, the industry standard? I've been to one course and it did run more than four hours. Without questions and pausing for breaks, etc, it probably could have been condensed to a briskly paced four hours though. I'll bet the same is true of other reputable course offerings from industry professionals.
That is likely where such a time requirement is coming from, and at least one example (to play the hypothetical game) of how they could arrive at a number (whatever that number may be).
I'm not defending the number, the thought process, etc. Only trying to explain how these things often times work (both from a drafting perspective AND from a legal review perspective).
_____________________
