BROKENSPROKET said:
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.
Act 35 said:
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.
neoinarien said:
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.