DOJ Concealed Carry rules out

[IcrewUH60]

then there's this...

http://paracom.paramountcommunicati...081381516&ch=C026A78A15003DB8220E828D0642BAF5

SNIP:

Hollen is a yet another RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) who was endorsed by the NRA.

Of course, as both you and I know, that works conveniently as “cover” for a politician.

And it seems to be more and more common to see a politician meddling with Second Amendment freedoms while holding up their NRA endorsement as “proof” that they are “pro-gun.”

Luckily, people like you and I pay closer attention than that.

 

[Captain Nemo]

The only bright side of this DoJ SNAFU is that emergency rules are only good for 150 days. Unfortunately there is probably little the legislature can do short of retracting the rule making authority to change anything because legislative approval is not required under emergency rules. The authors of Act 35 and the legislature shot themselves in the foot by giving the DoJ emergency rule making authority over the total training requirements. They should have given it rule making authority only over those courses and instructors it certifies. The other training requirements are well enough defined. By the time the 150 days are up the initial rush for permits will be over and any correction the legislature makes will be of little value. The question then is does the legislature let the DoJ rules become permanent or does it fix the problem. The rule making process can be found in ch227 of state statutes.

Most certainly the DoJ will say the following does not apply to training because the legislature expressly provided it specific authority to define training.

(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.

my opinion.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Most certainly the DoJ will say the following does not apply to training because the legislature expressly provided it specific authority to define training.

Can you cite please?


'Cause that ain't what Pam Galloway the author of the Bill says. Not trying to start an argument.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Can you cite please?]

§175.60(2)(b) does NOT say "The department may not impose training conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.

 

[Captain Nemo]

Anybody seen a draft or copy of the application form? It was due Sept 1. I guess in the DoJ it's do as we say not as we do. Act 35 was published July 22.

(5) APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FORMS. (a) The
department shall design an application form for use by
individuals who apply for a license under this section and
a renewal form for use by individuals applying for
renewal of a license under sub. (15). The department
shall complete the design of the application form no later
than the first day of the 2nd month beginning after the
effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date],
and shall complete the design of the renewal form no later
than the first day of the 36th month beginning after the
effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date].


vanhollenjb@doj.state.wi.us

 

[Mlutz]

" The department
shall complete the design of the application form no later
than the first day of the 2nd month beginning after the
effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date],"

Yep, I am sure it has been completed. The DOJ just hasn't released it to us.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Anybody seen a draft or copy of the application form? It was due Sept 1. ..

Although we would prefer it to be so, the DOJ is not compelled by ACT 35 to make available to us an application before 11/1

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Notice I said 'had' as in 'required'.

I was addressing the fist part of your statement, when you said that a DD214 "does not"...

 

[Outdoorsman1]

Anybody seen a draft or copy of the application form? It was due Sept 1. I guess in the DoJ it's do as we say not as we do. Act 35 was published July 22.

(5) APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FORMS. (a) The
department shall design an application form for use by
individuals who apply for a license under this section and
a renewal form for use by individuals applying for
renewal of a license under sub. (15). The department
shall complete the design of the application form no later
than the first day of the 2nd month beginning after the
effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date],
and shall complete the design of the renewal form no later
than the first day of the 36th month beginning after the
effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date].


vanhollenjb@doj.state.wi.us

I am thinking that the applications are already completed or near completion and that the DOJ is waiting on Gov. Walkers decision on the new rules before taking the next step, which would involve the applications...

Outdoorsman1

 

[Packfanatic]

Dd214

Some DD241s Do list small arms training. Mine lists multiple Expert awards for rifle.

mine states nothing about firearms, small arms or anything.. but that I was honorably discharged etc etc... but then when I receive my Utah CCW permit (SOON) then i would not even have to submit the DD214 as i understand it.

 

[Kc.38]

Gov. Walker was on Jerry Bader this morning and said "I am frustrated as the law could not have been more clear." He said that if he rejects the way the DOJ changed it we will not have CC by Nov.1, "and no body wants that". He mentioned that these are just emergency rules so we will have time to make them right in the future. It sounds like he is going to ok it. :banghead::banghead:

 

[rcav8r]

So in that case, Walker should round file the emergency rules and tell the DOJ to get the fricking applications out there ON TIME and follow the letter of the law.

How hard is that? Take the application and proof of training, enter the info on the computer, run the background check on the computer, print a permit, send it out.

How frigging hard was that?

 

[stewarthgusmc]

My interpretation of the DD214 rule...

Some DD241s Do list small arms training. Mine lists multiple Expert awards for rifle.

194 issued by the United States Department of Defense,showing that the applicant has
195 received an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions from the
196 United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard after completion of basic training or a
197 certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small
198 arms training and certification.

IMO, if you were discharged either honorably or with a general discharge anytime after basic training this meets the requirement. It is implied that some form of weapons training/firearms safety is learned in basic training.

Also, IMO, I think the DOJ, Van Hollen in particular, is being bashed unjustly...hear me out.

The training requirement was there from the begining, in the law, Act 35. If you do not meet one of the prerequisite training requirements ie. Hunter's Safety, DD214, you would have had to acquire some sort of training anyway to apply for a permit. All the DOJ is doing is setting the parameters for that training. In doing so he also aligns the law with the bordering states to allow reciprocity. If the rules are not similar, bordering or any other state for that matter does not have to recognize WI permits.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe we should have constitutional carry. But even with that, I'm not sure there would be reciprocity with bodering states.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Also, IMO, I think the DOJ, Van Hollen in particular, is being bashed unjustly...hear me out.

If that is even remotely true then why doesn't Walker just say that?

Why the BS responses to everyone's emails from the DOJ?

 

[markush]

Gov. Walker was on Jerry Bader this morning and said "I am frustrated as the law could not have been more clear." He said that if he rejects the way the DOJ changed it we will not have CC by Nov.1, "and no body wants that". He mentioned that these are just emergency rules so we will have time to make them right in the future. It sounds like he is going to ok it. :banghead::banghead:

SEND THEM BACK! If the emergency rules go into effect my certificate will not be accepted...if he sends them back we will not have CC by Nov1...both are one and the same for me!!

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

SEND THEM BACK! If the emergency rules go into effect my certificate will not be accepted...if he sends them back we will not have CC by Nov1...both are one and the same for me!!

To pick a nit or two.

If he sends back the emergency rules, they will be re-issued. If he allows them to proceed, then the full rule making process can continue and the legislature can change them.

 

[markush]

To pick a nit or two.

If he sends back the emergency rules, they will be re-issued. If he allows them to proceed, then the full rule making process can continue and the legislature can change them.

If he sends them back wouldn't that tell the DOJ he is not going to stand for their shenanigans. Wouldn't it then behoove them to stop and let training requirements stand as they are written in ACT35?

 

[HandyHamlet]

To pick a nit or two.

If he sends back the emergency rules, they will be re-issued. If he allows them to proceed, then the full rule making process can continue and the legislature can change them.

So the legislature, the law making body, has to override the rules that override the law?

:banghead:

If the Gov rejects the rules CC still happens in Nov 1, right?
(hypothetically speaking)

 

[HandyHamlet]

...the legislature can change them.

Right after they lower my taxes.

[video=youtube;aKzP7Xipvms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKzP7Xipvms&feature=related[/video]

 

[McX]

Right after they lower my taxes.

ducks dont pay taxes, you have to be one of these: