• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Confused how the DOJ is getting away with it's rules.

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.

Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?
 

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
This is just purely speculation on my part.

Nothing was really said about the number of people at other classes, such as at your church, until shortly after the annual meeting and class at Serb Hall. I think some of the trainers who saw how many people were there got a little miffed because that was money that didn't go into THEIR pocket and started to call the DOJ.

Again speculation on my part.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
This is just purely speculation on my part.

Nothing was really said about the number of people at other classes, such as at your church, until shortly after the annual meeting and class at Serb Hall. I think some of the trainers who saw how many people were there got a little miffed because that was money that didn't go into THEIR pocket and started to call the DOJ.

Again speculation on my part.

I understand that, I guess my question is how is it that they are allowed to do that when the law is quite clear.
 

XDFDE45

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
823
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I guess the law only applies to us peasants and not the DOJ. Wouldn't be the first time a government agency decided to make up their own rules, just look at the ATF :banghead:. Maybe we should be asking the legislature the same question, why is the DOJ not following the law that they wrote and passed? And why does the DOJ feel they can impose rules that are against the will of the legislature?
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?

Paul. Send this inquirey to Glenn Grothman. I needed to ask the DOJ a question, However they do not directly serve us ( why not) but the Governor and the legislature. But Glenn was able to get me the answer. Can I OC in a GFSZ with a permit. The answer from the DOJ as an affermative yes. So they will answer indirectly to you.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Paul. Send this inquirey to Glenn Grothman. I needed to ask the DOJ a question, However they do not directly serve us ( why not) but the Governor and the legislature. But Glenn was able to get me the answer. Can I OC in a GFSZ with a permit. The answer from the DOJ as an affermative yes. So they will answer indirectly to you.

But it's the DOJ that is violating the law.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
lockman said:
So what is the penalty for having more than 50 people in a class?
And how can they enforce it against an applicant?
Good questions.
(Though it's a 50 students to 1 instructor ratio, not a limit on how many people in a class.)
Unless one of their agents (or a spy :rolleyes: ) sees how many people are in a class, notes the date & instructor's name, & somehow alerts the DOJ data entry clerks to watch for & refuse those certificates of training, I don't see any way they could have any influence.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
DOJ Tells Us

Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?

If you read the DOJ proposed rulemaking, they indicate where they think their authority comes from. Incidentally, did you attend the rulemaking hearings? According to DOJ, only one person commented on the 1:50 ratio requirement so I thought it might be you. If you look at Jus 17.03 Definitions......

(7) “Firearms safety or training course” means a course of instructor-led training that provides a certificate or affidavit of successful completion satisfying the content requirements of s. Jus 17.05(2)(a) and that, at a minimum, instructs on, and practices the student’s comprehension of, firearm safety rules; safe firearm and ammunition use, handling, transport, and storage; legally permissible possession, transportation, and use of firearms, including use of deadly force; and techniques for avoiding and controlling violent confrontations.

(8) “Instructor-led” means training that is conducted face-to-face individually or in groups with an instructor-student ratio that does not exceed 50 students per instructor and in which instructors actively guide students through each lesson, answer questions, facilitate discussion, and provide feedback on activities and/or assignments. Learner-led or self-directed learning—the delivery of learning experiences to independent learners who lead and manage their own experience, delivered via web pages, multimedia presentations, computer applications, online presentations, or similar methods—is not instructor-led.


I don't think any of these details are in the statute. Why quibble about the ratio with so many more burdensome requirements?
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I don't think any of these details are in the statute. Why quibble about the ratio with so many more burdensome requirements?

True, however, I can meet the rest of the requirements more easily than the 50:1 ratio.

So.... once again, we need to put on a full court press to make these new permanent rules not take effect.
 

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
True, however, I can meet the rest of the requirements more easily than the 50:1 ratio.

So.... once again, we need to put on a full court press to make these new permanent rules not take effect.

At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.

Regarding how this would be enforced, when the course instructor signs the certificate or affidavit affirming that the course meets the current requirements of the DOJ, (which include the 50 to 1 ratio), If the ratio had been exceeded for that particular class, the instructor would be falsely affirming on the certificate. That will get the instructor in trouble, and I think it would make those certificates invalid.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.


I understand but finding 4 instructors to just kinda hang out on a Saturday is difficult. Why waste instructors? They could be someplace else having their own classes.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,196
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.

Regarding how this would be enforced, when the course instructor signs the certificate or affidavit affirming that the course meets the current requirements of the DOJ, (which include the 50 to 1 ratio), If the ratio had been exceeded for that particular class, the instructor would be falsely affirming on the certificate. That will get the instructor in trouble, and I think it would make those certificates invalid.

Limit class size to 50, then the same instructor can hold 7 or 8 classes concurrently at the same location. Problem solved on the certification. :)
 
Top