• 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.

Lawmakers vote to suspend gun training rule


Regular Member
Jan 8, 2010
in front of my computer, WI
More accurately, the legislators reconfirmed what the law says...
the law they discussed & voted on how many months ago?
If they meant to have a required # of hours of training, it would be in the law!

Van Hollen testified Monday in support of the rule, saying it was necessary since the Legislature had said only that training was required but didn't say how much. He said four hours was the industry standard and not having a minimum requirement would make it impossible for the DOJ to verify that applicants had completed any training.
Um, hello? He admits that the Legislature didn't specify an amount of training.
And verification of training is easy: look for the copy of the certificate the applicant includes.

The committee also removed a requirement that applicants have a signed statement from the instructor verifying that the course had been successfully completed.
Again, look at the course completion certificate.

Republican Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, a sponsor of the bill, spoke in support of suspending the training requirement saying the Legislature's intent was to leave it up to applicants to determine how many hours of training they needed.
...The DOJ did not have the authority to specify a minimum number of hours, he said.

Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison: "I don't know why on earth this committee would want to jeopardize public health and public safety by doing this."
Because there have been so many problems in, say, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alaska, etc...?
(Places that don't require training.)

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed Wisconsin's concealed carry law in July after years of lobbying from the NRA.
:mad: How about all the residents of Wisconsin who have lobbied & worked for this?

As of Monday afternoon, 1,669 licenses to carry concealed weapons had been approved and 339 had been rejected
Wonder how many of those were rejected for lack of proper training, & will now be accepted?


Regular Member
Oct 17, 2008
Madison, ,
With a 17% rejection rate maybe users should get 4 hours training on how to sign their name 3 times and place a checkmark in a box?


Regular Member
Oct 8, 2011
Milwaukee Wisconsin
With a 17% rejection rate maybe users should get 4 hours training on how to sign their name 3 times and place a checkmark in a box?

I am suprised and disappointed at a 17% rejection rate. A rejection is supposed to be given only for an incomplete application. A letter is sent, explaining what must be submitted to complete the application.

Are people just not filling out the form, getting the checkboxes right and then signing in three places?


Not sending a $50 check?


Is the problem not including the proper training documentation?

- - - - - - - -

I do hope that only a small percentage would get denied, for:

* not a current & valid driver's license or state id. card
* less than 21 years of age or not a WI resident
* not valid proof of training
* not passing the background check
Last edited:


Regular Member
Aug 11, 2011
You guys missed the JB Van Hollen gem when he said "The only ones complaining about the 4 hour requirement is the NRA and their employees. We actually have a lot of support from the 2nd amendment community in favor of the requirement."

He also then got called out on the fact he was trying to imply that removing the 4 hour requirement would somehow make it easy for fraudulent applications. A republican was like "so if we just remove the 4 hour requirement, suddenly that makes it easier to submit a fake certificate?"


Regular Member
Sep 24, 2010
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
I sat in there and listened to JB (along with Brokensprocket)....The reasoning JB gave for putting in the 4 hr requirement made sense to both of us. Ill have to go back and listen again to the audio. Taking it out also makes sense though to.