As pissed as I am at VanHollen right now, I have to admit I can't argue with him as I'd like to.
In their zeal to make as de-fanged and open a training requirement, and reciprocity as wide as possible, the NRA and whoever else was helping with the drafting of the bill kind of messed up.
Especially on the reciprocity.
WI is going to use NICS. Not every state does in it's background check for CCW license issuance.
For instance on the background check requirements, the wording of the carry law states:
wi 165.25(12m) Rules regarding concealed weapons licenses. Promulgate by rule a list of states that issue a permit, license, approval, or other authorization to carry a concealed weapon if the permit, license, approval, or other authorization requires, or designates that the holder chose to submit to, a background search that is comparable to a background check as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (ac).
(9g) Background checks.
(a) The department shall conduct a background check regarding an applicant for a license using the following procedure:
1. The department shall create a confirmation number associated with the applicant.
2. The department shall conduct a criminal history record search and shall search its records and conduct a search in the national instant criminal background check system to determine whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law; whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29; whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.; whether the applicant has been ordered not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a); whether the applicant is subject to an injunction under s. 813.12 or 813.122, or a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under s. 941.29 and that has been filed with the circuit court under s. 806.247 (3); and whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 813.125 (4m); and to determine if the court has prohibited the applicant from possessing a dangerous weapon under s. 969.02 (3) (c) or 969.03 (1) (c) and if the applicant is prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon as a condition of release under s. 969.01.
The more I read into this, the more I'm thinking the legislature screwed the pooch writing this, or screwed the pooch through inaction, by accepting the bill as the WI Legislative Bureau sent it to them.
I'm grudgingly being forced to admit to myself, VanHollen might actually be
protecting CCW, by making the rules follow what the law
actually states. If we simply accepted "any training", and reciprocity to all, we might be subject to lawsuits from anti-gun groups who could take the state to court over what the law actually
says, and what came out of those decisions could easily be way worse than what VanHollen is laying down under DOJ rule-making.
You figure they could judge-shop, and find some of those absolute gems of judges that the unions got in the Madison area over the collective bargaining/budget bill fracas earlier this last spring...
I don't like it, but I'm not certain the blame lies with VanHollen. And there's similar issues with the training certificate signatures, and the live-fire portion he's accused of "adding".
And I'm now thinking that despite how fired up it got me, the NRA's open letter to VanHollen over the DOJ CCW rule-making was ill-informed and hasty at best, and deliberately disingenuous (to misdirect the pro-CCW/RKBA base, and play CYA) at worst. Five minutes review of the pertinent sections of the WI code would have told them that many.. some... (most?) of the accusations in the open letter weren't true.
