Whats next

imported post

Ok, how about WE THE PEOPLE -v- The State of Wisconsin....haha

You are right it will take a while to get to the SSC. However, the lower level courts may not want it to get that far either. Therefore just like the DA's not pressing charges in certain fire arms cases (IE..Racine)because they do not want it to go to the SSC, the lower courts may decide in our favor and let the SSC court battle be brought forward by the AG's office at a later time.

It's something to think about.

imported post

I've been scouring the internet for lawyers and so far I found this firm http://www.quarles.com/home.aspxlisted under practicing constitutional law.

I didn't think it would be this hard to find a lawyer. I'll do some asking around my circleand see if anybody knows somebody around here.

imported post

You could always try the WI Bar Association:

http://www.wisbar.org/

imported post

Had another conversation via email with an attorney very versed in this kind of thing this morning. He's going to ponder our options and get back to me in a week or so (going on vaca)

I'll post up as soon as I hear something.

Also, he mentioned that the 7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Had another conversation via email with an attorney very versed in this kind of thing this morning. He's going to ponder our options and get back to me in a week or so (going on vaca)

I'll post up as soon as I hear something.

Also, he mentioned that the 7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.

Click to expand...

Wow, I read the opinion and all that I can say is wow. WTF are they thinking? Read page seven for a laugh...

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG34O.pdf

imported post

The 7th basically punted.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG3GC.pdf

Final sentence...

How arguments of
this kind will affect proposals to “incorporate” the second
amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of
appeals.

Click to expand...

imported post

Quick punt, too.

Argued 5/26. Decided 6/2.

Be interesting to see how quickly this is submitted to the supremes now that there's dueling circuits.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Had another conversation via email with an attorney very versed in this kind of thing this morning. He's going to ponder our options and get back to me in a week or so (going on vaca)

I'll post up as soon as I hear something.

Also, he mentioned that the 7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.

Click to expand...

Is he from Wisconsin? I ask because when I first contacted CATO they forgot to read over my quote of the Wisconsin constitution and told me that Heller didn't apply to the states. After I emailed him back and told him I wanted to challenge based on the Wiscsonsin constitution he changed his tune.

Teej wrote:

The 7th basically punted.

Click to expand...

That was pretty much expected of them and evident in listening to the oral arguments. They didn't want to hear it from the start and there wasn't a lot of argument to be had. Hopefully this gets to SCOTUS while there is still a 5-4 that is most likely in favor of incorporation.

imported post

Is he from Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

no, thats been part of the reason I didn't want to try to leverage his expertise more, because of the logistics, I didn't want to put him out. He's done a lot already.

Ironically,I did the same thing you did when I got his response about heller, I sent the text to article 1 sec 25.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

We are going to have one friggn huge hurdle here! You will need to try to understand the Anti's inner brain workings first. We are saying. "We want the legal abilitytoallow guns in school zones"

Click to expand...

Yes, but it ought not sound so "extreme" to the critics if it is pointed out to them that the current law, as written, already has a provision for carrying guns in school zones.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

7th Ciruit court found today that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states.

Click to expand...

Fortunately we have the protection of the state constitution which has less controversial language* than the 2nd Amendment, and nobody is going to argue that the state constitution does not apply to the state!



*Personally I think the 2nd Amend. is clearly written and any "controversy" in its interpretation is as a results of the smoke and mirrors tactics of gun/freedom-haters.

7th Circuit Court can kiss it.

imported post

I've sentthis off to a lawyer I know in Milwaukee. She doesn't know a lot about constitutional law but she agreed to show it to the others in her law office and her brother who knows more about constitutional law. She said to give her a week to look into it. So, by next week we should have some answers from Hughslawyer and some from my lawyer. *crosses fingers*

imported post

Guys, could our cause be considered a "Class action Lawsuit" since the lawdiscriminates against an entire class of people?

imported post

A class action is a mechanism by which the defendant gets poor, the plantiff's attorney gets rich, and the members of the affected class get $0.43.

imported post

Teej wrote:

A class action is a mechanism by which the defendant gets poor, the plantiff's attorney gets rich, and the members of the affected class get $0.43.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, Teej, but I'd be happy with 43 cents if it results in a bad law getting neutralized also. I hope no plaintiffs would be in it for money. If that's their interest then they'd have a much safer and lucrative case by slipping on the wet floor in a grocery store.

imported post

I was thinking about attorneys when I thought "DUH":banghead: and decided to look at who represented Hamdan and Vegas. Here they are:

Hamdan:

ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant there were briefs by Gordon P. Giampietro, Eric M. McLeod, Amy V. Kossoris and Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Chris J. Trebatoski.

Vegas:

Craig Mastantuono

Click to expand...

We could try to contact these people. What do you think?

BTW, if you do contact someone on this list let us know so we don't all do it and bug the crap out of them.:lol:

imported post

No charges for armed bicyclist


BY MARCI LAEHR TENUTA
mtenuta@journaltimes.com
Friday, May 15, 2009 4:40 PM CDT


RACINE —

In a letter to the 42-year-old Racine man, Mike Nieskes wrote, “After speaking with the investigating officer on this matter, I have decided it would not be in the greater interest of justice in the community to charge you with violation of Wisconsin Statute regarding gun free zones.”.
o.c. prior to attack in school zoneclass i felony, after attackin school zone constitutionally protected right to o.c. conflict ? not if school zone statute poorly writtenwas actuallymeant to be an enhancer to a crime committed ina school zone as mentioned by other posters.

Nieskes said the decision not to charge the man was based on the recent determination of the attorney general, along with the man’s lack of prior criminal record and no showing of irresponsible use of the firearm. “I don’t believe it would be appropriate to charge you

Would love to know what attorney general said to District Attorney that helped him in coming to his decision. second guessing is not knowing.

May 13, 2009 Racine County District Attorney Mike Nieskes said he was discussing the incident with the Attorney General’s Office, as local law enforcement want clarification about what to do in such situations


whole stories here
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/25572.html

imported post

Could we get clarification on the school zone ban from Van Hollen? Maybe he could clarify if this was meant as an enhancer.

I have to wonder if someone such as Vicki Mc Kenna would be helpful in this situation. If she could do another interview and ask for clarification on the school zone ban then we would know for sure if it was meant as an enhancer before we move forward.

I am not trying to be a party pooper here but we could end up paying an attorney an awfully large amount of money and a retainer fee only for him to turn around and say this is only an enhancer. Which is something we could typically find out for free through the right channels. No offense to anyone but some times attorney's can be bigger crooks then the people they represent.

Another option would be to find out who introduced the legislation and ask that person or group of people if this was meant as an enhancer. Getting written clarification from them either way could then be our first stepping stone.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

You're probably right, Teej, but I'd be happy with 43 cents if it results in a bad law getting neutralized also.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

However, generally a class action requires some number (don't know how many) of people who have been tangibly "affected". Not "just" restricted from exercising a right.

Look at Heller. There were originally multiple plaintiffs, but the courts decided that only Mr. Heller had standing as he was the only one of the bunch who had actually applied.

Now if you know of a hundred people or so who got arrested/fined for otherwise lawful open carry in a school zone, you might have something.

imported post

The school zone issue should definitely be next on the agenda. The vehicle transport law is bothersome but has a maximum penalty of a fine of $175. <$100 plus a possible 75% surcharge if assessed by a judge. The shcool zone penalty is much more significant. It comes with a penalty of a Class I felony and lifetime ban from owning firearms, whether you had criminal intent or not. Also in many communities the open carry victory may have been a shallow victory because as shown by the maps posted on this forum for milwaukee there are very few places a firearm can be carried without risk of encroaching on a school zone. Walking down some streets would be ridiculous. i.e. walk for two blocks, remove firearm from holster, unload firearm, put firearm in proper encasement. walk through school zone, remove firearm from encasement, reload firearm, place firearm in holster, walk a couple more blocks, repeat. Many of these places are in higher crime areas where the carry for personalprotection is most needed. The hassle caused by what I described will cause people to not carry in those areas where they need the protection the most. Carry inwhat are statistically crime safe areas becomes largely symbolic.

Nutczak is correct. This is going to be a difficult task through the legal system. Any attempt to change the penalty or the 1000 foot boundary, will be met by the antis with shouts of "Save the children". This is going to be a very emotional topic. The save the children cry will be very influential. Pardon me if I sound sexist but this day and age a high number of politicians and judges are women. Usually women with children. It is afact that women will do anything to protect their children, even at the cost of their own lives. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't try everything judicially possible to overturn the onerous shool zone statute. I'm just saying it is going to be tough. We have to make sure we have a soild action plan and all our ducks in order. There are a number of legal opitions. Including attempting to get a declaratory judgement. It sure would be helpful if we had a lawyer friend on this forum that would take up the cause pro bono or at least give us some solid advice as to which approach would be most likely to succeed.