Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Supreme Court to Hear Chicago Gun Case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court today decided to hear the case of McDonald V Chicago. This is HUGE for us. Getting them to hear the case is half the battle. If they win, could Wisconsin's anti CCW law be overturned? I would hope! Here is a little info about it:
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/0...n_Ban_Case.htm

  2. #2
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    This is big. Thanks.

    This might make Wisconsin the last state not to have a CCW. And our State Motto is what?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Maybe I'm a little slow, but how will this affect WI's status against issuing CCW permits?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    nevinsb wrote:
    Maybe I'm a little slow, but how will this affect WI's status against issuing CCW permits?
    If the supreme court rules the 2nd amendment applies to the states, which is what this case is about, a person could sue the state saying the prohibition against CCW violates their rights. Precedent would be set by the supreme court and the law would be found unconstitutional.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The effect of the federal case on Wisconsin is pretty cloudy. The McDonald case is about Chicago's absolute ban of handguns. Wisconsin does not ban handguns it regulates the manner of carry of dangerous weapons. The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that the regulation of the manner of carry does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. In fact it hasbeen declared by the AG that open carry of weapons is protected by the State's constitution. I think it will be unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald will have any impact on ss941.23. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    To: Wisconsin District Attorneys, Deputy DisAttorneys and Assistant District Attorneys

    From: J.B. Van Hollen

    Attorney General

    Subject: The Interplay Between Article I, § 25 Of The Wisconsin Constitution, The Open Carry Of Firearms And Wisconsin’s Disorderly Conduct Statute, Wis. Stat. § 947.01

    Summary

    ¶1. Under Article I, § 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, a person has the right to openly carry a firearm for any of the purposes enumerated in that Section, subject to reasonable regulation as discussed herein. The Wisconsin Department of Justice (the Department) believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor.

    emphsis mine

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The effect of the federal case on Wisconsin is pretty cloudy. The McDonald case is about Chicago's absolute ban of handguns. Wisconsin does not ban handguns it regulates the manner of carry of dangerous weapons. The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled that the regulation of the manner of carry does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. In fact it hasbeen declared by the AG that open carry of weapons is protected by the State's constitution. I think it will be unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald will have any impact on ss941.23. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
    I agree. I think most of the impact will be felt in places like Illinois with no constitutional protection for bearing arms. That will probably be the type of place that get's concentrated on first.

    Since we have a strong constitutional protection in Wisconsin already we have to do most of the fighting here. The thing I'm wondering about though is if the federal concealed carry bill could be passed after incorporation without states rights issues.

    I'm almost always for less federal involvement but it sure would be nice to be able to carry anywhere without having to worry about the local.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I hope our neigbors to the south get somewhere with this. It is ridiculous how much B-S they need to endure toeven posess ammunition.

    There are quite a few other communities that have outlawed ownership of a handgun, and I thinksome do not allow longguns either. Morton Grove comes to mind, and I think the town of Lisle has a firearm prohibiton too.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    If they win, the decision will probably state that "unreasonable" restrictions are not allowed. What will be considered unreasonable is the question. I would think that a complete ban on CCW, especially considering 48 other states allow it would be an unreasonable restriction on our rights to BEAR arms.

    The question would be if the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, or a similar group would come in and sue. None of us could afford to do it.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Definitely the interpretation of "unreasonable" is critical. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already ruled that the complete ban of concealed weapons is not an "unreasonable" restriction to Article I section 25.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Definitely the interpretation of "unreasonable" is critical. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already ruled that the complete ban of concealed weapons is not an "unreasonable" restriction to Article I section 25.
    The Heller decision and comments by Scalia seem to support banning the concealed carry of weapons also.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-t...aw/#more-11314

    Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston | Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.
    The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.


  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Constitutionalist wrote:
    If they win, the decision will probably state that "unreasonable" restrictions are not allowed. What will be considered unreasonable is the question. I would think that a complete ban on CCW, especially considering 48 other states allow it would be an unreasonable restriction on our rights to BEAR arms.

    The question would be if the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, or a similar group would come in and sue. None of us could afford to do it.
    Then wouldn't this already apply to Wisconsin?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-t...aw/#more-11314

    Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston | Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.
    The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.
    Does that disqualify her from having anything to do with this case?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    How? On what legal theory?

    Not that I can imagine.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    The Second Amendment Foundations has a website for the case, here it is if you wish to read the briefs and decisions leading them up to where they got today.

    http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How? On what legal theory?

    Not that I can imagine.
    Never mind I misread the post.

    I was thinking it would be a conflict of interest.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The ChicagoGunCase.com PR makes the incorporation issue clear and that brings in to play "shall not be infringed" as noted here

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery...02&mirid=1

    We should have in interesting winter ahead, much as was the build up to Heller.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •