THE LICENSING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS FOR LAWFUL PROTECTION: SUPPORT FROM FIVE STATE SUPREME COURTS

imported post

After many requests that I reconsider discontinuing my participation in this forum, I have decided to continue since the importance of this movement and cause are more important to me then the opinions of the eletists in this forum, many of whom criticize when no criticism is warranted.

This cause and movement means too much to me to let the eletists have their way.

With that in mind I am posting a summary of state supreme court decisions which will help those members here that are new to the movement in understanding just how close Wisconsin is to obtaining CCW without the loss of OCW.

I am sure there will be much dissent from the eletists, however their opinion does not change the opinions of the courts.

This is verifiable information complete with court citations and is not posted by some disillusioned "Gun Nut."

The credit for this summary is given to the author, David Kopel.

Enjoy and let the insults begin.


http://www.albanylawreview.org/arch...ECTION--SUPPORTFROMFIVESTATESUPREMECOURTS.pdf

imported post

Welcome back.

"In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled that the concealed handgun prohibition was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to a person’s home or place of business, but was constitutional as applied to all other locations."

I'm not sure that I agree that's quite what the court ruled. If I remember correctly, the court did not say as applied to "all other locations." It just said that a person's home and place of business are the most clear examples where an overly strict application of the CCW statute would be unconstitutional. It held out that possibility that there may be other times, places or circumstances that may entail similarly unconstitutional applications of the CCW statute. Those would be identified on a case-by-case basis.

imported post

Thank you for coming back.

imported post

thank you for returning. it wouldn't be the same without you. all i can quote is; you can check out any time you want, you can never leave (Eagles- Hotel California)

imported post

Nice to see you online again!

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

With that in mind I am posting a summary of state supreme court decisions which will help those members here that are new to the movement in understanding just how close Wisconsin is to obtaining CCW without the loss of OCW.

I am sure there will be much dissent from the eletists, however their opinion does not change the opinions of the courts.

Click to expand...

It also illustrates the logical knots into which justice will contort itself to defend the indefensible and the continued tenure of <rant deleted>.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

With that in mind I am posting a summary of state supreme court decisions which will help those members here that are new to the movement in understanding just how close Wisconsin is to obtaining CCW without the loss of OCW.

I am sure there will be much dissent from the eletists, however their opinion does not change the opinions of the courts.

Click to expand...

It also illustrates the logical knots into which justice will contort itself to defend the indefensible and the continued tenure of <rant deleted>.

Click to expand...

I agree.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Welcome back.

"In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled that the concealed handgun prohibition was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to a persons home or place of business, but was constitutional as applied to all other locations."

I'm not sure that I agree that's quite what the court ruled. If I remember correctly, the court did not say as applied to "all other locations." It just said that a person's home and place of business are the most clear examples where an overly strict application of the CCW statute would be unconstitutional. It held out that possibility that there may be other times, places or circumstances that may entail similarly unconstitutional applications of the CCW statute. Those would be identified on a case-by-case basis.

Click to expand...

I agree,

"As Justice Abrahamson pointed out in her dissent, the majoritys methodology was not necessarily limited to home-owners or business owners:
The constitutional right to bear arms in Wisconsin now includes a right not only for all owners of privately owned and operated businesses and persons in their private residences to carry concealed weapons for purposes of security, but for many others as well. The majority not only concludes that for the right to bear arms to mean anything it must mean that a person can conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business, but also that the constitutional right to bear arms in Wisconsin further protects the right of any other person to carry a concealed weapon if a court determines that the person interest in carrying a concealed weapon substantially outweighs the States interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute. The number of individuals who can fit under the umbrella is large.

A concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Crooks would have held the entire statute unconstitutional under the theory that the court had no authority to create exceptions to the statute, and, without the exceptions, the statute was unconstitutional. Id. at 815 (Crooks, J., dissenting)."

All that is left are the challenges to the statute.

imported post

if they changed the language to chattel (i'm not sure how to spell it), would that then allow vehicle carry? chattel being mobile? Maybe campers too?

imported post

Good to see you back James.

:monkey:celebrate

imported post

springfield 1911 wrote:

Good to see you back James.

:monkey:celebrate

Click to expand...

Thank you.

imported post

Very happy to have you on the forum.

imported post

I am wondering if this wouldn't be grounds to file another law suit.


"As Justice Abrahamson pointed out in her dissent, the majority’s methodology was not necessarily limited to home-owners or business owners:
The constitutional right to bear arms in Wisconsin now includes a right not only for all owners of privately owned and operated businesses and persons in their private residences to carry concealed weapons for purposes of security, but for many others as well. The majority not only concludes that for the right to bear arms to mean anything it must mean that a person can conceal arms to ‘maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business,’ but also that the constitutional right to bear arms in Wisconsin further protects the right of any other person to carry a concealed weapon if a court determines that the person’s interest in carrying a concealed weapon substantially outweighs’ the State’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute. The number of individuals who can fit under the umbrella is large.

A concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Crooks would have held the entire statute unconstitutional under the theory that the court had no authority to create exceptions to the statute, and, without the exceptions, the statute was unconstitutional. Id. at 815 (Crooks, J., dissenting)."

All that is left are the challenges to the statute.

imported post

The composition of the court has changed somewhat since Hamdan, but it would be interesting to see how they might take note of the fact that the state govt. continually failed to take effective action to remedy what the court clearly viewed as a flawed CCW statute. The failure is primarily the responsibility of one person: Jim Doyle.

By far the easiest and least costly manner of changing the CCW statute is to simply repeal it; or to modify it so that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon for unlawful purposes, i.e., during the commission of a crime.

Similarly, the gun free school zone statute could either be completely scrapped, or modified so that carrying a gun in a school zone is a crime only when the carrying was concurrent with the commission of a crime. But an otherwise lawful and constitutionally protected activity should not be criminalized simply because it occurs within a certain distance to a school. What next? Cannot give a political speech in a school zone? Cannot go to church in school zone?

imported post

Good points and I agree these would be the easiest ways to take care of these unconstitutional statutes. It goes without saying that our legislators can never seem to do anything the easy way. If we are not forcing their hand then it will not get done.

Our greatest move will be at election time when a list of every individual who voted against CCW/PPA last time should be ousted from office.

Sure it wasn't a very good bill to begin with but it was a start and they didn't vote it down because it wasn't a good bill they voted it down because they are anti gun and nothing more.

I think the list of anti gun legislators should be printed in every news paper and in every forum.

imported post

McX wrote:

thank you for returning. it wouldn't be the same without you. all i can quote is; you can check out any time you want, you can never leave (Eagles- Hotel California)

Click to expand...

Nice!

imported post

WELCOME BACK

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Good points and I agree these would be the easiest ways to take care of these unconstitutional statutes. It goes without saying that our legislators can never seem to do anything the easy way. If we are not forcing their hand then it will not get done.

Our greatest move will be at election time when a list of every individual who voted against CCW/PPA last time should be ousted from office.

Sure it wasn't a very good bill to begin with but it was a start and they didn't vote it down because it wasn't a good bill they voted it down because they are anti gun and nothing more.

I think the list of anti gun legislators should be printed in every news paper and in every forum.

Click to expand...

Welcome back J. Gleason, we are stronger because you have stayed with us. Does anybody have a list of the legislators who voted against CCW/PPA last time? We still have a lot of time to spread the word to others.

imported post

Yeah James:

Stick around. Things are about to get interesting. Changes in the make-up of the WSSC, as shotgun mentioned, as well ascomming change in the state political climate, thesoon to be announced McDonald decision of the SCOTUS, the result of the WCI lawsuit and the conclusion of the Parabellum case will all have profound effect on RKBA in Wisconsin. It will be a intersting Summer anf Fall.

Don't let the rabble-rousers get under your skin and chase you off as they did Lammie. Although I am sure he is active in other venues.

Shotgun: I agree with all you say except your blametowards Doyle. It is not he that contempted the WSSC twice.It is the legislature. The legislature has the final word. The fact that it refused to override Doyle's veto twice, puts them at fault of disregarding the WSSC instruction to devise a concealed carry permit sytem. In fact Doyle has defended open carry of firearms for personal protection, both in his agencies prosecution of Hamdan andduring hispersonal appearances. In fact in Hamdan his prosecution team stated outright that it was the concealment that was the issue. It appears to beconcealed carry he objects to not carry carte blanche.

Even thoughDoyle rejected (fortunately) the Personal Protection Act twice it is the legislature's fault it didn't become law.

imported post

A voyage, my Captain, or respite? I'm glad that neither you nor James G. have left us, bereft of steady helmsmen.