Results 1 to 22 of 22

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post 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/archi...REMECOURTS.pdf

  2. #2
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Welcome back.

    "In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled that the concealed handgun prohibition was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to a personÂ’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.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    Post imported post

    Thank you for coming back.

  4. #4
    McX
    Guest

    Post 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)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Post imported post

    Nice to see you online again!
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

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

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

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

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post 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.
    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.


  9. #9
    McX
    Guest

    Post 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?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member springfield 1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    484

    Post imported post

    Good to see you back James.

    :celebrate
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ34JTqk0I

    In the ashes burns an ember of liberty, We are the fuel to ignite the ember into a flame of liberty.

    The embodiment of our founding fathers will not be found in one man , But in Many.

    ****** give it away ( Our rights ) prostitutes sell it (Mandated training).

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    springfield 1911 wrote:
    Good to see you back James.

    :celebrate
    Thank you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Very happy to have you on the forum.

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

    Post 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 majorityÂ’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.

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post 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?
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post 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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Waukesha, ,
    Posts
    147

    Post 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)
    Nice!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    WELCOME BACK
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  18. #18
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post 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.
    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.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Post 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.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Denmark, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    Post imported post

    thank you, for staying. I'm like a fish out of water here, an any intell I can get my hands on to help me though this dam maze of laws an regs is a realy big helping hand.

  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Nemo, I certainly lay blame with the legislature as well. But I do not consider Doyle's statement, "wear it on you hip" to be a sincere statement of support for open carry. I consider it to have been an insincere and perfidious statement. I consider it a statement that-- had he know people would actually take at face value-- he would have never made.

    If manner of carry (open versus concealed) matters to a person-- in any way other than their own personal preferred manner of carry-- then I question that person's support of the RKBA.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Posting Permissions

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