We won

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Motofixxer said:

Ok so who has the time and money to challenge these? Cmon hurry up, I'm waiting

Click to expand...

WCI already has a challenge in the system to the Gun Free School Zone Statute, and as you point out it takes time and money. Individually it is very difficult, but if we stand together and pool our resources, we can succeed.

Motofixxer said:

Ok so who has the time and money to challenge these? Cmon hurry up, I'm waiting

Click to expand...

If we can now bring suit under 1983 there are fee-shifting provisions where there were none before, making it much more affordable for anyone to sue. IANAL, though, and I'm not sure that this is the case.

Plenty of money comming in!

administrator said:

There is no forum membership fee for OpenCarry.org but if you are also joining Wisconsin Carry you can send your membership fees to the address you have for Hubert.

Click to expand...

Plenty of money comming in!

I like the victory. I don't really care for the 5-4 decision. 5 - 4 is cutting it close.

thusly, and rightfully so.

kd6sxa said:

I like the victory. I don't really care for the 5-4 decision. 5 - 4 is cutting it close.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. A majority constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, no matter the margin, is forever binding unless found unworkable, or unless changed by a future SCOTUS under irrefutable evidence. SCOTUS is very prone o issue any ruling that would upset a previous opinion. The McDonald opinion is "case in point". Four of the majority purposely avoided the previous 1873 "slaughterhouse" ruling even though they bowed to Clarence Thomas concurring opinion. The slaughter house opinion narrowly defined the Privleges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Ruling that the 14th amendment applies only at the federal level. The McDonalds court avoided that tangle and decided that the incorporation of the second amendment was insured under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but disagreed with the allegiance to the Due Process interpretation. He felt strongly that the second amendment was incorporated to the states through the Privilege or Imunities clause of the 14th amendment. The other 4 justices of the majority hinted that they agreed with Thomas's interpretation but were unwilling to thread those waters.

This difference probably only has judicial significance. The bottom line is that the second amendment 'at long last' has been incorporated to the states regarless the margin of victory.

At least that's how I see it.

?

So what (if any) effect will this have on a possible CCW bill in Wisconsin? If Barrett wins the election are we still going to be in the same crappy boat we were with Doyle?

KansasKraut said:

So what (if any) effect will this have on a possible CCW bill in Wisconsin? If Barrett wins the election are we still going to be in the same crappy boat we were with Doyle?

Click to expand...

Personally I do not believe this ruling actually has any affect in WI. Our Constitution already applied here and already applied to individuals.

So, I would be willing to bet if Barret gets in, we don't get CC or any other 'good' gun law changes except through a court.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Personally I do not believe this ruling actually has any affect in WI. Our Constitution already applied here and already applied to individuals.

So, I would be willing to bet if Barret gets in, we don't get CC or any other 'good' gun law changes except through a court.

Click to expand...

I agree with little to no effect. I disagree with law 'changes' through a court. Only the legislature elected by the people writes law. The judiciary may not like it, may refuse to enforce it, but they do not write it.

Doug Huffman said:

I agree with little to no effect. I disagree with law 'changes' through a court. Only the legislature elected by the people writes law. The judiciary may not like it, may refuse to enforce it, but they do not write it.

Click to expand...

I guess what I meant is change through court is that McDonald could probably be used in the GFSZ challenge in Federal court.

mcdonald was right of ownership, and i don't think there's anything about ownership in a school zone in the scotus bits that would help right to carry in some form. damn shame.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I guess what I meant is change through court is that McDonald could probably be used in the GFSZ challenge in Federal court.

Click to expand...

Please quote from McDonald. It's only 241 pages long. I'm at about page 40.

I agree with Steve McX, nothing good for GFSZ in McDonald.

Doug Huffman said:

Please quote from McDonald. It's only 241 pages long. I'm at about page 40.

I agree with Steve McX, nothing good for GFSZ in McDonald.

Click to expand...

I'm about the same page, however, I read that McDonald builds onto Heller and that Heller was more helpful. When I find that, I'll post it here.

we need to get something juicy, that we can use, up there again before the supreme court goes left. right of nation wide open carry would be nice. but it would be hell to bend the 2nd amendment writings in the constitution to our way......or would it?

IMHO, I think we will see more challenges in court, with the challengers prevailing. I think the decision will have an impact on the GFSZ law suit. Not that it will find the law totally unconstitutional but I do think the law will be repealed or rewritten to read No firearms allowed on school property or in a school building. These are the types of changes we will be seeing.
I have to agree with BNH on this. I think we need to now work on getting these laws repealed and our only other option is Constitutional Carry. No permitting system except for reciprocity nothing more.

we need to now work on getting these laws repealed and our only other option is Constitutional Carry. No permitting system except for reciprocity nothing more.

Click to expand...

I agree except we shouldn't even mention any type of permitting system, not even for reciprocity. We can get out of state permits to cover a lot of states, not perfect but it will do. While I don't think constitutional carry will fly in this state, it's worth a try. If we bring up any type of permitting I think we will shoot ourselves in the foot.

i was mulling it over last night at bed time, and i came up with this; SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. that sounds like the ticket we need to get to the supreme court- at least our state supreme court, and get the school zone crap abolished. limiting places allowed to carry for self defense sounds like infringement to me. plus with the republican platform endorsing permitless concealed- arizona style, we need to stand united and firm on constitutional carry. and hit the polls en mass come november. this is going to be our year!

McX said:

we need to stand united and firm on constitutional carry. and hit the polls en mass come november. this is going to be our year!

Click to expand...

+1 I'll even add that if Barrett (don't underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people) gets elected I believe he would sign a concealed carry bill, so no mater what I think we will make positive gains in the very near future.

We still have time to get the word out, we need to energize people and convince them to vote. It is up to all of us, we have the power to make change in this state (not Obama change) and take this state in a new direction. Everytime we carry we are influencing people, starting conversations at dinner tables, among friends, co-workers, etc... We need to be extra dillegent in our efforts to find new ocers and share the reasons why we carry with the world. Unfortunately the sheeple flock is large, we have to grow our numbers to match them, we have to unite this november, and encorage as many to vote as we can. This november lets send a message to our politicians that NOW is the time to listen to us, lets remind them that they recieve their power from the concent of the governed. United we stand, divided we fall, it's that simple.

do you think we can convince our upcoming newly elected republican reps this fall to seceed?

added on edit; that way when the country goes poop we'll be safe in the republic of wisconsin.