• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

J. B. Van Hollen

BerettaFS92Custom

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
232
Location
mid south but not madison , , USA
I like this ....................

source:
http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12721941




MADISON (WKOW) -- Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued the following statement applauding the United States Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago that says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.

"Today's decision is a victory for those who value liberty. The United States Supreme Court's opinion in McDonald vindicates every individual's fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Adopting the position I joined on behalf of the state of Wisconsin with 37 other states, the Court rightly concluded that the right to bear arms is a right that should be protected from unconstitutional governmental interference, whether by the federal government or state governments. This puts the right to bear arms on same footing as other fundamental rights, such as free speech and free exercise of religion.

To me, the Court's decision today is a natural and anticipated extension of the court's decision two years ago in Heller in which the Court held that the right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense is a fundamental individual right. If there is any surprise about today's decision, it is that it was not unanimous.

Wisconsin citizens know how fundamental the right to keep and bear arms is. When Wisconsin voters were given the opportunity to protect the right to bear arms in the Wisconsin Constitution, they overwhelmingly voted in favor of protecting the right, with nearly 3 votes in favor for every one opposed. The amendment, which passed in 1998, received more votes for a constitutional amendment than any other amendment in Wisconsin's history that was voted on in a non-presidential election year.

It is important to me to do what I can as Wisconsin's Attorney General to protect this fundamental individual right. I sought the required permission to file a brief in the Heller case. While the Governor denied my request, the State Assembly passed a resolution that authorized my office to write and file a brief with the United States Supreme Court, advocating for the right to bear arms. When this right became an issue again in the McDonald case, Governor Doyle once again rejected my request to advocate in the Supreme Court for this fundamental right on behalf of the state of Wisconsin. Once again, the State Assembly stepped in and provided the required authorization I needed to advocate for Wisconsin. "
 

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
Wow...

Yes, Doug was saying your post was so insufficient , that he had to add to it to make you look bad... (For not being "informative enough".) Why are you offended by another member adding info to your post? Someone else could read both, and could be thankful for both of you providing the information you did. So, I guess from now on no one can put additional information on "someone elses posts". I'll have to keep that in mind... (insert eye roll here...)

By the way, thanks Doug. :D
 

Gordo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Holmen, Wisconsin, USA
I think instead of arguing with each other we should be talking about the fact that we have a WI elected official in office who is doing something for us. Save the arguing for the people who want to try and take our rights from us.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
I think instead of arguing with each other we should be talking about the fact that we have a WI elected official in office who is doing something for us. Save the arguing for the people who want to try and take our rights from us.

+1

Lets just hope he isn't only doing it for campaign purposes. Like I said before, he could have released an opinion on OC, instead he only released a memo. A memo doesn't hold near as much weight and it is not binding to the state.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Jbh

+1

Lets just hope he isn't only doing it for campaign purposes. Like I said before, he could have released an opinion on OC, instead he only released a memo. A memo doesn't hold near as much weight and it is not binding to the state.

I think we all owe J. B. VanHollen a big thank you for being a "rights"consciuos Attorney General. Few states share our fortune in that regard.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
JB for US AG

Some have squaked that JB did not take his campaign for a run for Wisconsin Governor.

Let me ask this, in 2012, would you rather have JB as WI Gov. or US AG.

I think he's staying on as WI AG, banking on a Replican presidency in 2012, getting on the short list for US AG.

I could be wrong, but it sounds pretty nice doesn't it.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
I think we all owe J. B. VanHollen a big thank you for being a "rights"consciuos Attorney General. Few states share our fortune in that regard.

Don't get me wrong nemo, I agree with you. It is just so hard to trust any politician these days and the question still remains, why didn't he release an opinion instead of a memo? An opinion is binding to the state, a memo isn't.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Don't get me wrong nemo, I agree with you. It is just so hard to trust any politician these days and the question still remains, why didn't he release an opinion instead of a memo? An opinion is binding to the state, a memo isn't.

I guess what would that do? An opinion on what? The win in SCOTUS yesterday really didn't affect WI, did it, WI already has a constitutional amendment stating the RKBA, doesn't it?

Also, if you look at the WI web site, his office did file a brief on this item supporting the 2nd Ammendment.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I guess what would that do? An opinion on what? The win in SCOTUS yesterday really didn't affect WI, did it, WI already has a constitutional amendment stating the RKBA, doesn't it?

Also, if you look at the WI web site, his office did file a brief on this item supporting the 2nd Ammendment.
I think J is talking about THE memo. The open carry memo. Why wasn't that an opinion instead of a memo.
 
Top