A press release from a Wisconsin (!!) District Attorney:
http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district attorney/Documents/McDonald vs. City of Chicago.pdf
OFFICE OF GERALD R. FOX
JACKSON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release June 29, 2010
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GERALD FOX’S STATEMENT ON THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO
Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans,
the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second
Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies
everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state
infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling,
the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the
freedoms protected by the amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local
governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current
laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will
no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the
following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,
including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public
buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in
establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with
a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the
fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves
for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers,
homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County
Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).
Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the
state’s interests first, and would only create an exception to these
laws when the individual’s need for protection outweighed the
state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have
approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the
defendant’s personally-owned place of business. Well, as the United
States Supreme Court held yesterday, that view was exactly backward.
As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech,
of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons,
and effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful
only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling
governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a
narrowly-tailored restriction, in terms of time, place and manner.
Clearly, a blanket prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm
in your personal vehicle does not pass that test.
Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting
herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make
sense? Not here, not anymore. That’s not an American value; it puts
concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to
self-defense. The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun
laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law
practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm
someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws
only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage
when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that
this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.
I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these
areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will
follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, I want to emphasize that with
fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue
to vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms,
such as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed
while intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and
endangering safety by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a
few. Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and
common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all
of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted
to protect themselves and their neighbors safely.
A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision can be found at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney
General of
Wisconsin, can be viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-
10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf
Let Freedom Ring.
Gerald R. Fox
http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district attorney/Documents/McDonald vs. City of Chicago.pdf
OFFICE OF GERALD R. FOX
JACKSON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release June 29, 2010
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GERALD FOX’S STATEMENT ON THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO
Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans,
the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second
Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies
everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state
infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling,
the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the
freedoms protected by the amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local
governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current
laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will
no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the
following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons,
including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public
buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in
establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with
a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the
fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves
for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers,
homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County
Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).
Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the
state’s interests first, and would only create an exception to these
laws when the individual’s need for protection outweighed the
state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have
approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the
defendant’s personally-owned place of business. Well, as the United
States Supreme Court held yesterday, that view was exactly backward.
As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech,
of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons,
and effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful
only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling
governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a
narrowly-tailored restriction, in terms of time, place and manner.
Clearly, a blanket prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm
in your personal vehicle does not pass that test.
Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting
herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make
sense? Not here, not anymore. That’s not an American value; it puts
concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to
self-defense. The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun
laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law
practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm
someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws
only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage
when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that
this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.
I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these
areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will
follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, I want to emphasize that with
fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue
to vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms,
such as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed
while intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and
endangering safety by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a
few. Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and
common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all
of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted
to protect themselves and their neighbors safely.
A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision can be found at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney
General of
Wisconsin, can be viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-
10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf
Let Freedom Ring.
Gerald R. Fox
:monkey
