Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: AG won't rule on enforcing gun laws

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    AG won't rule on enforcing gun laws

    From the La Crosse Tribune: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/loca...cc4c002e0.html
    Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen will not issue an opinion on gun law prosecution in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prompted the Jackson County district attorney to forego charging some violations.

    The attorney general's office said no official requests have been made to weigh in on the high court's ruling in June that struck down Chicago's 28-year firearm ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.

    Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox later announced he would no longer prosecute carrying a concealed weapon, including switchblade or butterfly knives, possession of a firearm in a public building or bar, or having an uncased or loaded firearm in a vehicle.

    He still will enforce other unlawful use of weapons, such as the prohibition of felons being armed with a firearm, possessing a firearm while intoxicated, using a firearm to commit a crime and endangering the safety by negligent handling of a weapon.

    Fox's decision made local law enforcement officials choose how they would handle such violations and even prompted questions about similar ordinances.

    Van Hollen had praised the court's ruling.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Good reminder. The cops do not 'charge', but observe, investigate and recommend.

    Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen will not issue an opinion on gun law prosecution in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prompted the Jackson County district attorney to forego charging some violations.
    Oh, and detain/arrest.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I doubt that we will get and AG opinion on this issue. For some reason, perhaps in an effort to preserve the police state, the attorney general is restricted as to whom he/she may issue advice. There is no duty to provide legal advice to the general public. In fact it is expressly prohibited, even though the office is an elected office by the people. Certainly we will not get one before the November elections are over. The issue is too politically sensitive. The department of justice will go so far as to preserve the police state that it even has constructed its own interpretation of state statute regarding AG advice. 165.015(1) contains the phrase "---by the legilature". The DoJ has interpreted that to mean not a individual legislator but that the request must come form the legislature as a whole or from one of the comittee chairpersons"

    165.015 Duties. The attorney general shall:

    165.015(1)
    (1) Give opinion to officers. Give his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government.

    165.25(3)
    (3) Advise district attorneys. Consult and advise with the district attorneys when requested by them in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I doubt that we will get and AG opinion on this issue.
    ...., the attorney general is restricted as to whom he/she may issue advice. There is no duty to provide legal advice to the general public. In fact it is expressly prohibited, even though the office is an elected office by the people. Certainly we will not get one before the November elections are over. The issue is too politically sensitive..
    I said I an other thread that Skolos and Fox have put JB in pre-election political hot seat.

    Anywho, Skolos has asked the AG for guidance. Does that not qualify?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I said I an other thread that Skolos and Fox have put JB in pre-election political hot seat.

    Anywho, Skolos has asked the AG for guidance. Does that not qualify?
    Directly from the news article:
    The attorney general's office said no official requests have been made to weigh in on the high court's ruling in June that struck down Chicago's 28-year firearm ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.
    That implies to me that Skolos has NOT asked the AG for guidance.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Touchdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    With a democrat controlled state house and senate, don't expect to see any clarification on the recent SCOTUS rulings requested. I wrote my local reps and requested that they ask for a formal opinion. Don't hold your breath. Need to wait for January 2011 to begin pro 2A legislation.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I doubt that we will get and AG opinion on this issue. For some reason, perhaps in an effort to preserve the police state, the attorney general is restricted as to whom he/she may issue advice. There is no duty to provide legal advice to the general public. In fact it is expressly prohibited, even though the office is an elected office by the people.
    I don't understand how sometimes your posts can be so lucid and other times not so. Why would we need or expect an opinion from the AG when below you have listed his/her duties none of which require what you ask. Can you imagine the confusion in the AG's office if their duties included handing out legal advice to each and every citizen upon request.

    And I certainly don't see this issue as any more "sensitive" than any other. The SCOTUS rulings were crystal clear and Art 1 Sec 25 gives us everything we need to secure our right. Local police can detain or arrest as they please and local DA's may prosecute or not as they please. Some of these people are on a very steep learning curve right now and will need time to make the leap.

    What more do you want in this regard? Obviously concealed carry is coming in one form or another very soon with or without permitting, training and restrictions and we will take what we get and work on it from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    165.015 Duties. The attorney general shall:

    165.015(1)
    (1) Give opinion to officers. Give his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government.

    165.25(3)
    (3) Advise district attorneys. Consult and advise with the district attorneys when requested by them in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office.
    Last edited by Spartacus; 09-12-2010 at 08:59 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    I don't understand how sometimes your posts can be so lucid and other times not so. Why would we need or expect an opinion from the AG when below you have listed his/her duties none of which require what you ask. Can you imagine the confusion in the AG's office if their duties included handing out legal advice to each and every citizen upon request.

    And I certainly don't see this issue as any more "sensitive" than any other. The SCOTUS rulings were crystal clear and Art 1 Sec 25 gives us everything we need to secure our right. Local police can detain or arrest as they please and local DA's may prosecute or not as they please. Some of these people are on a very steep learning curve right now and will need time to make the leap.

    What more do you want in this regard? Obviously concealed carry is coming in one form or another very soon with or without permitting, training and restrictions and we will take what we get and work on it from there.

    +1

    I wonder why Fox didn't officially ask for an opinion?

  9. #9
    McX
    Guest
    it doesn't sound too awful bad; declining to make a ruling isn't as bad as ruling against. maybe were getting some lattitude here?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Spartacus you misread my post again. Perhaps I should have said "I doubt that the AG will issue an opinion on the issue". Following that was just an explanation of, faceiciously so, of why the general public is not entitled to request an AG opinion and also reflecting that at this point in time he(the AG) has not received a request through proper channels as stated in the article. Perhaps next time I will be careful to select my wording more precisely.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Perhaps next time I will be careful to select my wording more precisely.
    You usually do. Thats why I felt the need to comment on that last post.

    Even if we disagree at times I respect the level of intelligence you put into your posts.

Posting Permissions

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