AG won't rule on enforcing gun laws

From the La Crosse Tribune: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_7bedfe94-bbca-11df-84f6-001cc4c002e0.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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Oh, and detain/arrest.

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.

Captain Nemo said:

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..

Click to expand...

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?

BROKENSPROKET said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

That implies to me that Skolos has NOT asked the AG for guidance.

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.

Captain Nemo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Captain Nemo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Spartacus said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1

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

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?

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.

Captain Nemo said:

Perhaps next time I will be careful to select my wording more precisely.

Click to expand...

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.