Gene German Makes Sense on WI v. Schultz... (long post)

Captain Nemo said:

Nobody campaigned harder for passage of the ill fated Personal Protection Act than Gene German. He and I as well as Dick Baker and I exchanged a number of emails on the subjects of open vs concealed carry, training requirements, cost of training as well as other issues. Now he wants to disavow his participation by passing the ball to Dick Baker. Gene was just as intent in getting SB-214(2003) and SB-403 (2005) passed as anyone involved. Dick Baker as lead of WCCA was very involved and dedicated to conceal carry. As a result of all the emails I exchanged with him I got to respect his honesty and opinions even though I disagreed with his ideas. He, German, Rep Gunderson, Sen Zien, NRA and Mike Bruhn all poo-pooed my idea that Hamdan gave us the right to open carry and that the Personal Protection Act was not needed. Now Gene wants to take credit for the open carry movement? We all know that the credit belongs to nik, Hubert, Jesus, Brad, As well as many other proactive members of OCDO, those that said and say "This is my constitutional right. Get out of my face". As ccwinstructor German has been posting as a profound supporter of open carry and I applaud him for that but my recollection of things gone by don't co-incide with his words of today. If he wants to join the "movement" as an active supporter of WCI and give credit where credit is due, welcome aboard. If he wants to take the credit for the open carry movement then "get off the wagon". I still have those emails.

Click to expand...

My recollection, and I may still have old emails too-- I proposed using open carry as leverage to get CC years ago, before the PPA was stopped in its tracks, and Dick and the PPA movement guys resisted the idea. They seemed to believe it would backfire as a political tactic.

Spartacus says.

"WCI is the tip of the arrow but the efforts of many went into creating the shaft."

Well lets hope we don't get the shaft.

J.Gleason said:

hmmmm, never know

By the way, does a law degree mean that you are always right?

Click to expand...

No, but the odds of him being correct are quite a bit higher than someone with no law agree.

J.Gleason said:

hmmmm, never know

By the way, does a law degree mean that you are always right?

Click to expand...

Always being RIGHT means you are ALWAYS RIGHT!

I am ALWAYS accused of being "RIGHT" by those who are "LEFT."

bnhcomputing said:

Always being RIGHT means you are ALWAYS RIGHT!

I am ALWAYS accused of being "RIGHT" by those who are "WRONG."

Click to expand...

Fixed!

J.Gleason said:

Nope I still believe that this case has precedence state wide. It is a state court and the judges decision can influence other cases in other counties as well.

Click to expand...

Everything has psychological precedence.

I think psychologically the Jackson County DA's memo had an effect statewide

I think psychologically, lots of these 'pro-freedom' decisions by DA's and Judges are having an effect.

But I would sure feel horrible if I gave someone in Walworth County the impression that they could CC with impunity, have them get arrested and GUESS WHAT, the Walworth County Judge finds him guilty and doesn't give a damn what some judge in Clark County said.

I'm ALL for people making their own decisions. I DO believe you are right J. that this decision DOES have an effect statewide right now, but in the opinion of our legal counsel, its not enough legal precedent to where we feel its appropriate to suggest people outside Clark County could OC with impunity. That would be a disservice to provide that false sense of security.

I didn't ask this question of Joe, but I will next time we talk.

I'm not even sure right now in Clark County you couldn't still be arrested for CC and charged by the DA. YES, you'd get the same judge and YES that judge would dismiss your case, but I assume YOUR case could get appealed as well and until a higher court holds the unconstitutionality, I think you are in legal peril.

Its a good ruling. The judge is right. This is a step in the right direction, but people are still at risk if they CC in Clark county and for sure still at risk statewide for CC.

The odds are improving and moving in your favor, but CC'ing is STILL a gamble.

A district court decision only has precedential value for lower courts within that district. It has no precedential value on any higher court unless the higher court wishes to adopt the decision. On other district courts within the state the decision has what is called "persuasive authority" meaning that the other district courts should seriously consider the decision of the same level district court but are not bound by it. My opinion

District Court?

Wisconsin does not have district courts. The court of general jurisdicition is the circuit court. The first appellate level is the court of appeals. The top level is the supreme court. There are also municipal courts but their jurisdiction is limited. There are judicial administrative districts but they are not courts but rather, as the name suggests, administrative structures.

IF Wisconsin beats other more liable States to the enactment of Constitutional Carry Status..., then, I can TRUELY say that I HAVE Lived to see it ALL!

However, make no mistake, likely Canadites for Constitutional Carry include: 1. Utah, 2. Nevada, 3. Montana, 4. New Mexico, 5. Colorado, 6. Wyoming, 7. Idaho, 8. South Dakota, 9. Oregon, 10. Washington... BUT Wisconsin?

Spartacus said:

I don't read it as Gene taking credit. He mentions the common man as being the ones that are making this happen.

And then lets not forget that ANYONE, regardless of their level of participation helped get us to the point we are today. If the previous bills had not been put forward, supported but been vetoed and Doyle had not made his comments on OC I doubt WCI would have even been created.

WCI is the tip of the arrow but the efforts of many went into creating the shaft.

Click to expand...

Agree. We have an enemy with virtually unlimited financial resources that looks at Wisconsin as "their's" in the form of the Joyce foundation. In the coming battle, it will be to only our community's advantage to be unified and have the benefit of the assistance and knowledge of those who fought and almost won previous battles. As long we don't refight the previous war.

aadvark said:

IF Wisconsin beats other more liable States to the enactment of Constitutional Carry Status..., then, I can TRUELY say that I HAVE Lived to see it ALL!

However, make no mistake, likely Canadites for Constitutional Carry include: 1. Utah, 2. Nevada, 3. Montana, 4. New Mexico, 5. Colorado, 6. Wyoming, 7. Idaho, 8. South Dakota, 9. Oregon, 10. Washington... BUT Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

Doesn't Georgia have a non-permit bill out there also? I just heard talk of it in passing a month back or so. Given the time of year, the legislature is probably not in session, but...

Wisconsin Carry said:

Doesn't Georgia have a non-permit bill out there also? I just heard talk of it in passing a month back or so. Given the time of year, the legislature is probably not in session, but...

Click to expand...

The Georgia bill would have eliminated the ban on open carry without a license. It would not have legalized CC without license too.

On Wisconsin....

Does anyone here actually believe that Wisconsin will go from a prohibited concealed carry/ban on 1000 foot school zones and the various sorts of off-limits places to Vermont-style with no places where it can be banned?

Even if WIRS 941.23 were struck down as completely unconstitutional, you still have the school zones ban (unknown whether or not the judge in Doyle will make the correct decision), and there's the possibility that the Legislature could just rewrite the concealed carry ban with a full list of exceptions. I am not hopeful that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will make the correct decision. They have continually punted on the issue. Unless there's been an idealogical purge of the court recently, I have my doubts (Keep in mind, I support constitutional carry as a matter of policy and law).

Isn't there some way to file a state lawsuit based on state constitutionality, so we can keep cases to a civil private level rather than criminal defense cases?

IIRC, GFSZ was filed in a federal court.

Gray Peterson said:

Does anyone here actually believe that Wisconsin will go from a prohibited concealed carry/ban on 1000 foot school zones and the various sorts of off-limits places to Vermont-style with no places where it can be banned?

Click to expand...

lol Gray have you hit the nail on the head.

The Pollyanna's here all say yes. The pragmatists (well me anyway) say "No way Jose."

Gray Peterson said:

Does anyone here actually believe that Wisconsin will go from a prohibited concealed carry/ban on 1000 foot school zones and the various sorts of off-limits places to Vermont-style with no places where it can be banned?

Click to expand...

Straw man argument. No one is suggesting that Wisconsin will go from its draconian laws to VT style where there are "No" places it can be banned.

Now I'm not familiar with VT, but if in VT you can take your gun ANYWHERE (in schools, government buildings, courthouses, courtrooms, etc)

No, I don't think Wisconsin will get there.

You also didn't put a time-frame on your straw-man argument. Do I think Wisconsin can repeal 941.23 this year. Yes I do.

Knowing there are several other laws we need repealed also (vehicle carry being one) and the GFSZ to either be defeated in court or repealed, I don't know if all that will happen in a year.

As for your suggestion the legislature will just re-introduce a GFSZ law if a judge strikes it down... I HIGHLY doubt it. The composition of the legislature is going to shift dramatically and the right to keep and bear arms is VERY broadly supported in Wisconsin. Other than a few legislators from liberal strongholds in MIlwaukee County and Dane County, no politician wants to get on the wrong side of gun owners.

Not everyone chooses to exercise their right to carry in Wisconsin but the VAST majority(74%) support it.

If anything could see them changing to law to "school grounds" but I think that is a wholesale improvement over the 1000ft zone.

The Wisconsin Republican Party changed its platform this year to support non-permit right to carry.

The Wisconsin legislature just like the national legislature is poised to dramatically shift to a more libertarian leaning republican majority

There is a huge push-back against "big government".

The leading candidate for governor is on record saying he will sign a repeal of 941.23

And as I said,the GFSZ lawsuit will be litigated in the next year.

All the pieces are in place for Wisconsin to take a big leap forward.

We are not relying on just the courts to restore our rights here, but thanks for your encouragement.

I'm certain we "could" get 941.23 repealed this year if WCI's members got active with their local state reps and state senators.

I'm not a gambling man, nor an actuary, so I won't speculate of the odds of people actually DOING it and making it happen.

So "will" we repeal 941.23. Maybe maybe not.

I am confident that declaring Wisconsin will not repeal 941.23 this year has no positive effect on the movement and whether you believe it can be repealed this year or if it will take several years, the action steps are still the same.

Gray Peterson said:

Does anyone here actually believe that Wisconsin will go from a prohibited concealed carry/ban on 1000 foot school zones and the various sorts of off-limits places to Vermont-style with no places where it can be banned?

Click to expand...

The the best of my knowledge that is an overstatement regarding Vermont. Vermont prohibits firearms in schools except when carried by law enforcement officers or school-authorized activities. This is pretty much the same as Wisconsin.

Vermont prohibits firearms in courtrooms that are "secure facilities," i.e., have weapons screening checkpoints.

Vermont also allows local gun ordinances which may further restrict where you may take a firearm.

Technically apjonas is correct. Wisconsin does not have District Courts per se. The courts I referred to are properly called circuit courts. Wisconsin has 72 counties grouped into 10 districts. Within the districts are circuit courts. There are 249 circuit court judges. The circuit court system is divided into branches. There is at least one branch in each county except that Shawano/Menomonee, Pepin/Buffalo,and Forest/Florence each share judges. Circuit courts are in a way district courts in that they operate within the 10 state districts but their proper nomenclature is circuit court. I stand corrected. My basic statement is still valid. A circuit court decision is not binding on other circuit courts but it does have "persuasive authority". Persuasive authority (also known as persausive precedent) means the other circuit courts should give it serious consideration.