• 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.

la crosse gfsz charge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
I just read on ap news that the 15 year old that brought a gun to school WAS charged with a gfsz violation. Couldn't get a link. (Posting from my mobile.)
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Hmmm.... I wonder if his attorney is going to challenge the GFSZ violatioin. I also wonder which GFSZ he will ultimately be charged with; federal or state.

Although this isn't a great test case, if it's under the federal GFSZ, It could be challenged on 2A/14A grounds or that it's beyond the federal power to regulate via the commerce clause. Also, if federal, it's the prosecutions burden to prove that the weapon moved in or substantially affected interstate commerce; probably not hard to do in this case.

If it's state GFSZ it can be challenged under Article 1 Section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution and 2A/14A but this challenge would be weak at best.

Once again, it's a bad test case and the kid broke a few laws just to show off to his friends but if you're his attorney your going to try your best to get him off the felony charge for sure.
 

nevinsb

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
145
Location
NY
Of course the responsible parents aren't accountable for anything.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
he's 15, he should not have a gun at all. I don't think he should be let off from anything, no matter if gfsz law is unconstitional or not HE'S 15. Parents should be in trouble right along side the kid. Where did he get this gun and why don't his parents know about it ?

Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.

I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.

There is a difference between good laws and bad laws. Good laws protect the innocent. Bad laws make otherwise innocent people guilty of a crime for no good reason.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I believe that's the very problem with our system. Give a criminal the best chance to get out of trouble when he/she clearly broke the law. It comes down to how much you can spend on good representation instead of bieng about what the "criminal" did. it becomes about what a good lawyer can get them out of.

Respectfully, I disagree. Who get's to judge who "clearly" broke the law? There's a reason that the system is the way it is. It's so that everyone get's a fair shake.

How many times has a police officer or other official twisted the facts (or outright lied) to get a conviction? Why do OCer's have to go around with voice recorders? If you think about all the problems we have now with inocent people getting nailed on trumped up charges think about how it would be if the government had even more power or we had less rights.

Too many people are in love with the rouge cop shows on TV where they get to beat confessions out of people. That's not how it works and if someone get's off on a percieved technicallity it's the fault of the police/DA and an ineffective prosecution rather than a problem with the system.

Some believe it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than 1 guilty person go free.

I on the other hand believe that it's better to have 100 guilty people go free than have one innocent person go to prison.
 

Tweety

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
73
Location
In my pick up truck
I agree with Brass magnet, there are many cases out there where the DA has tried to charge someone with charges that make the case seem much more serious than what the facts actually prove. That is why many of those cases get dismissed or the person is found not guilty. But then ther are some that get slammed with serious jail time for doing something that normally would not bring such a sentence.
 
M

McX

Guest
considering wiscarry had filed suit chalenging the school zone bit, any real action may be held off until that suit shows how it's going to go in the courts. I suspect the same thing with the Madison 5 issue(s).
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
Respectfully, I disagree. Who get's to judge who "clearly" broke the law? There's a reason that the system is the way it is. It's so that everyone get's a fair shake.

How many times has a police officer or other official twisted the facts (or outright lied) to get a conviction? Why do OCer's have to go around with voice recorders? If you think about all the problems we have now with inocent people getting nailed on trumped up charges think about how it would be if the government had even more power or we had less rights.

Too many people are in love with the rouge cop shows on TV where they get to beat confessions out of people. That's not how it works and if someone get's off on a percieved technicallity it's the fault of the police/DA and an ineffective prosecution rather than a problem with the system.

Some believe it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than 1 guilty person go free.

I on the other hand believe that it's better to have 100 guilty people go free than have one innocent person go to prison.

the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?

This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.
 

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
Even though I basically agree with you a lawyer has a duty to provide the best defense for his client. It doesn't matter who the client is or what that client did. I'm just musing over what that lawyer may do.

not to debate guilt or innocence with what he's charged with, but at 15 years old do constitutional rights apply? Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can a 15 year old use a 2A defense?
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
the kid is 15, how is he not clearly breaking the law ?? I have been on the twisted side of the law more times then i care to count and likely dealt with cops far more then anyone else on this forum. I agree with alot of what you say but saying that everyone gets a "fair shake" is about as ridiculous as it gets, when and where does this occur ?

This kid did "clearly" break the law, he is 15 the law DOES say gfsz, is it constitional imo NO is it the law YES. Is he allowed to have a gun at 15 NO, should he have a gun at school or anywhere else NO.

I'll clarify: The system is designed so that in theory everyone get's a fair shake. It may not always work out that way. In fixing the system, if we chose to do so, I will not advocate for more powers for the government but first say that DA's and LEO's need to do their job better. One of the real problems with the system on the justice side of things is when DA's abuse their discresion to either plea criminals down or trump charges on non criminals.

Obviously playing the devils advocate but in doing so making an important point:
Were you there? Did you see the kid breaking the law? Do you know where he got the gun from? Was it even his?

The point is that in this case; and many others, it may seem clear but unless you saw it with your own eyes or have the evidence to back it up it didn't happen in the eyes of the system. The government has to prove it.

How many times in a self defense case (where we think it's obviously self defense) does the defendant go to court anyway on charges of homicide or manslaughter?

Innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecutions burden not his our ours.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
not to debate guilt or innocence with what he's charged with, but at 15 years old do constitutional rights apply? Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can a 15 year old use a 2A defense?

Yes, I would argue that they apply; however, only because I don't believe it's been tested in court since the recent decisions. Many rights are disabled until a person reaches the age of majority; usually 18 or 21 and I'd guess that you are right in that they courts would probably believe his right is not enabled. They may decide to use the test that the militia consisted of able bodied men aged 18-45 (I believe those are the ages) for instance.

Also, most of having rights disabled until one meets the age of majority is because one is deemed not to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with that right until that age. It's not always the case that they can't handle the responsibility but in this case, if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.

Emancipated minors are a good example of someone suing for a right that is normally denied them because of not reaching the age of 18.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
I'll clarify: The system is designed so that in theory everyone get's a fair shake. It may not always work out that way. In fixing the system, if we chose to do so, I will not advocate for more powers for the government but first say that DA's and LEO's need to do their job better. One of the real problems with the system on the justice side of things is when DA's abuse their discresion to either plea criminals down or trump charges on non criminals.

Obviously playing the devils advocate but in doing so making an important point:
Were you there? Did you see the kid breaking the law? Do you know where he got the gun from? Was it even his?

The point is that in this case; and many others, it may seem clear but unless you saw it with your own eyes or have the evidence to back it up it didn't happen in the eyes of the system. The government has to prove it.

How many times in a self defense case (where we think it's obviously self defense) does the defendant go to court anyway on charges of homicide or manslaughter?

Innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecutions burden not his our ours.

lol, "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously you have never dealt with the law in anything but theory. Innocence is not presumed or there would not be bail. If I am innocent why am I givin a ticket and then made to "defend" myself in the court system, I have to pay a lawyer to "prove" my innocence and then if I am proven innocent I do not recieve any money in return for my cost to prove my innocence. Just because it says innocent until proven guilty does not make it any more true then the constitution saying I have the right to bear arms. think about it.
The kid walked into a school with a gun, no I was not there I am simply going by what the article says, having said that if a 15 year old kid walks anywhere with a gun he/she IS guilty of breaking the law and I don't need you a judge or anyone else to tell me he is guilty, a judge is a human just like me and you not some all knowing super power that you apparently think he or she is, wake up and smell the coffe friend.

BTW i love how you call them a "defendant" and at the same time say they are innocent until proven guilty, I'm dying for you to explain to me why he/she is bieng called "defendant" if they are considered innocent. What are they defending? innocence ? you don't defend innocence you prove guilt.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
Yes, I would argue that they apply; however, only because I don't believe it's been tested in court since the recent decisions. Many rights are disabled until a person reaches the age of majority; usually 18 or 21 and I'd guess that you are right in that they courts would probably believe his right is not enabled. They may decide to use the test that the militia consisted of able bodied men aged 18-45 (I believe those are the ages) for instance.

Also, most of having rights disabled until one meets the age of majority is because one is deemed not to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with that right until that age. It's not always the case that they can't handle the responsibility but in this case, if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.

Emancipated minors are a good example of someone suing for a right that is normally denied them because of not reaching the age of 18.
why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
why is it obvious he couldn't handle it ? who decides who can and cannot "handle" it ? what it's not ok for me to see his obvious guilt but it's ok for you to see his obvious inability to handle the responsibility.

Reread what I wrote:

if the allegations are true, it's pretty obvious be couldn't handle it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top