COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT (would filing this hurt our efforts)

Members and board for wisconsincarry.org

I'd like to file this next thursday, but, I wonder if it will help our cause for constitutional carry or hurt it. In reading everything available it appears that our Legislators are going to propose a bill that would impose restrictions to concealed carry, but, if I file the attached document in court and have a judge declare the statute's listed unconstitutional, we wouldn't need the Legislators to pass a bill, we would automatically have constitutional carry.

The question then becomes, even if a judge would find the statutes unconstitutional, would the Legistlators still go ahead with a bill with manditory training? if so, then filing this document would negate the efforts.

Don

i got this gut feeling, no ramming, we already are, just what were doing right now (?) But then again i read it, and it puts it on the judicial plate too. sad thing is, lawsuits sometimes dont go no where, but then again neither are we. call the boss and ask him on this one. Paging Nik- pick up the white courtesy phone.

File it, citizen

File it! Please, file it! :exclaim:

Given the emerging nature of Second Amendment law, I believe it is a grave mistake for anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any law on Second Amendment grounds without the assistance of legal counsel. Adverse rulings anywhere will be used everywhere to defend laws that could potentially be stricken down absent the adverse legal authority.

Among many other problems I see with this case: the state would likely have the proposed case removed to federal court (federal question). The 7th Circuit is not a friendly venue for 2A litigation.

I highly recommend against the OP's proposed course of action.

WVCDL said:

Given the emerging nature of Second Amendment law, I believe it is a grave mistake for anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any law on Second Amendment grounds without the assistance of legal counsel. Adverse rulings anywhere will be used everywhere to defend laws that could potentially be stricken down absent the adverse legal authority.

Among many other problems I see with this case: the state would likely have the proposed case removed to federal court (federal question). The 7th Circuit is not a friendly venue for 2A litigation.

I highly recommend against the OP's proposed course of action.

Click to expand...

James,
It seems that all attorney’s attempt at some point to sway individuals against self representation. We all as citizens have the right to challenge the statutes we feel are unconstitutional, and also have the right to represent ourselves in court. I represented myself when I caught a criminal case. When I went to court the first thing the judge said was do you have an attorney, and began telling me how complicated a criminal case was and that I needed an attorney, as I wouldn’t understand or know what to do in court, and that he would hold me to the same standards as he would if I was an attorney. Every time I would appear before him I would hear the same story. After, I began to file motions; he backed off, perhaps thinking that this guy really knows what he is doing. It took me eight months, studying criminal law and several motions without an attorney, until finally at a motion to suppress evidence hearing the charges were dropped based on a constitutional error. Yes, constitutional error, I discovered that the police violated my constitutional rights, so, I’m not one to bend or run when there is an argument about constitutional rights. I’m well read in the law and understand completely what is in this document, I wrote it. Your argument is week, and unpersuasive, in addition upsetting, because whenever you state that a citizen needs and attorney; you cut down a citizen’s constitutional right to defend him or herself in court which is a fundamental right. I’m not at all shaken by your attempt to scare me into not filing this document.
We currently have a statute in place that tells us we cannot carry concealed legally, if a Wisconsin judge determines that the statute is constitutional, then we are no better off than we are now, which given the precedence set by circuit judges, and District attorney mentioned in the document, is unlikely they will find the statutes constitutional, I believe they will find the statutes unconstitutional. If it is moved to federal court I also believe that based on McDonald that the federal courts will also find the statute unconstitutional. I’m completely disgusted with any attorney to come on this forum from another state and attempt to dissuade anyone from challenging a unconstitutional statute, worry about your own state and let me worry about Wisconsin.

Don

OK, here is my thought, or opinion rather. The idea of your suit is a great one, and the truth is that with enough people filing that can show cause for needing a concealed weapon, I think that the courts would be hard pressed to just dismiss it due to the laws being found constitutional.

For Example:
I live in an area where it is not always socially acceptable to carry a firearm, but I also live in an area that is populated with children, sexual predators, and predatory animals (Bear, Coyote, Wolf, Mountain Lion). So I have an acceptable reason to want to have the ability to defend myself and those around me, and my best option would be to carry concealed.

However, just one person filing would be hard to get through, and would be looked on as one person trying to cause a stink.

As far as if/when you should file it, I think you would be best suited to wait to see what the legislature decides to do. More than any other reason, because you can be stalled and delayed at least until a law is passed or rejected, and at that point the courts can easily say that there decision is in keeping with what the legislature has decided. Much like (In my opinion) what is being done with the suit claiming that the GFSZ in wisconsin is unconstitutional.

So to make it simple, wait to see what happens with the legislature, and if we don't get CC in Wisconsin, then make it a suit that is filed by several people and not just you.

HandyHamlet said:

Click to expand...

For some reason I always get a kick out of the things you post. You are one funny mofo. I am glad I get to get on here evvery day and laugh thanks to you. (And Glock34, and Nutczak)

judgement

I'm not intentionally trying to deail your cause. People have the right and freedom to pursue their objectives as they see fit within the law. I only add to the discussion that the wheels of justice turn excrutiatingly slow, just ask the "Madison five" guys. Chances are the concealed carry issue will be decided before the requested declaratory judgement reaches the bench for judicial decision. It may be a little late to the dance.

hey cowboy could you chime in on tis on quick


http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87248-Parking-ramp-or-portajohn-government-building

Warning, direct speak coming, no offense intended:
What if this somehow actually got in the system and was taken seriously.....then the legislature decides not to put forth legislation for CCW, pending resolution of your submission? Remotely slim as the chances are, I don't want any such outcome. I'd never represent myself. I certainly don't want someone who "studied for 8 months" representing an issue I care so deeply about.

If I'm being too uptight, I apologize.. I need some good BBQ.

1FASTC4 said:

If I'm being too uptight, I apologize.. I need some good BBQ.

Click to expand...

I hear there is a place in Eagle River named "Little Pigs" right next to the NAPA store.
Oh, wait, I heard they closed. So I guess you better drive west instead.

Back on subject now, What could filing that possibly hurt? I know the gain it could create, but what could it hurt?

If there is nothing to lose, I say go for it! Sitting idle and not saying anything does nothing

1FASTC4 said:

Warning, direct speak coming, no offense intended:
What if this somehow actually got in the system and was taken seriously.....then the legislature decides not to put forth legislation for CCW, pending resolution of your submission? Remotely slim as the chances are, I don't want any such outcome. I'd never represent myself. I certainly don't want someone who "studied for 8 months" representing an issue I care so deeply about.

If I'm being too uptight, I apologize.. I need some good BBQ.

Click to expand...

I accept all voices, for or against filing this document, I'm not offended at all, and I agree, the eight months I studied, I was fighting for my freedom, and to keep my license, not so with this issue, but I feel that the current statutes are unconstitutional. Feel free to look me up wcca, you'll see what happened to me, and what documents I filed, its all listed, I will say I'll never go through that again, and I hope no one here has to either, it isn't worth it.

Will the Legislators delay bringing a bill to the governer, and wait for a court to decide, good question, and who knows what they will do.

What would happen if they passed a bill requiring training and permits, while this was going through the courts and the court found the statutes unconstitutional, would the training and permits requirment then become unconstitutional, not sure about that myself.

I think the legislators are going to be busy for the next several months with the current delema, and I don't see a bill being passed for concealed carry anytime soon, defenately not this spring, its on the back burner right now.

You going to sit around and wait???? and wait and wait.....


Don

+1 for submitting it. :banana:

cowboyridn said:

I accept all voices, for or against filing this document, I'm not offended at all, and I agree, the eight months I studied, I was fighting for my freedom, and to keep my license, not so with this issue, but I feel that the current statutes are unconstitutional. Feel free to look me up wcca, you'll see what happened to me, and what documents I filed, its all listed, I will say I'll never go through that again, and I hope no one here has to either, it isn't worth it.

Will the Legislators delay bringing a bill to the governer, and wait for a court to decide, good question, and who knows what they will do.

What would happen if they passed a bill requiring training and permits, while this was going through the courts and the court found the statutes unconstitutional, would the training and permits requirment then become unconstitutional, not sure about that myself.

I think the legislators are going to be busy for the next several months with the current delema, and I don't see a bill being passed for concealed carry anytime soon, defenately not this spring, its on the back burner right now.

You going to sit around and wait???? and wait and wait.....


Don

Click to expand...

Don, If you feel strongly about it, let 'er rip. Hell, I'm wrong all the time, just ask my wife. heheheh

1FASTC4 said:

Don, If you feel strongly about it, let 'er rip. Hell, I'm wrong all the time, just ask my wife. heheheh

Click to expand...

Ditto, my government routinely corrects me, and my efforts.

Don,

I appreciate all the work you have done on this! All I can say is WOW!!! :banana:

I do find it funny that you black out JB Van Hollen's name and not your home address.

Here are a couple of thoughts:

1. It is possible that JB will stipulate to this and it won't go to trial.
2. It is possible that the laws you are challenging will be changed by the time it comes to a hearing.
3. Do you live in Dane County? I thought the law was just changed so that you could sue the state in your home county instead of putting it through Dane County. The venue of Dane County might be troublesome. I would suggest a more conservative county. If you live in Dane County, never mind!

Like you, I am frustrated that the legislature hasn't even introduced Constitutional Carry legislation. They seem to have time to pass other stuff.

Don,

I am a bit confused. Is there a back-story I missed? Would you mind posting a link to the thread/whatever?

A tip on the Wiki links, there's a way to make a permalink to wiki that locks out other versions. By doing that, you can ensure that someone doesn't modify the articles in a way that won't help when the person clicks on it. I might also suggest paraphrasing what the links are supposed to say, just in case they go bubye.

I agree wholeheartedly in spirit, but the timing of this makes me a bit nervous. A couple of weeks to see what the legislature will do might help. If they start looking like they are not addressing our issue, maybe then (and tell them they suck because they didn't repeal 941.23 and 167.31.) We have all waited a long time, and had a whole lot of disappointed come out of it, and we are certainly anxious; but I'd rather get it done right once with another year wait, over having a year of mandatory training, followed by a constitutional change along with losing OC, etc.

RR_Broccoli said:

Don,

I am a bit confused. Is there a back-story I missed? Would you mind posting a link to the thread/whatever?

A tip on the Wiki links, there's a way to make a permalink to wiki that locks out other versions. By doing that, you can ensure that someone doesn't modify the articles in a way that won't help when the person clicks on it. I might also suggest paraphrasing what the links are supposed to say, just in case they go bubye.

I agree wholeheartedly in spirit, but the timing of this makes me a bit nervous. A couple of weeks to see what the legislature will do might help. If they start looking like they are not addressing our issue, maybe then (and tell them they suck because they didn't repeal 941.23 and 167.31.) We have all waited a long time, and had a whole lot of disappointed come out of it, and we are certainly anxious; but I'd rather get it done right once with another year wait, over having a year of mandatory training, followed by a constitutional change along with losing OC, etc.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about waiting? We could very well get Constitutional Carry while the felon dems are hiding not doing their job.

cowboyridn said:

I accept all voices,

Don

Click to expand...

Except those from out of state attorneys... you mean?