• 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.

No constitutional [absolute] right to carry, judge rules. Beloit Daily News 1/27/12

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/news...cle_44a04306-4900-11e1-8789-001871e3ce6c.html
Kevin Murphy said:
MADISON - A state appeals court Thursday upheld a Beloit man's misdemeanor conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, rejecting his argument that the statute in effect at the time of the incident is an unlawful restriction of his constitutional right to bear arms.

In a one-judge opinion, District 4 Court of Appeals Judge Paul Lundsten, citing Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, concluded that state and U.S. constitutions don't provide Brian K. Little with an absolute right to carry a weapon.

"Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons," Lundsten wrote quoting a 2003 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
I Think He Knows

That judge needs to learn what Constitutional law is.

This decision seems consistent with what the WI Supreme Court said in Hamdan. The judge really didn't have much choice. We don't want judges to think they can ignore the decisions of superior courts, do we? Hamdan provides some wiggle room but this defendant is not the poster boy you need for a decent wiggle.
 

oak1971

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
1,937
Location
Wisconsin, USA
The ruling may be consistent with established case law, but those rulings are themselves in violation of both the state and federal constitutions. IMO

Cicero would agree. Laws enacted by Tyrants are no laws at all.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
protias said:
That judge needs to learn what Constitutional law is.
oak1971 said:
The ruling may be consistent with established case law, but those rulings are themselves in violation of both the state and federal constitutions.
+1
I hope the guy appeals, & keeps appealing, until someone remembers their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Hopefully a civil rights org. will cover his lawyer expenses because of the precident, & danger to the other gun owners in WI.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
According to the article (yeah, I know, don't take it at face value):
Little, 27, was arrested by Beloit police in June 2010 in response to loud music and the smell of burnt marijuana coming from his vehicle. A search recovered a loaded .40 caliber handgun and at least 80 bullets.

After pleading no contest to the misdemeanor Circuit Judge James Daley assessed Little $7,984 in costs and penalties and imposed a 30-day jail sentence, which Daley stayed pending outcome of Little's appeal.

On appeal Fitzgerald [lawyer] argued the statute was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and doesn't serve a public interest more compelling than the right to bear arms. However, Lundsten [judge] rejected both arguments.
On that information, I'm leaning toward saying that the smell (if there actually was one) probably gave them PC to search, since they'd be searching for the drugs.
But it doesn't say if the gun was in a case, or where in the car it was.
And it doesn't matter how many bullets (or even how many cartridges) he had.

But I'm surprised that the judge ignored recent SCOTUS rulings about how to determine if a law is a reasonable infringement on a right, & the fact that the old WI law certainly was not.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
"Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons," Lundsten wrote quoting a 2003 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.

Wow!! Key words are TO KEEP AND BEAR. Unless I am mistaken I don't tead open carry or concealed. So we can but we can't depending on a judge?? So the constitution has no force? Something is wrong here in this ruling. Who disciplines these judges for such opinions??? No one! Next we''ll hear that CC law is unconstitutional, Just wait till someone who hates guns files a lawsuit. Then what? Dig up the founders and bring them back to life and tell them what is going on so we can get them to fight another revolution? Nah! Can't do that now. You'll be called a phsyco and your arms will be confiscated. There is no consistency in constitutional adherence or interpretation! What next boys and gals??
 
Top