Federal Suit for deprivation of constitutional right to have a firearm in State Parks

Thank you. Your legal assistance request was received.

Gray Peterson said:

Why don't you contact the folks at Mountain States Legal Foundation and see if they can help you with your case?

Click to expand...

Sent them the information via their web page.

Don

Motor Homes as Residemce?

bhancock said:

I totally agree with your argument, I have also been very much convinced of this being a severe deprivation of the right. It may be too late, but in my case we also use a recreational vehicle intended for occupancy. I feel the right should not only include tents but also pull behind campers and dare I say it, motorized campers or 'motorhomes'. It would be nice to include those in the suit if it wouldn't muddle things.

This suit when won will also correct a lot of Counties who are saying their restriction in county parks is no more stringent than state statute. Go get em, and beat em!

Click to expand...

I'm sitting in our motor home as I write this from the UP. I can't argue that when we're bombing along the road we're a motor vehicle, but when we're parked, this for all intents and purposes is our residence. I haven't been able to find the Wisconsin definition yet, but if anybody tries to break in, they will quickly learn my definition....

Here are some Wikepedia definitions:

• A Residence is an establishment where it was originally or currently being used by a host as their main place of dwelling or home.
• A house is a home, building or structure that is a dwelling or place for habitation by human beings. The term includes many kinds of dwellings ranging from rudimentary huts of nomadic tribes to free standing individual structures.
• A home is a place of residence or refuge.[1] It is usually a place in which an individual or a family can rest and be able to store personal property. Most modern-day households contain sanitary facilities and a means of preparing food.
• Refuge is a place or state of safety.

Sure sounds like a motor home to me.... And since we have paid a fee to occupy this campsite, do my property rights extend from the motor home all the way to its borders? We sure need a Castle Doctrine to eliminate all the speculation and hoo-hah.

Interesting Article

Here's an exerpt of an intersting article from Colorado that I found here: http://www.bestbackgroundcheck.org/blog/

People think you need a concealed handgun permit to carry a gun in your car. By law, you can carry a gun in your car because it’s an extension of your house,” he said.

Click to expand...

I wonder which "law" he is speaking of. I wonder if there is caselaw with this basis that applies in Wisconsin?

Brass Magnet said:

Here's an exerpt of an intersting article from Colorado that I found here: http://www.bestbackgroundcheck.org/blog/




I wonder which "law" he is speaking of. I wonder if there is caselaw with this basis that applies in Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

Same is true in TX. No licesnce required to carry concealed in your car if you are 21 years or older. It may be the Castle Docterine that applies here?

Letter in reply to th Mountain State Legal Foundation

Gray Peterson said:

Why don't you contact the folks at Mountain States Legal Foundation and see if they can help you with your case?

Click to expand...

Here is the letter I reveived fromn the Mountain States Legal Foundation, I sent the complaint to them to review, hopfully they will take the case.


Don

Mountain States Legal Foundation

Gray Peterson said:

Why don't you contact the folks at Mountain States Legal Foundation and see if they can help you with your case?

Click to expand...

Got a call from an attorney for Mountain States Legal Foundation and they are going to take my proposed suit to committee for review. Mountain States Legal Foundation was the same ones that put together the law suit for the Nevada case, hope they take the case.

Don

cowboyridn said:

Got a call from an attorney for Mountain States Legal Foundation and they are going to take my proposed suit to committee for review. Mountain States Legal Foundation was the same ones that put together the law suit for the Nevada case, hope they take the case.

Don

Click to expand...

Cool! Good Job Don.

Even if they just look at it, advise, and clean it up a bit (if it needs it) that would be very helpful.

DNR law suit

I was contacted by Attorney Jim Manley with Mountain States Legal Foundation and they are interested in perusing the lawsuit against the DNR The law suit is about being able to carry in a state Park as I’ve stated here and perhaps they will also consider pursuing the prohibition against having a firearm in the woods 24 hours prior to the gun deer season. You can find a copy of the law suit on here on wisconsincarry.org blog. I’ll post the law suit once they have filed it.

Don Marso

Thanks for the update Don!

Question: Can you ask for a temporary injunction? Just curious as I'm not sure how they work. Just seems as if that would be fair game because of McDonald and that similar case down south.

Great work Don!

Injunction

Brass Magnet said:

Thanks for the update Don!

Question: Can you ask for a temporary injunction? Just curious as I'm not sure how they work. Just seems as if that would be fair game because of McDonald and that similar case down south.

Click to expand...

Looks like its up to the judge

20.014(4) No person may challenge the validity of a rule promulgated under this chapter in any prosecution of that person for a violation of this chapter or rules promulgated under this chapter unless the person has previously brought a separate action under s. 227.40 seeking a declaratory judgment on the validity of the rule.

227.40(4)(a)
(a) In any proceeding pursuant to this section for judicial review of a rule, the court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.

227.40(4)(b)
(b) Notwithstanding s. 227.54, in any proceeding under this section for judicial review of a rule, a court may not restrain, enjoin or suspend enforcement of the rule during the course of the proceeding on the basis of the alleged failure of the agency promulgating the rule to comply with s. 227.114.

227.54 Stay of proceedings. The institution of the proceeding for review shall not stay enforcement of the agency decision. The reviewing court may order a stay upon such terms as it deems proper, except as otherwise provided in ss. 196.43, 253.06, and 448.02 (9).
Only one of the three that applies.
196.43 Injunction procedure

Don