B
bhancock
Guest
Posted below is my question to and the response from DA Tim Gruenke. I would welcome some responses from the forum to formulate a reply. Thank You gentlemen.
Dear Tim,
I recently sent a request to Corporation Counsel to review county ordinance 19.03(1) as it is unenforceable by state statute 66.0409(2). In light of the attached press release from the Jackson County District Attorney there may be several other ordinances that have become unenforceable and need to be removed from the County Ordinances. I am asking that you stand by your oath to uphold the constitution and join District Attorney Fox in his first obligation being to the citizens in upholding both the state and federal Constitutions. As a citizen of LaCrosse County I am asking that you please clarify your position in a press release as well. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brent Hancock
Brent,
There is a State law that provides:
(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
The statute you point to says the county can not be any more restrictive than state law and the county ordinance provides:
No person shall have in his/her possession, or under his/her control, any firearm or airgun unless the same is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
So it appears the county law is not invalidated by any state law, at least in my initial reading of it.
Also, I've contacted DA Fox regarding his press release because I don't read the court's decision in the same way. Here is part of the holding from Judge Alito:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
So I don't agree at all that the court invalidated the statutes relating to carrying weapons in to public buildings, or schools, etc. In fact Alito seems to say just the opposite. Regarding concealed carry, Wisconsin has already addressed the idea that for self-defense in some situations you can conceal weapons, and I don't see anything in the McDonald or Heller decision changing that concept. In other words, you can carry a gun openly, other than in government buildings, schools, taverns, etc. You may be able to carry a concealed weapon for self defense, depending on the circumstances, and the county or city or state cannot keep you from owning weapons in your own home. Beyond that I don't see the court case changing other federal or state laws regarding carrying of firearms.
I hope this clarifies the law, hopefully I can get a hold of Gerald this week and see where he got his conclusion from. If you have any questions feel free to e-mail or call.
Tim
Dear Tim,
I recently sent a request to Corporation Counsel to review county ordinance 19.03(1) as it is unenforceable by state statute 66.0409(2). In light of the attached press release from the Jackson County District Attorney there may be several other ordinances that have become unenforceable and need to be removed from the County Ordinances. I am asking that you stand by your oath to uphold the constitution and join District Attorney Fox in his first obligation being to the citizens in upholding both the state and federal Constitutions. As a citizen of LaCrosse County I am asking that you please clarify your position in a press release as well. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brent Hancock
Brent,
There is a State law that provides:
(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
The statute you point to says the county can not be any more restrictive than state law and the county ordinance provides:
No person shall have in his/her possession, or under his/her control, any firearm or airgun unless the same is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
So it appears the county law is not invalidated by any state law, at least in my initial reading of it.
Also, I've contacted DA Fox regarding his press release because I don't read the court's decision in the same way. Here is part of the holding from Judge Alito:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
So I don't agree at all that the court invalidated the statutes relating to carrying weapons in to public buildings, or schools, etc. In fact Alito seems to say just the opposite. Regarding concealed carry, Wisconsin has already addressed the idea that for self-defense in some situations you can conceal weapons, and I don't see anything in the McDonald or Heller decision changing that concept. In other words, you can carry a gun openly, other than in government buildings, schools, taverns, etc. You may be able to carry a concealed weapon for self defense, depending on the circumstances, and the county or city or state cannot keep you from owning weapons in your own home. Beyond that I don't see the court case changing other federal or state laws regarding carrying of firearms.
I hope this clarifies the law, hopefully I can get a hold of Gerald this week and see where he got his conclusion from. If you have any questions feel free to e-mail or call.
Tim