WCI v. GFSZ Countdown

Doug Huffman said:

But not the Jackson county DA. Here is the list of what he regards as unconstitutional, post-Mcdonald;

• Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
• Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
• Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
• Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol
  may be sold or served; and,
• Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by
  gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of
every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their
loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities.

http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district attorney/Documents/McDonald vs. City of Chicago.pdf

Click to expand...

What is your point Doug? The Jackson County DA will still enforce the GFSZ? Is that what you contend?

Having read the entire Jackson County DA's memo (long before you posted it) I believe there is far more reason to believe he wouldn't enforce the GFSZ statute than that he would.

I recognize that you do have that incessant need to disagree with anything you didn't post (and surely anything WCI does) but I think you made vast assumptions in your last post that you can't justify.

still jumping up and down! gonna toss out a few dancing monkeys too!
dang, i can't find the button for dancing monkeys!

McX said:

still jumping up and down! gonna toss out a few dancing monkeys too!
dang, i can't find the button for dancing monkeys!

Click to expand...

Just type : monkey (remove the space) :monkey:monkey

Doug Huffman said:

Please be careful! That's not what he said. The cops detain, investigate and recommend charges. The DA will not accept these specific charges. There's nothing about felonious mopery, disorderly conduct, obstruction and, worst of all, misdemeanor intent to qawp.

Click to expand...

I understand but I stand by my statement that it is legal. I'm not saying you won't get arrested and potentially one of the municipalities won't try to prosecute.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I understand but I stand by my statement that it is legal. I'm not saying you won't get arrested and potentially one of the municipalities won't try to prosecute.

Click to expand...

If you were prosecuted and convicted by a municipality you'd appeal to the circuit (county) court correct?

Wisconsin Carry said:

If you were prosecuted and convicted by a municipality you'd appeal to the circuit (county) court correct?

Click to expand...

Dunno. I would assume so, but the prosecutor would still be the municipality and I believe that the judge doesn't have to abide by the DA's thoughts.

I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in poltergeists. When I feel the urge to swear,

Doug Huffman said:

But not the Jackson county DA. Here is the list of what he regards as unconstitutional, post-Mcdonald;

• Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
• Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
• Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
• Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol
  may be sold or served; and,
• Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by
  gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of
every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their
loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities.

http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district attorney/Documents/McDonald vs. City of Chicago.pdf

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Carry said:

What is your point Doug? The Jackson County DA will still enforce the GFSZ? Is that what you contend?

Click to expand...

I illustrate that he did not list § 948.605 among the wide ranging statutes that he said are unconstitutional.

Having read the entire Jackson County DA's memo (long before you posted it) I believe there is far more reason to believe he wouldn't enforce the GFSZ statute than that he would.

Click to expand...

"[L]ong before you posted it" sounds like your wasted time and wasted egoism and injected self-esteem. I am one informed and active citizen paying for what I do from my pocket and on my own time because I want to and not at the direction of some NRA-Fagin. Put me in your ignore list please.

In re 'belief', I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in poltergeists. When I feel the urge to swear, then i drown my blaspheme in prayer. If you have reason then trot them out or is your egoism too poisonous?

I recognize that you do have that incessant need to disagree with anything you didn't post (and surely anything WCI does) but I think you made vast assumptions in your last post that you can't justify.

Click to expand...

I quoted my "assumptions"!

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Dunno. I would assume so, but the prosecutor would still be the municipality and I believe that the judge doesn't have to abide by the DA's thoughts.

Click to expand...

My guess is that's all true, but the judge wouldn't be able to impose a fine greater than that provided in the ordinance, which may be substantially less than the comparable state statute.

Glock34 said:

as much as I would like to see the GFSZ go away like everyone here, I won't hold my breath on this.

Click to expand...

I just have this feeling, that is going to be a while before the GFSZ goes away, maybe even years. I hope I am proven wrong

As I stated in another thread. All of you who have stated and do not believe that Constitutional Carry is not possible here in Wisconsin, finish up eating your share of crow. We are being afforded more and more support on this issue now more then ever before. Now is the time to stand united and fight for what is ours. The Right to Constitutional Carry.

Never say Never!

Carry On and Constitutional Carry Always!

Doug Huffman said:

I illustrate that he did not list § 948.605 among the wide ranging statutes that he said are unconstitutional."

Click to expand...

Wisconsin Carry said:

Having read the entire Jackson County DA's memo (long before you posted it) I believe there is far more reason to believe he wouldn't enforce the GFSZ statute than that he would.

Click to expand...

Notably absent from Fox's announcement was any mention of the law that makes it a felony to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. A gun rights advocacy group, Wisconsin Carry Inc., and some individuals challenged the constitutionality of that law this year in federal court. They contend the 1,000 foot perimeter is generally impossible to determine, and that in populous areas such as Milwaukee County, there are so many schools that the overlapping zones would effectively prohibit someone from carrying a gun at all.

"I think it had to be an oversight," said Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry.

"We totally support what he said. But if it doesn't include school zones, then it's all meaningless."

Fox said it would never occur to him to prosecute that crime, but he's never seen an arrest for it anyway. He agreed that it would probably not withstand constitutional review, either.

Click to expand...

Carry On

Good point, "long before" you were going to post it. Why? Who do you serve?

Wisconsin Carry said:

Having read the entire Jackson County DA's memo (long before you posted it)...

Click to expand...

Good point, "long before" you were going to post it. Why? Who do you serve? When would you have posted it or would you have waited? What does "self-serving" mean to the Chairman of Wisconsin Craven, Inc.?

Have a good holiday Doug

Shotgun said:

My guess is that's all true, but the judge wouldn't be able to impose a fine greater than that provided in the ordinance, which may be substantially less than the comparable state statute.

Click to expand...

AAAaaannnd, the judge really wouldn't be able to impose the fine if the DA doesn't file the charges and bring you in front of the judge in the first place.

Other than that you are talking about city ordinance fines, which really don't amount to any criminal charges at all.

Doug Huffman said:

Good point, "long before" you were going to post it. Why? Who do you serve? When would you have posted it or would you have waited? What does "self-serving" mean to the Chairman of Wisconsin Craven, Inc.?

Click to expand...

If you have an insatiable need to always be a contrarian, Doug, why don't you do it on a different forum? Your inappropriate comments and need to criticize others just serves the purpose of driving people away from this forum.

Settings | My Settings | My Account | Edit Ignore List

If you can't stand the heat then just put me in your Ignore List, "professor", and drive another nail in the coffin of critical thinking. "If everybody agrees then somebody isn't thinking" - and I'm the thoughtful one.

With all of the intellect on this forum I'm suprised no one has seen the strategy in DA Fox's statement. Of course, too oftem members of this forum tend to evaluate the structure and configuration of a single tree and ignore the value of the forest as a whole. Of all the stautes and comments made in DA Fox's memo none is as morally and politically sensitive as children and guns and schools and guns. I venture to guess that at this point in time only a few hundred people in the state recognize that school property and school zone are two separate places. School property being the grounds the school buildings rest on and which is publically owned. School zone being the 1000 foot buffer zone around that school property. Most people do not understand that distinction. My contention is that when most people, especially mothers (pardon me for sounding sexist) hear the phrase "guns in school zones" their first thoughts are " Oh my god! we can't let people carry guns around our children". They also only see the tree. It matters not that criminals carry guns around their children nearly every day and that law-abiding citizens carrying guns in the 1000 foot gun zone actually has the potential of making their children safer. That is how emotional this issue is. If DA Fox had included the GFSZ in his memo as being uncontitutional that is the only issue that would have been picked up by the anti's and the anti gun media and Mr Fox would have been branded as the DA that wants to put our school kids in danger of firearm violence. I think Mr. Fox used a lot of wisdom in specifically not mentioning the school zone issue. I also think he was wise in not mentioning it because it is currently embroiled in litigation. If he had suggested the GFSZ was unconstitutional and the WCI loses it's federal case, DA Fox would have his @@@@'s in a fire and his whole memo would lose it's value. C'mon folks stop the Doug bashing and see the forest for the trees.

professor gun said:

If you have an insatiable need to always be a contrarian, Doug, why don't you do it on a different forum? Your inappropriate comments and need to criticize others just serves the purpose of driving people away from this forum.

Click to expand...

BE CAREFUL !!!! Dougs Minions ( like Gleason & the like ) will jump all over you. Doug is "very' important here on this forum. That was sarcasm.

Glock34 said:

BE CAREFUL !!!! Dougs Minions ( like Gleason & the like ) will jump all over you. Doug is "very' important here on this forum. That was sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Okay, I can deal with that, 'sarcasm', clumsy but sarcastic. Don't quit'cher day job - oh, that's right...professional small businessman, real small.

You all ever notice how Interceptor-Knight and GLOCK34 posts always appear hand-in-hand? COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

CarryOK said:

Okay, I can deal with that, 'sarcasm', clumsy but sarcastic. Don't quit'cher day job - oh, that's right...professional small businessman, real small.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

Click to expand...

Yeah his sarcasm is as bad as his DJ service. No wonder it is a "small" business. I surely wouldn't recommend it.