Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional(Clark County Wisconsin)

[ayce2]

poll

Hit their POLL

http://www.weau.com/

Halfway down, LEFT column

85% yes

 

[Doug Huffman]

86%/14%

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

WHO WOULD OF THOUGHT 85% VOTED YES HMMMM (sarcastically speaking)

You know its interesting people (media, anti's etc) always guffaw online polls because they think they skew towards conservative/get hit hard by gun supporters...

Yet we had something better than a poll. We had a REFERENDUM... It was on the ballot in 1998... The state constitutional amendment Art. 1 Sec 25. That passed with 79% of the vote in statewide balloting (on that note, the other day I saw 75%)

I can't find the documentation, was it 79% of 75%?

(edited to add) Blue Book research by Hubert indicates 73.9% of voters were in favor of the constitutional amendment.

Anyway, I think these polls are VERY representative. They mirror the voting for that right to keep and bear arms amendment in Wisconsin.

Earlier this week I was doing an interview and the guy (forget who it was) and I made the commend that Wisconsin was a decade or two behind the times with regard to gun-rights and carry rights. He asked me why I thought Wisconsin was so far behind other states embracing the right to carry.

I told him that overall, Wisconsin ISN'T, overall Wisconsinites support the right to carry overwhelmingly, but ONE person Jim Doyle (well perhaps 2 if you include Gary Sherman) defied the landslide will of the people and kept us in the past legislatively.

 

[Doug Huffman]

I believe that two municipalities are particularly at fault, also, for their own parochial reasons. Madistan for the Ivory Tower intelligentsia, and Milwaukee trying to keep the lid on a restive immigrant/minority/ethnic population.

Note that a true UWM intellectual guided much of my education. The founder and dean of my college/program, Tutorials in Letters and Science, was a student of Alexander Meiklejohn.

 

[TFred]

Article I, Section 25

All this talk about it, made me look it up. Scroll down to page 45.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf

Looks like they cite a bunch of related court cases after each section... some of the ones for Section 25 are just plain wacky!

For instance:

Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.​

What is that guy smoking!?

TFred

 

[Nutczak]

All this talk about it, made me look it up. Scroll down to page 45.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf

Looks like they cite a bunch of related court cases after each section... some of the ones for Section 25 are just plain wacky!

For instance:

Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.​

What is that guy smoking!?

TFred

Do you remember in the Clark County ruling where the Judge said "Judge activism"?
What he was referring to is a judge using his/her personal feeling/views to make a decision instead of laws and the constitution.
Adelman exactly did that with the recent Gonzalez (sp?) case. This is what typically happens when you have progressive liberals in a place of power where they feel the constitution is an obsolete document instead of the backbone of all government.

 

[Flipper]

All this talk about it, made me look it up. Scroll down to page 45.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/wisconst.pdf

Looks like they cite a bunch of related court cases after each section... some of the ones for Section 25 are just plain wacky!

What is that guy smoking!?

TFred

Those notes are put in there by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the same agency that drafts laws requested the legislators and provides background information at committee hearings.

The attorneys doing this are career state bureaucrats and Madison area residents. The result: an anti-firearm bias when they "clarify" law through statute notes, legislative briefing papers, and statute drafting "intent" notes, which maybe used by the State Supreme Count in cases before it.

 

[Doug Huffman]

LRB Web Mail is designed to provide a way by which individuals can communicate with the LRB and receive timely and substantive responses if you want to:

Send comments and questions and report errors in the Statutes & Annotations or The Wisconsin Administrative Code and Register

Message Sent:

Legislative Web Email
--------------------------------------------------
Type: Statutes
Referring page: http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/
Sent from: doug.huffman@wildblue.com
Submit date/time: Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------


subject:
Source and effect of Annotations to Wisc. Stats.

message:
What is the source of the Annotations appended to the Wisconsin Constitution, and to the various Statutes, and what is their effect in law?

 

[MKEgal]

training is not "guaranteed" to solve problems or prevent accidents/mistakes. ...
You use your weapon inappropriately you suffer the consequences.

If only this applied to police! (Well, OK, if only it consistently and immediately applied to police.

Training doesn't teach responsibility and accountability. Consequences do.
Responsible people... keep themselves from negative consequences.

Not something I say often, but AMEN!

I'm sure that when I was young there were some things I did simply because my parents made me do them, or didn't do because my parents forbade them. I'm thinking things like brushing my teeth or running into the street without looking.

As I got older & more rational, I saw that these things were good in and of themselves, and would have Bad Results if I did otherwise. (Cavities or getting hit by a car.)

Having quick & severe consequences to making bad decisions eventually encourages one to make better choices.
Enter that curve a bit hot, Mr. Sport Motorcycle? Guess what - you just ran out of traction & will have a very painful crash.
(And no, I'm not picking on Nik. I'm picking on stupid riders who think they're invincible & can ignore the laws of physics.)

 

[McX]

physics? we don't need no steenkin physics!

 

[J.Gleason]

(And no, I'm not picking on Nik. I'm picking on stupid riders who think they're invincible & can ignore the laws of physics.)

Its OK I think Niks gonna cave and buy a Harley anyway. lol

 

[Doug Huffman]

Here is a chance to experience the difference between convenient and purposeful stats

Confounding influences are the bane of statistics, but the accusation is obviated by use of statistics gathered for a different purpose, remote from the argument at hand.

This article cited is about alcohol and motorcycle fatalities but also includes a correlation with the victims' age in a time series. YMMV

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5347a2.htm