imported post
Apjonas:
You are technically correct. The SSC itself did not say that the prohibition of concealed carry by private citizens was absolute. It did say in paragraph 48 of Hamdan that the statute was a strict liability statute because the legislature did not allow any exceptions. The SSC then went on and made an exception to the statute as applied to Hamdan. In my opinion the SSC erred in three ways in Hamdan. It restricted the definition of the word security to only security of ones business or property from perceived danger. The Court purposely omitted that the definition of security also applies to the security of ones self, family, state or country. The Supreme Court responsibility is to interpret law, not make new law or recommend new law. By asking the legislature to develope a CC permit system it recommended law. By making an exception to concealed carry in Hamdan's case it in effect made new law because it added conditions to 941.23 that it said the legislature did not allow. Finally: When article I section 25 says "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, recreation, hunting or any other lawfull purpose" the amendment makes no distinction of uniqueness or authority among the activities. They are all equal. So how can concealed carry be declared uncontitutional for one small segment of one of the activities and not for the total amendment? Unfortunately the Supreme Court has uncontestable rule.
I stand corrected on my statement that the State Supreme Court specifically said that 941.23 had no exceptions. The Court said that the legislature allowed no exceptions.
