CC ban unconstitutional says judge
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > CC ban unconstitutional says judge

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2010, 10:23 AM   #1
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default CC ban unconstitutional says judge

Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional
by WRN CONTRIBUTOR on OCTOBER 14, 2010

A Clark County judge says Wisconsin’s ban on carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional. In the case, authorities charged a Sauk City man with carrying a concealed weapon, after he admitted he had a knife in his waistband. He never threatened anyone. In light of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, attorney William Poss filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. Judge Jon Counsell obliged Wednesday, ruling the law is overly broad and violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

“The government has to have a compelling state interest to do so (restrict the right to carry) and they have to have the least restrictive means of doing that,” said Poss. “Public safety obviously is a state interest, but there’s all kinds of ways to do that in this regard.” In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to “go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a “realistic alternative.”

As of now, the decision only sets a precedent in Counsell’s court, but Poss expects the case will be appealed. “It’s ultimately going to get to either the Wisconsin Supreme Court and or the United States Supreme Court one way or another,” he predicted. The decision was disseminated around the state Wednesday, and Poss already had 50 congratulatory phone messages or e-mails from colleagues by Wednesday afternoon. “There’s a lot of interest in this obviously,” he said. “It’s not a left or right type of thing quite frankly. It’s a liberty thing.”

Clark County Assistant District Attorney Dick Lewis said he has 20 days to appeal the ruling, and no decision has been made. Wisconsin is one of only two states which completely ban carrying concealed weapons.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 10-15-2010, 11:55 AM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

This could get interesting.

__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010, 04:26 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
masterPsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barstow area, Kalifornia
Posts: 1,347
Liked 90 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 25

Default

I "hope" that in time. this could lead to Constitional Carry across the Country, as in Arizona and a couple of others...


Jim.............

__________________
masterPsmith is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010, 04:33 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dunerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,481
Liked 32 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

It could lead to the right to CC without the current State tax on that right, also!

__________________

People get the government they deserve.

dunerunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010, 05:40 PM   #5
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CA357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1175 Times on 510 Posts
Likes Given: 2978

Default

It's definitely a move in the right direction.

__________________
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 01:08 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FreedomFighter69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA,Pennsylvania
Posts: 212
Default

I'd be happy to see open carry across the country even. It's a start in the right direction anyway. You should have the choice though. As far as open carry, if everyone did it, it would not be a big deal anymore !

__________________


No Son of a Bitch ever won a War by Dying for His Country ! It's the Son of a Bitch who makes the Other Poor Bastard Die for His Country who Wins the War !

George S. Patton, General 3rd Army United States .
FreedomFighter69 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 11:22 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DragonLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Monticello,NY
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
I "hope" that in time. this could lead to Constitional Carry across the Country, as in Arizona and a couple of others...
We can hope, but it won't likely happen.

States will always resist the intrusion of Federal Law. Just look at the current group of states bringing suit against FedGov over ObamaCare. States have the right to oppose Federal intrusion into the lives of their citizens, both in terms of the lousy healthcare law, and also in terms of FedGov mandating National Open Carry.

That being said, the best route would be to get SCOTUS to agree that licensing in one state MUST be recognized in any other state. Drivers Licenses work that way, Marriage Licenses do, Pilots licenses to fly planes do, etc.

The prior precedent is there. What is needed is a strong enough case, and a good enough lawyer. The lawyer part is easy...the strong enough case? Not so much, because currently, with the hoops one has to jump through in some states to get a CCW (like NY, MA, NJ, HI, etc...) no-one from those states is going to test the law and try to cross a state line in violation of the other state's law, because they don't want to lose the privilege in their home state by getting arrested, and having a felony conviction on their record that could be used to confiscate their guns.

Add to that the fact that 99% of those of us who carry are law-abiders, and we go to great pains to be mindful of what the law says, and to show that we are responsible citizens, and a case which can be used to challenge al the way up to SCOTUS is almost non-existent.

DragonLW
__________________
DragonLW is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 11:33 PM   #8
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonLW View Post
States will always resist the intrusion of Federal Law. Just look at the current group of states bringing suit against FedGov over ObamaCare. States have the right to oppose Federal intrusion into the lives of their citizens, both in terms of the lousy healthcare law, and also in terms of FedGov mandating National Open Carry.
You're close to hitting on something that has vexed me for some time. In principle, I'm against the Bill of Rights being incorporated against the states; it was intended to apply only to the federal government. That said, it would be a very good thing if 2A were properly recognized as being incorporated against the states and all state and municipal gun laws were tossed out.

The question is which government is intruding into the lives of citizens? The federal government that tries to increase freedom or the state/local governments that try to quash it? This is an odd case, because it's usually the other way 'round.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2010, 11:37 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CourtJester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South of the thumb
Posts: 2,878
Liked 792 Times on 423 Posts
Likes Given: 50

Default

I'd like to see how this one turns out

__________________

I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
~George Washington

CourtJester is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 12:01 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DragonLW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Monticello,NY
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
I'm against the Bill of Rights being incorporated against the states; it was intended to apply only to the federal government.
Correct...the Constitution and the Original 10 Amendments (of the 12 that were proposed) are restrictions *against* the FedGov, designed and intended to keep the new gov't as a gov't of the People, by the People, for the People. It was the unconstitutional actions of Abe Lincoln during the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment which followed, that radically changed our system of gov't. Think about it...with ONE Amendment, Congress declared that the restrictions which the Founders placed on the FedGov were bullsh*t, and the States (which were in the pockets of corrupt Northern politicians) all went along with it, and gave up the State Sovereignty that was GUARANTEED to them by the Founders.

Its BECAUSE of the 14th that we have the problems of run-away Federal Spending, a bloated FedGov bureaucracy, Congressleaches that trample the rights of States and look down their noses at the US Citizen as nothing but peons and peasants, akin to little children who need to be told what to do for their own good, because without FedGov, they would just be lost and confused.

Yeah....think I'm just a bit jaded with the current state of my Country?
__________________
DragonLW is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The Judge CourtJester Revolver Handguns 42 11-15-2011 05:31 AM
Judge skip Revolver Handguns 18 10-17-2011 10:46 PM
Judge? pumpkinball Revolver Handguns 5 08-18-2010 05:25 PM
Prop 8 Unconstitutional gregs887 Politics, Religion and Controversy 125 08-16-2010 05:11 PM



Newest Threads