Quoted: ETA: Quoted: ...I really wish Millis hadn't suggested giving the Gov and Legislature a year to enact a permit system.  They have had two strikes already. I think it was a nod towards Hamdan (the suggestion was made during those oral arguments as well). Just rule the CC prohibition unconstitutional and let them try and catch up! Fixed it.  If 941.23 goes away or is signifigantly weakened by the Court's clarification, it will mean Vermont carry for Wisconsin (or virtually so).  IF that happens, we should support the legislature to enact an optional permit system ala Alaska.  I would fight any other suggestion tooth and nail.

Yes, I agree.  That's what I meant by 'let them try and catch up'.  Not that I would support it.

FMD and all,

Nice job with notes!  We certainly seem to have heard the same things.  

I am interested in any thoughts (perhaps from Glennr) regarding how the court may try and avoid completely striking down the statute.

I t sure would be sweet justice for all the abuse we have taken during the legislative process over the years.

How do I get the job of going around telling all the Dems what has happened?  You couldn't wipe the smile off my face with a claymore.

Jeff

FMD's notes

I just relived the thing. I would also like a copy of the briefs to add to my files, will save me the trouble of begging the Law Library for it.

I have Paul Millis on speed dial now

Scott Fisher seemed shocked that we were there in support of him. Bet he thought he was the only one there.

Anyone find any media reporting of this case? I'm sure the guy sitting in front of me was a reporter.

Thanks to FMD for a great job with this. I thought I was up on these details, but I was wrong.

Keep up the good work, FMD!

If it comes to pass that Vermont Alaska carry comes to WI, wouldn't that just be like doyle's shit coming to life and kissing him on the face!

Quoted: If it comes to pass that Vermont Alaska carry comes to WI, wouldn't that just be like doyle's shit coming to life and kissing him on the face!

That would call for all around.

Quoted: I am interested in any thoughts (perhaps from Glennr) regarding how the court may try and avoid completely striking down the statute.

Well, here are a few thoughts.

The "State's interest" in prohibiting CCW was not well explained by the AAG.  Is it possible for that to be addressed in post-oral submissions to the court?  If so, I expect that happened.

One of the justices was concerned about the effect of striking down CCW on Milwaukee.  Comments were made about how Milwaukee had to be considered.  That might be a "state's interest" in prohibiting people from engaging in wild-west-type shoot-outs in Milwaukee (because Milwaukeeans are not able to control themselves, are less-deserving of the ability to protect themselves, and guns in public are just generally bad.)

Furthermore, the justices are fully capable of convoluted thinking to justify the results they want.  Take a look at the USSC's decision on McCain-Feingold for an example.  So if they don't want to invalidate CCW, they won't, and they can come up with something that doesn't pass the smell test, yet remains law-of-the-land.

Hopefully, they won't engage in that sort of convoluted reasoning.  If they do, it doesn't matter how bad the AAG was, or how good Millis was.  If they don't, it's a slam dunk.


edited for spelling

Wow, great work FMD! Thanks a lot fo putting that together. This is really exciting...although I don't count on libs being able to make a rational decision, so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

State v. Fisher oral arguments are on-line.

If you can't get it to work IM me.

Woot!  Now we find out how bad my notes are.

Can somebody tell me how to save this bloody thing to a file or disk??

Jeff

Quoted: Can somebody tell me how to save this bloody thing to a file or disk?? Jeff

You can't. It's a streaming file but IM on the way.

Thanks for bumping the thread. I hadn't listened to the oral arguments yet and I am just now. I can't believe how terrible the state prosecutor sounds!

Anyone with half a brain cell shoudl be able to see how bad he's grasping at straws. I haven't even gotten to the defense's argument yet, but wow!

I guess we'll find out if the WiscSC has half a brain cell among them.

Anyone have any idea when the decision might come down?

The court has until the end of the session to hand down a decision. Usually the session ends on June 30th, although in the Hamdan case the court had several decisions, and it ran into mid-July.

Don't know if they can carry it over until September, though.

I'm hoping they decide soon.  

I finished listening today. The only thing that I wish Millis would have said was when one of the justices brought up the "argument" about how this is an "extremely difficult case" because how do we balance business owners being able to defend themselves, with people in Milwaukee carrying guns and making it a more dangerous place.

Uh, hello!?!?

I wish Millis would have said something like this:

Justice So and so, why is it that crime and violence are so bad in Milwaukee? Aren't there laws that prohibit these acts of violence? Well, obviously there are a lot of people who don't obey the law in Milwaukee. So, if they aren't obeying the law to begin with, what makes you think that the criminals aren't ALREADY carrying concealed weapons? In fact they are. So, the only thing that 941.xxx does is keep the LAW ABIDING citizens from carrying a weapon for security, making Milwaukee an even MORE dangerous place for law abiding citizens.

That would have been a damn good point to make.

Jim Fendry was at our monthly meeting menomonee falls gun club talking about this.he said a decision must be handed down on this.He also taked about the wis gun owners what a useless organization this is!

Quoted: Jim Fendry was at our monthly meeting menomonee falls gun club talking about this.he said a decision must be handed down on this.He also taked about the wis gun owners what a useless organization this is!

And some people say he doesn't do enough for the gun owners of WI.  Go figure.

Quoted: Quoted: Jim Fendry was at our monthly meeting menomonee falls gun club talking about this.he said a decision must be handed down on this.He also taked about the wis gun owners what a useless organization this is! And some people say he doesn't do enough for the gun owners of WI.  Go figure.

Oh no someone had to get him going again and he just got calmed dowm from our last meetingt


I am so tired of all the negative B.S. from politicians and the like.  If they believed it was possible and stopped comprimsing all the time grew a spine and stood their ground maybe they would acomplish something besides iritating me.

Give em hell FMD

BTH

ETA sorry about the large font I am not shouting just computer handicapped

Anyone know when we can expect a verdict?

Mark, the court usually holds off until June or so, then hands down a flurry of decisions. It could come sooner than that, but not likely, since this decision isn't as pressing as others.

Fisher's attorney laid out such a broad challenge to current statute (as opposed to Hamdan's, who narrowly argued against a ban on carrying in home or business) that it will be interesting to see how the court weasels out of this one.

I know I'm a pessimist, but I can't see a 4:3 liberal court striking down current law.

One of the WCCA's volunteers is a county prosecutor, and he's going to give his interpretation of the decision as soon as it's released.

where is scott fisher from?
I know a scott fisher, i want to know if it is the same guy
never mind, the fisher i know has a different middle name

Just wanted to BTT, to keep the thread from dying.

OK, bad news.

I've wondered why WSC hasn't overturned 941.23 as unconstitutional.  I've also predicted they'll do everything in their power to avoid overturning it.  My pessimism is well-founded.

I was reviewing a Court of Appeals ruling on OWI enforcement and found this:

In challenging the statutes at issue here, Gardner must overcome the presumption that legislative enactments are constitutional.  State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶11, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328.  In applying such a principle, we will indulge in “every presumption to sustain the law if at all possible,” and will resolve any doubts in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the challenged statute.  Id. (citation omitted).  Gardner also bears the burden of proving that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.  Id.  Thus, he bears a heavy burden.

Note the parts in color.

Sorry, everyone, but if the standards used by the Appeals court are any indicator of how the WSC will go, 941.23 will stand.

Quoted: I was reviewing a Court of Appeals ruling on OWI enforcement and found this: In challenging the statutes at issue here, Gardner must overcome the presumption that legislative enactments are constitutional.  State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶11, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328.  In applying such a principle, we will indulge in “every presumption to sustain the law if at all possible,” and will resolve any doubts in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the challenged statute.  Id. (citation omitted).  Gardner also bears the burden of proving that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.  Id.  Thus, he bears a heavy burden. Note the parts in color. Sorry, everyone, but if the standards used by the Appeals court are any indicator of how the WSC will go, 941.23 will stand.

Pessimist!  

"if at all possible"  If it isn't possible, then it can't stand Constitutional scrutiny, and that was where Fisher was going...

Note also this is the appeals court (which one of the four?) and not the SC.  We all know that te SC can do what they want.

Quoted: Pessimist!   "if at all possible"  If it isn't possible, then it can't stand Constitutional scrutiny, and that was where Fisher was going... Note also this is the appeals court (which one of the four?) and not the SC.  We all know that te SC can do what they want.

Pessimist?  Me?  

I think it was District 1, but they're all precedential across the state unless WSC overturns.

WSC can do whatever it wants...like upholding 941.23 despite Fisher's great case  

Quoted: WSC can do whatever it wants...like upholding 941.23 despite Fisher's great case

Always with them negative waves, Moriarity.  Always with them negative waves.

I hardly think that Glenn_r's behavior rises to a Moriarity comparison., you dramatic SOB.



I'm ripping the streaming audio now.
I'll reencode it as an mp3 and then put it on a web based server.

FMD, you should probably host it when I'm done.
The free servers only keep it alive for a short while.

I'm ripping the streaming audio now. I'll reencode it as an mp3 and then put it on a web based server.

Cool!  I need to listen to it again and come up with a good question or two for the Chief Justice (Abrahamson).  She's giving a talk at the local college here on May 1st and there will be a Q&A session at the end.  

Here it is.

It's good for seven days or 25 downloads, whichever comes first.
If it gets raped to death before someone can host it, let me know and I'll re-up it.

~38 megs, mp3 format, should have forced it into stereo my copying to both channels, but I didn't verify that.

I really liked the Swiss Cheese thing.
Between that, and the "How many more challenges are in queue," it seems that the justices are getting the picture that if a clear and encompassing ruling isn't set forth, they're going to be deciding this again and again and again.

I was also happy to see that they were giving legitimate consideration to the idea that the law is not functional as written.
If they keep making exceptions for specific circumstances, it will quickly become an 'equal protection under the law' case.
I also really liked it that 1) they asked the AAG to define the state's interest, and 2) he bobbled BIG TIME, as evidenced by the follow up question of how this is handled in other states ... (with the unverbalized point being that accidental shootings caused by loaded firearms in vehicles is simply not occuring.)
They seem to grasp, quite clearly, that if Mr.Fisher wins on the security argument, then there is nothing to differentiate security in the home versus security in the vehicle versus security walking up to the deposit box.

It's a real toss up.
We've got as good a chance as we could possibly have given the court's make-up.

Glenn makes solid points though, and it resonates with my experience with Rep Jon Richards in the run up to PPA-I.
I called him and left a message.
He returned my call after hours from his home knowing in advance that I intended to harangue him about the PPA.
We spoke at great length, he listened patiently to all of my points and actually discussed them enough that I was certain that he fully understood my position and it's causes.
He then flatly informed me that my position was the minority in the district, that he had an obligation to represent the majority opinion, and would not be supporting the PPA.
I respected him for 'facing' me and being up front about his vote, even though I think his mind was made up and the 'majority' BS just happened to be politically convenient.

The point is, that apparent reasonableness on the subject matter is no indication of the actions to follow.
The courts thorough inspection and understanding of the issues doesn't mean shit.
Much as I enjoyed the clear victory in the arguments, it has a zero-prediction-factor.

I'm not all that concerned one way or the other.
Don't do the crime, if you can't pay the fine ......

Quoted: Here it is. It's good for seven days or 25 downloads, whichever comes first.

HA!  I got mine, suckas!




Damn, I wish I was computer-savvy enough to do stuff like that.  

Quoted: Quoted: Here it is. It's good for seven days or 25 downloads, whichever comes first. Damn, I wish I was computer-savvy enough to do stuff like that.

Mee too.  DLing now before my run up to Green Bay.  When I get a chance, I'll upload it, but I'm going to hold the url a closely guarded secret.

Actually, I'll give out the url, but it'll have to be a DL instead of a stream.  Otherwise the bandwaidth will kill me.

What do you guys make of this, regarding our constitutional right to CCW? (hey, gotta have some hope here)

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

Quoted: What do you guys make of this,

I think it means that somebody owes PX $700 and a pistol.

Quoted: Quoted: What do you guys make of this, I think it means that somebody owes PX $700 and a pistol.

Hell yah they do!

I was just checking on the status of this case on WSC's website.  Nothing new.  Interesting, though was the list of "interested parties":

Name Address Title Comment
MacDonald, Daniel A. 20 N. Carroll St.
Madison,  WI  53703 Amicus

Is MacDonald the guy who filed a brief on behalf of the NRA?  If so, it looks like no one else filed a amicus brief in this case  

Quoted: Is MacDonald the guy who filed a brief on behalf of the NRA?  Nope. If so, it looks like no one else filed a amicus brief in this case

IIRC, The guy who prepped the NRA's Amicus (forgive me, it's after midnight) was doing the fundraiser in Oconomowoc while we were at the oral arguments.  Now it looks like the amicus may not have even been filed?  Go figure.

I should call Fendry and ask WTF?
The club throws a good amount of money his way.

He ranted on about how the NRA was waiting in the wings to swwop down on a good CCW case. That was about 18 months ago. Fisher was a good CCW case. NRA can't bother themselves to tend to the lip service task of filing a brief?

Our rights are being examined and decided upon in an intrinsic sense. The law itself is being called into question to see if it is compatible with the constitution ... and the NRA is a fucking no-show.

WOW, do I feel great knowing I'v got such a legal pit bull in my corner, let me tell you.
They'd better not fuck with me ... I'll let slip the dogs of war and unleash the mighty NRA. They won't know what hit them.

The only time the NRA gives a crap about my gun rights is when they're trying to deploy it as a scare tactic to separate me from my money. They're an ineffectual, hollow threat, saber rattling bunch of manipulating political hacks.

Well, before everybody gets too upset, it's possible I don't know what the "amicus" means.  To see my original source, go here and search for Scott Fisher.

I e-mailed the WSC website contact with this question:  "I'd like to know what the 'interested parties' listing means on the bottom of the results page obtained when I search for the above court case...Does 'Amicus' indicate that Daniel MacDonald filed an Amicus Brief?  If so, is he the ONLY person who filed a brief?"

I'll post the response I receive.

Here's the response I received:

"Attorney McDonald represents the amicus party and is the only amicus party currently involved in this case."

I replied, asking who/what the "amicus party" is.  I'll update again after it's explained better.

Here's the response I received:

"Attorney McDonald represents the National Rifle Association."

So HCI never filed a brief, but the NRA did.  

Quoted: "Attorney McDonald represents the National Rifle Association." So HCI never filed a brief, but the NRA did.

 For some reason, I could have sworn I saw Jon Wilcox's name in the Amicus.  He's the attorney I've always seen associated with the NRA in WI (past pres. of the WRPA, and currently co-chair for the "Freinds of the NRA").

So it looks like my initial statement was wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: Is MacDonald the guy who filed a brief on behalf of the NRA?  Nope. Fixed it. If so, it looks like no one else filed a amicus brief in this case   IIRC, The guy who prepped the NRA's Amicus (forgive me, it's after midnight) was doing the fundraiser in Oconomowoc while we were at the oral arguments.  Now it looks like the amicus may not have even been filed?  Go figure. Yes it was.

Yes, MacDonald is the counsel that works for or represents the NRA. Stephen P. Halbrook works for the NRA at the headquarters in VA. He cannot act as an attorney in WI, not on the Bar, but MacDonald is an attorney in WI so he can be counsel in WI and file a brief.

I dont know who contacted Halbrook about Fisher but it may have been Fendry The good thing is HCI didn't get anyone to file an Amicus for their side.