Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/19/2003 2:13:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2003 10:08:26 AM EDT by Dolomite]
Currently citizens of Vermont and Alaska are allowed to legally carry concealed weapons without any sort of permit. Vermont has always been that way – Alaska has just recently done away with the concealed carry permit altogether due to the fact that Alaskans felt the permit system was in itself an infringement on their rights.

Here’s how Governor Jim Doyle’s veto this week of the Personal Protection Act will eventually deliver to every Wisconsin resident the exact same freedom when it comes to the unrestricted carry of concealed weapons…

It was just a few months ago in July that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court had before it a case involving a Milwaukee merchant charged with carrying a concealed weapon. In the State vs. Munir Hamdan, the Justices looked at our own State constitution, which states:

“Article I, Section 25: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

And contested that against the law Mr. Hamdan was charged with violating:

“Chapter 941.23 - Carrying concealed weapon: Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”

They wrote in a 6 to 1 majority decision that “application of the CCW statute effectively disallowed the reasonable exercise of Hamdan's constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of security.” (State v. Hamdan, p.4)

Knowing full well this could have thrown out Wisconsin’s current 130-year-old concealed weapons prohibition altogether, the majority opinions were written by the Justices to address Munir Hamdan’s right, and the people’s right, to carry a concealed weapon specifically for his stated purpose: self-protection while conducting business in his store. Correspondingly, the Supreme Court voiced their view that to deny someone the right to be armed - concealed or otherwise - when they were using it to protect themselves while running his or her business was patently unconstitutional. In addition to this, and obviously just because it made so much sense to the Justices, they generously allowed that we should be able to conceal a weapon in the privacy of our own homes as well!


Nevertheless, just as the Supreme Court efficiently corrected one problem concerning our concealed carry law – they have unmasked numerous others. Here’s what Chief Justice Shirely Abrahamson wrote in the sole dissenting opinion of State v. Hamdan:

“anyone who must walk home from a bus stop every night after work through a high crime neighborhood can surely argue that his or her need to exercise the right to bear arms is high, concealment is necessary, and that his or her interests in self-protection substantially outweigh the State's interest in regulating concealed weapons… The number of individuals who can fit under (this) umbrella is large.”(State v. Hamdan, p.87)

This is where the Supreme Court has left us - between the crossroads of the right to carry a concealed weapon for protection in our home or businesses, and a theoretical umbrella. Due to all of the media misinformation regarding Senate Bill 214 this past week, the Legislature may be distracted from seeing exactly what is waiting on the other side of Governor Doyle’s veto pen:

-It’s the next court case involving some poor soul that’s caught on the street carrying any sort of self- defense weapon while on his way to drop off the night’s deposits from his small business.
-It’s the single mother on the way home from her job late at night who gets pulled over during a traffic stop. The one who has made the decision to learn how to defend herself and her family, and is equipped accordingly – though unfortunately, in the eyes of the police, she is violating State law.

These are the exact scenarios the Wisconsin Supreme Court is afraid of seeing – cases that in one fell swoop – will cleanly, quickly, and finally rule Wisconsin’s concealed weapon prohibition unconstitutional. It’s foolish of the Governor to think that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will defend this State’s archaic concealed weapon prohibition over and over again as they continuously watch it fail real world application.

Our Supreme Court Justices have indicated that the day may come when they’ll have no choice but to rule that Wisconsin is to join the ranks of Vermont and Alaska in allowing any resident to a carry concealed weapon wherever and whenever they choose. The Court asked the Legislature to address this issue once nicely – and that exactly is why the Personal Protection Act legislation was reintroduced in Madison so soon after this decision.

Now the real questions at hand are: Is it safe for you as a member of the Legislature to count on them again? How will the Supreme Court rule next time, knowing the current Governor is sure to veto any future concealed carry permit law?


(this is a “threatening” letter I’m working on to send to my Assembly person, Shirley Krug (D) – do you think it’ll give her something to think about?)
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 2:32:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 2:37:04 PM EDT by Red_Beard]
very nice

you should send that to ALL of the assembly and senate!


paste that thing into the recent thread in the GD forum

Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:25:42 PM EDT
Nice job Dolomite!

...and as for Doyle's veto; I hope it turns out to be one of these--

Link Posted: 11/20/2003 3:07:23 AM EDT
on second though, don't send it to any of them


i'd rather have the court give us alaska/vermont style carry than the other branches give us a permit system
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:21:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Currently citizens of Vermont and Alaska are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons without any sort of permit. Vermont has always been that way – Alaska has just recently done away with the concealed carry permit altogether due to the fact that Alaskans felt the permit system was in itself an infringement on their rights.

Here’s how Governor Jim Doyle’s veto this week of the Personal Protection Act will eventually deliver to every Wisconsin resident the exact same freedom when it comes to the unrestricted carry of concealed weapons…

It was just a few months ago in July that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court had before it a case involving a Milwaukee merchant charged with carrying a concealed weapon. In the State vs. Munir Hamdan, the Justices looked at our own State constitution, which states:

“Article I, Section 25: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

And contested that against the law Mr. Hamdan was charged with violating:

“941.23 - Carrying concealed weapon: Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”

They wrote in a 6 to 1 majority decision that, “application of the CCW statute effectively disallowed the reasonable exercise of Hamdan's constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of security.” (State v. Hamdan, p.4)

Knowing full well this could have thrown out Wisconsin’s current 130-year-old concealed weapons prohibition altogether, the majority opinions were written by the Justices to address Munir Hamdan’s right, and the people’s right, to carry a concealed weapon specifically for his stated purpose – self-protection while conducting business in his store. Accordingly, the Supreme Court voiced their view that to deny someone the right to be armed, concealed or otherwise, was unconstitutional when they were using it to protect themselves while running his or her business. In addition to this, and just because it made so much sense to the Justices, they generously allowed that we should be able to conceal a weapon in the privacy of our own homes as well.

But just as the Supreme Court efficiently corrected one problem concerning our concealed carry law – they unmasked numerous others. Here’s what Chief Justice Shirely Abrahamson wrote in the sole dissenting opinion of State v. Hamdan:

“(A)nyone who must walk home from a bus stop every night after work through a high crime neighborhood can surely argue that his or her need to exercise the right to bear arms is high, concealment is necessary, and that his or her interests in self-protection substantially outweigh the State's interest in regulating concealed weapons… The number of individuals who can fit under (this) umbrella is large.”(P.87)

And that is the crossroads where the Supreme Court has left us. Somewhere between the right to carry a concealed weapon for protection in our home or businesses, and, a theoretical umbrella. Due to all of the media misinformation regarding Senate Bill 214 this past week, the Legislature may be distracted from seeing exactly what is waiting on the other side of Governor Doyle’s swift veto signature:

-It’s the next court case involving some poor soul that’s caught on the street carrying any sort of self-defense weapon while on his way to drop off the night’s deposits from his small business.
-It’s the single mother on the way home from her job late at night who gets pulled over during a traffic stop - the one who has made the decision to learn how to defend herself and her family – and is equipped and trained to do so properly.

These are the exact scenarios the Wisconsin Supreme Court is afraid of seeing – cases that in one fell swoop – will cleanly, quickly, and finally rule Wisconsin’s concealed weapon prohibition unconstitutional. It’s foolish of the Governor to think that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will defend this State’s archaic concealed weapon prohibition over and over again as it continuously fails real world testing.

Our Supreme Court Justices have indicated that the day may come when they’ll have no choice but to rule that Wisconsin is to join the ranks of Vermont and Alaska in allowing any citizen to carry concealed weapons wherever and whenever they choose. The Court asked the Legislature to address this issue once nicely – and that’s exactly why the Personal Protection Act legislation was reintroduced in Madison soon after this decision.

The question now is will the Governor and the Legislature count on them again?


(this is a “threatening” letter I’m working on to send to my Assembly person, Shirley Krug (D) – do you think it’ll give her something to think about?)




Great letter!
Can we steel it, to send to our dems too.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 7:32:54 AM EDT
IMHO law enforcement (and certain legiscritters) refuses to accept the fact that a large number of people might fall under the Hamdan case. Yet I think that a large majority of them are afraid that the outcome might be just what Dolomite outlinged. They don't like the Hamdan decision, and are trying to convince everyone that its implications are not any wider than their (foolishly) narrow reading.

Still, they fight any "reasonable" attempts at CCW reform....

Don't try to understand them. They're coming from the position that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting.

Everyone, all together, say "please let me excercise my rights" and "thank you for letting me hunt ducks."

Personally I see the Hamdan scope becoming greater as more cases come through that fall under it. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), there are not a lot of "legitimate" CCW cases that come through the system. Largely because those who are going about their business with a well concealed firearm rarely get arrested or frisked by the cops. The ones who get caught are the heroin dealers, drunk domestic abusers, crackheads, drunk drivers, people with warrants, etc.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 7:59:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Corey:
IMHO law enforcement (and certain legiscritters) refuses to accept the fact that a large number of people might fall under the Hamdan case. Yet I think that a large majority of them are afraid that the outcome might be just what Dolomite outlinged. They don't like the Hamdan decision, and are trying to convince everyone that its implications are not any wider than their (foolishly) narrow reading.

Still, they fight any "reasonable" attempts at CCW reform....

Don't try to understand them. They're coming from the position that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting.

Everyone, all together, say "please let me excercise my rights" and "thank you for letting me hunt ducks."

Personally I see the Hamdan scope becoming greater as more cases come through that fall under it. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), there are not a lot of "legitimate" CCW cases that come through the system. Largely because those who are going about their business with a well concealed firearm rarely get arrested or frisked by the cops. The ones who get caught are the heroin dealers, drunk domestic abusers, crackheads, drunk drivers, people with warrants, etc.



Give me till summer and I'll be a non crackhead, heroine addict, drug dealer test case for this. In the summer I do late night walks around town, with friends sometimes and without them sometimes. you know a couple miles here a couple miles there. I usually go with a a couple thousand bucks worth of camera equipment taking night pics around town.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 8:42:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 8:44:36 AM EDT by Corey]

Originally Posted By photoman:
Give me till summer and I'll be a non crackhead, heroine addict, drug dealer test case for this. In the summer I do late night walks around town, with friends sometimes and without them sometimes. you know a couple miles here a couple miles there. I usually go with a a couple thousand bucks worth of camera equipment taking night pics around town.



With all due respect, litigating a case like this through the Wisconsin Supreme Court would cost a minimum of $25,000 (and probably more like $50,000). Of course, a lot of the legal groundwork has been laid by Hamdan. So instead of establishing the legal standards and fighting about the constitutionality of 941.23, your attorney would likely only face applying the facts in your case to the Hamdan test.

Also, bail is imposed during a criminal case. Even if you're released on a signature bond, all it takes is one anti-gun court commissioner or judge to impose a "no guns" condition.

So, be careful what you wish for. Being involved in the criminal justice system is almost a penalty in and of itself.

I'd also be aware of the fact that your local LEO's might be surfing this thread. Even if they don't have a long memory, they most certainly have a printer.

LEO's need a reason to detain and frisk you. Don't give it to them.

I would never advocate breaking the law and won't say anything more on the issue.

And seriously, no flame at all photoman. Just letting you the reality of something like this.

Stay safe everyone.

EDITED for typo.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 9:18:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Corey:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Give me till summer and I'll be a non crackhead, heroine addict, drug dealer test case for this. In the summer I do late night walks around town, with friends sometimes and without them sometimes. you know a couple miles here a couple miles there. I usually go with a a couple thousand bucks worth of camera equipment taking night pics around town.




With all due respect, litigating a case like this through the Wisconsin Supreme Court would cost a minimum of $25,000 (and probably more like $50,000). Of course, a lot of the legal groundwork has been laid by Hamdan. So instead of establishing the legal standards and fighting about the constitutionality of 941.23, your attorney would likely only face applying the facts in your case to the Hamdan test.

Also, bail is imposed during a criminal case. Even if you're released on a signature bond, all it takes is one anti-gun court commissioner or judge to impose a "no guns" condition.

So, be careful what you wish for. Being involved in the criminal justice system is almost a penalty in and of itself.

I'd also be aware of the fact that your local LEO's might be surfing this thread. Even if they don't have a long memory, they most certainly have a printer.

LEO's need a reason to detain and frisk you. Don't give it to them.

I would never advocate breaking the law and won't say anything more on the issue.

And seriously, no flame at all photoman. Just letting you the reality of something like this.

Stay safe everyone.

EDITED for typo.


I know what your saying. I'm not saying that I would actually CCW. But at the same time, I feel that my safty always overrides the police powers of the states since they are not responcable for my protection they have no right to regulate what I can use to protect myself or how I carry it. To tell you the truth I hope we get a really good case sometime soon to force the decision out of the state supreme court that would grant us Vermont style carry. I'll take the inch that the ppa will give us back, but i'd rather have the whole foot.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:49:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 5:32:39 PM EDT by rfb45colt]
Great letter.

That's one of the points I brought up the other night when I was interviewed by the TV station, but unfortunately they didn't air it. I have asked the TV station for a copy of my entire interview (not just the 30 seconds they put in their story on the veto)... and I also requested they send a duplicate copy to the local sheriff.

This whole Supreme Court issue has been lost in the shuffle, and the Legislative battle, veto, veto override "showdown", etc. The Supreme Court "urged" the Legislature to enact a permit system for CCW, to avoid the sure-to-come "judicial confusion" about the whole CCW issue. The Legislature did exactly as was requested by the highest court in the State, and the governor vetoed it. How will they rule next time, knowing the current governor is sure to veto any future CCW permit law? Did Doyle cut off his nose to spite his ugly face? I hope so.

Suggestion. You might want to also include the backround check change for handgun buyers. Federal law prohibits anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from possessing firearms. Handgun purchasers in WI have their federally mandated backround checks done by the State's DOJ. The database the DOJ uses does NOT contain mental health committment records... so if you have been committed but lie on the form, nobody checks and you get your handgun. SB214 would require that this info be added to the check system's database (for the purpose of CCW permit applicants), but as the same database will be used for both purchases and CCW permits, it closes a "loophole" to mentally-committed potential handgun buyers. If this law is not enacted, that info will not be added to the check system... unless another law does so.

Ask her why she supports a veto of a law that would prevent "crazy" people from buying handguns in WI.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:45:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
....
I'll take the inch that the ppa will give us back, but i'd rather have the whole foot.



Yup.

Corey
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 5:03:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rfb45colt:
Great letter.



Thanks.

I pretty much stole it from you (and I can say that without any shame). Your posts over on Glock Talk/Carry Issues are extremely informative. This particular aspect of the WI CCW issue should give any anti-gunner night sweats. They are definitely not thinking with their heads.



Suggestion. You might want to also include the background check change for handgun buyers. Federal law prohibits anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from possessing firearms. Handgun purchasers in WI have their federally mandated background checks done by the State's DOJ. The database the DOJ uses does NOT contain mental health commitment records...



Oh you better believe I'll be banging that bell loud and strong in next week's communications with my Lady Legislators.

The above letter prints out at two pages in length - as the time for them to vote comes near I'm going to try and make them more concise and quicker to read.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 10:01:57 AM EDT
If anybody wants to take snippets of what I've written above and use it to bang against their elected decision makers head - PLEASE DO!
Top Top