Breaking Gun News:Clark County (WI) Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional
[source]
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.
That's Interesting - [chews sammich] the 14th as well... ?
“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.”
Thanks to "C" for the heads up.
5 comments:
One step closer to Wisconsin being the next to last state to adopt concealed carry as a legal option for law-abiding citizens. Now if we could just get the liberal geniuses of Chicago and Springfield to abide, this country would finally be in step with its own Constitutionally given rights to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Come on Illinois, you're the ONLY hold out!
I think California should be counted as an "(dis)honorable mention" holdout. We have concealed carry here, but the law is such that the local law enforcement head has the power to deny permits for *everyone* within his jurisdiction based on his personal whims and fancies. The practical upshot of this is that while my sister in a rural county has a permit, I can't get one here in Los Angeles at all, and no one in any of the other liberal-heavy urban areas can either... unless they're politically connected. That's just wrong.
The opening paragraph of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
---
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---
The US Supreme Court in this year's McDonald decision found that the 2nd Amendment is critical to the "Due Process" of US citizenship, and therefore barred states from violating the 2nd Amendment by way of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment of 1868 was intended to cause the Bill Of Rights from the US constitution to apply to the states. Decisions of the Supreme Court before this such as Barron v. Baltimore 1833 had decided that states don't need to honor the Bill Of Rights. This led to all kinds of problems...in 1858 South Carolina passed a law calling for the death penalty for any preacher who spoke against slavery from the pulpit, basically pissing all over the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion AND free speech). This is just one worst-case example among many - north AND south.
So the 14th Amendment was designed to overturn the US supreme court by changing the constitutional groundwork out from underneath it.
The Supremes didn't like that one bit. In a series of cases from the 1870s and beyond, they trashed the 14th into basically uselessness. The Slaughter-house cases of 1872 started it, the final decision (1876) in US v. Cruikshank basically put the last nail in the 14th's coffin.
Across the 20th century the 14th was slowly brought back - one piece at a time. As cases came up, various civil rights were declared "fundamental to due process" and "selectively incorporated" (applied) to the states. There's a few pieces of the BoR still not applied...states still don't have to do jury trials in civil court, for example. Until this year's McDonald decision, the 2nd wasn't incorporated. Now it is, making decisions like this across the US inevitable in states with a lot of gun control.
Interesting picture....I personally know the person who created it. Wonder where you copied it from.
Post a Comment