OFFICE OF GERALD R. FOXDistrict Attorney Fox goes into some detail as to how these rights have been infringed in Wisconsin in the past. RTWT.
JACKSON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release June 29, 2010
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GERALD FOX’S STATEMENT ON THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO
...
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities.
Wisconsin has not been particularly gun friendly, so it's good to see that a D.A. there says that the laws are unconstitutional and he won't enforce them. Well done, sir. And as a tribute to your courageous decision, here's a musical tribute.
Don't want to discuss it
I think it's time for a change
UPDATE 2 July 2010 19:29: Eugene Volokh thinks this may be overreaching by the D.A.
Odd how a D.A. (and even the A.G., apparently) in one state are going out of their way to ensure that the citizens' rights are being safeguarded, while others in a neighbor state are still playing games and searching for ways (I believe the term is "loophole") around the S.C. ruling.
ReplyDeleteThe comments over at Volokh's are ... precious.
ReplyDeleteI got to thinking about the whole thing this evening on my way in to work, and I do agree that the fellow may be overstepping his authority. It may well be - hell, I'll be cynical, it likely IS - political grandstanding for an election cycle...
But.
And damn, it's a big "but".
But, this is an elected official, with authority to prosecute (or not) crimes saying, "I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and this is the Constitution."
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
ReplyDeleteBRAVO, Mr. Fox!
Is it over reaching? I don't know. We're used to the idea of needing a concealed carry permit, and no guns allowed in bars or "establishments where alcohol may be sold or served" but I sure don't see that in the 2A. I think the only way you can even justify denying firearms to felons is that you forfeit your civil rights when you commit a felony.
ReplyDeleteThis seems closer to AZ, AK or VT sort of laws than anything else.