Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional (WI)

[davepc]

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.”

...

http://www.wrn.com/2010/10/county-judge-rules-concealed-carry-ban-unconstitutional/

[old mark]

1. "It's not a left or right type of thing...It's a liberty thing." I'm glad this happened

and I hope it goes to the Supremes...maybe they will get it right, too...

rec

mark

[spin]

2. In many states you can have a concealed firearms license ...

but you can be arrested for carrying a knife. Fortunately I live in Florida which has commonsense weapons law. The following list indicates states where with my concealed weapons permit I can carry a firearm but I can't carry many of the knives I common carry in Florida.

FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES
Alabama (1,3,5)
Alaska (1)
Arizona (6)
Arkansas (1)
Colorado (1,4)
Delaware
Georgia (1)
Idaho (3,6)
Indiana (1,3,6)
Kansas (1)
Kentucky
Louisiana (1)
Michigan (1,4)
Mississippi (1)
Missouri
Montana (3)
Nebraska (1)
New Hampshire (1,3,4,6)
New Mexico (1)
North Carolina (1)
North Dakota (3,6)
Ohio (1)
Oklahoma (1)
Pennsylvania (1,6)
South Carolina (1,4,6)
South Dakota (1,3)
Tennessee (1,6)
Texas (1,3,6)
Utah (1,6)
Vermont (2)
Virginia (1,6)
Washington (1,6)
West Virginia (1)
Wyoming (1,3)

(1) While Florida's law allows licensees to carry stun guns, knives, and billy clubs in a concealed fashion, the laws in these states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols ONLY, NOT WEAPONS IN GENERAL. Florida license holders are prohibited from carrying other types of weapons while in these states.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

[kwikrnu]

16. The problem with florida

is that the state criminalizes the carry of handguns. The permit is only a defense to the crime of carrying a handgun. In time Florida is going to come to realize that they cannot broadly criminalize a fundamental civil right.

[Pavulon]

3. Perk your ears Prohibitionists

this is how the law is moving. This will be a national right before to long.

Count on it.

[shadowrider]

4. Rec'd. Excellent news n/t

[SteveM]

5. Perhaps this judge agrees with the arguments of gun-controllers....

"...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.'”

While the merits of open-carry can be debated, this judge has taken the position open-carry is not "realistic," if for no other reason than LEO would continuously harass citizens who exercise this option. I must note that many gun-control/prohibitionists have made vociferous arguments against open-carry; ironically, this judge may agree with at least some of them.

So, what's next, gun-controllers?

[Pavulon]

6. Tht nationwide CCW law that missed it by one vote..

that is exactly whats next. I would prefer to CCW anyway. OC is generally used in states that do not allow CCW.

[lawodevolution]

7. I'd rather CCW remain at the state level

I wouldn't want to give DC the ability to revoke CCW for the entire country.

[spin]

11. Good point. (n/t)

[Bold Lib]

8. Looks like the judge was applying "strict scrutiny".

As should be the case with any fundamental right. Very good news!!!

[intaglio]

9. I know I've argued with people on this forum but now

I would like to propose this idea;

Open carry is Constitutional not concealed carry.

Reason, it brings the "...well ordered militia" phrase back into play. A militia has no reason to conceal it's weapons but people meaning to deceive do have such a reason.

Comments, I could be wrong

[shadowrider]

10. 2A says right to keep and bear arms and doesn't specify open or conceal carry

It matters not. The 2A is the 2A.

[X_Digger]

12. What's your logic?

And drop the schtick re 'well regulated', it imposes no restriction on the right of the people.

What makes bearing one way 'constitutional' but not another?

[Euromutt]

13. The RKBA is not dependent on membership in a state militia

The prefatory clause provides a reason why it is not in the interest of the government (federal or state) to infringe upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; that right is in no way conditional upon membership in a state militia. Moreover, many state constitutions permit the carrying of a firearm explicitly for the purpose of self-defense.

My take on it is that the Second Amendment requires that a form of carrying ("bearing arms") must remain uninfringed. If a state wants to restrict (to permit holders) or even prohibit concealed carry, it must allow open carry without requiring a permit; conversely, if a state wants to restrict or prohibit open carry, it must allow concealed carry without requiring a permit.

I'm not particularly opposed to restricting concealed carry via a licensing system, but the countervailing condition to that is that a citizen should be able to carry openly without being hassled by law enforcement.

[intaglio]

14. OK, it is a genuine enquiry

TRTBA is in the Constitution but the Constitution is silent as to how those arms are to be carried. Obviously in this forum I would not argue that weapons should be carried on securely locked containers - I repeat, I am not arguing that and do not intend to do so. That leaves 2 other methods for those who wish to carry them to do so Open or Concealed carry.

Now there is no doubt that the term "well ordered militia" is a part of the wording of the amendment but it plays no part in the current argument except for where anti-gun lobby says only those who are part of state militia should carry guns - and again I make clear that for the purposes of this post I do not wish to so argue for such an interpretation. With this in mind I am arguing that the term "Militia" should be taken in its broadest possible sense ie that Americans are, in fact, all potential members of a militia, able to defend themselves their state and their country but not subject to military until and unless that militia is formalised due to a military or internal threat against the USA.

Because all citizens are potentially part of the defense of the US they may bear arms - but why should a person conceal their weapons? What is the purpose of concealment?

Perhaps, as I seem to recall Heinlein suggesting, all weapons should be carried openly and, I suggest, that only those not entitled to be armed or wishing to deceive (either criminal or law enforcement), would then conceal. Those people not wishing to carry weapons could still be unarmed.

Pros? cons? I really am seeking views.

[kwikrnu]

15. overly broad

This is good news. Overly broad defenses have been used for first amendment rights cases. Hopefully this case will make it to the supreme court of the united states and they will allow "overly broad" defenses to gun laws. In the 1871 andrews v state in tennessee the overly broad concept was accepted. I have also used the overly broad as one of my points of contention while challenging tennessee's unconstitutional gun law.