The decision will be posted on the website Wednesday May 17th (by 8:30am)

http://www.courts.state.wi.us/supreme/sctoday.jsp

This is the case against a (former) bar owner who admitted to having a gun in his car. The state said that they would have allowed him to carry if he was actively engaged in transporting money. But at the time he told the cops about the gun, he was not.

If you listened to the arguements, IMO Fisher's lawyer sounded better than the prosecutor. Also, the justices were asking very specific questions and it sounded like they were supportive of Fisher.

There is the potential to effectively overturn WI's ban on concealed weapons. Who knows....

Didn't the Wisconsin Supreme Court practically order the legislature to pass some cort of carry law a couple of years ago?

Yeah, here it is: http://www2.jsonline.com/news/state/jul03/155137.asp



Here's the Supreme Court decision. It's a long read, but fascinating: http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2003/01-0056.htm

The Supreme court was pretty specific, it make me wonder why the legislature and govoner didn't get it's act together. They may end up with a carry law that no-one likes.

I don't think that's likely. But there is the hint that if the governor and legislature don't act, the Court will take the position that there is no Constitutional bar to Vermont-style carry in Wisconsin.

I think Doyle doesn't believe them; my guess is that he's right not to. But it's just a guess.

It appears they reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case back to the lower courts. Also, it appears that they did not challenge the constitutionality of the law and in fact held it under the basis of legistlature intent, citing the 2 failed attempts to pass bills. The 3 justice dissent does appear to be very heavily in favor of declaring the law unconstitutional however.

Beyond my personal bent, it seemed that the dissent was better thought out, but I'm not a lawyer or judge so my opinion is probably not particularly useful.

The majority opinion seemed to think that the failed attempts to pass a CCW law showed that the majority of the people didn't want it. When it clearly was the governer alone that stopped it.

I believe that WI's CCW ban is unconstitutional.

Pretty simple... SECURITY!

The majority opinion kept stating that the state has a greater interest in preventing CCW (than a person's interest in carrying concealed). It kept saying that WI['s outright ban] is a 'reasonable restriction.'

They further reinforced CCW at home/business (as legal), but they did it by saying 1) that a person's interest in CCW is greater at home/business then the state's interest in preventing it (which is fine), 2) THAT A PERSON IS LESS LIKELY TO USE THEIR GUN IN ANGER OR FEAR AT HOME/BUSINESS than say in a car.

They stated that 'security' may not have been too much of a concern because Fisher kept the gun in the car and did not carry between his business and his car. They determined that the most dangerous place for a business owner (who may or may not be carrying money) is the walk between the building and the car.

The dissenting opinion is correct.

The Majority opinion seemed like 15 pages of as much stuff they could cram in to support itself.

That's all I can think of right now.

Screwed again.

The dissentor wrote:
Majority:
Where does 'substantial need' fall in "security, defense, ... or any other lawful purpose"?

Sounds like the exact reasons SHALL ISSUE was created.

Here's the URL. http://www.courts.state.wi.us/sc/opinio ... eqNo=25165

This opinion demonstrates the truth of the proposition that courts (in Minnesota and elsewhere) will misapply any rule, misconstrue any precedent, and misunderstand as required in order to narrow, limit, and in so far as possible repeal any rule or case that benefits gun owners. The "logic" applied in gun cases would never be applied to any other subject matter.



Judges are not necessarily intellectually honest, trustworthy, fair, impartial (let me pick the panel and I'll get the result I want 95% of the time), non-partisan, nor honorable. They are human. That is why we need full-scale, contested elections for Judge just like we have for every other "lawmaking" job. The last judge who was satisfied with merely interpreting the law died before Christ was born.

Its my understadning... that judges in WI are elected. The problem here was that Bush promoted one to a federal position, so gov Doyle had to make an appointment. Thus the flip from a 4-3 conservative to a 4-3 liberal court.

Will Wisconsin's legislature bring it up again this year? If so, what are its chances of finally passing?

I don't think it will be a possibility until late this year or Early next year. I think Doyle (governer) is up for reelection in November.

If you guys closer to the WI issues and debates could please offer us updates as they arise, we could add our voices (and those of our WI friends) during this important next legislative session.

I moved back home to Minnesota from Wisconsin three years ago (was in Chippewa Falls), and you would not believe how many hunters and gun owners are totally unaware of this important Bill of Rights issue. I always kind of had the feeling in Wisconsin that the average folks would rather just let things be decided by those better suited. Don’t rock the boat, follow your betters’ advice, etc. Huh? Who is better suited than the voters themselves?

The class system is alive and well in rural Wisconsin. One would think you were back in Europe…

Anything we could get going on the grass roots level would be great. Remember, these are folks who put deer hunting ahead of Thanksgiving. That in itself says quite a bit for their character.

I read today about Doyle issuing a "challenge" to the NRA ... that he is concerned about their "message". I always knew Doyle was anti-2A, but the more this guy opens his mouth, the more it becomes obvious that he takes the Shumer, Obama, Hillary stance that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns, and that the "people" referred to in the 2A is actually "the goverment".

Not to go off on a 'jag ... but the so-called "sportsmen" in WI are the one's who are responsible for this, and for the twice vetod "shall issue" bill. They are an ignorant lot who don't know how to refute Brady BS, and have been brow beat into submission by hollow, soul-less, anti-patriots like Doyle. Let us hope that we see the day when they can be revived so that they can do what they need to do to preserve liberty in their home state.

Heh, this is like saying that because the legislature passed the Twins stadium bill that a majority of Hennepin County residents want a sales tax increase, despite the fact that a majority of Hennepin County house reps voted against it..