Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From WI Carry:
A Clark County judge has ruled that Wisconsin's ban on conceal carry of a weapon is overly broad and unconstitutional in light of the recent Heller and McDonald landmark US Supreme Court cases.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-cont ... hultz1.pdf
From the Court's decision:
Thus, while the State has an interest in public safety, sec. 941.23 is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest nor is it the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Further:
In addition, as noted above, this court agrees with Justice Clarence Thomas’s McDonald concurrence and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this matter. In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged by any State law. Sec. 941.23 must also fail under the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
GO P&I!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Oh thank god. I might have to travel there within the next year.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
fmlaw1 said:
From WI Carry:
A Clark County judge has ruled that Wisconsin's ban on conceal carry of a weapon is overly broad and unconstitutional in light of the recent Heller and McDonald landmark US Supreme Court cases.

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/wp-cont ... hultz1.pdf
From the Court's decision:[quote:23f4tl5i]Thus, while the State has an interest in public safety, sec. 941.23 is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the State’s interest nor is it the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Further:
In addition, as noted above, this court agrees with Justice Clarence Thomas’s McDonald concurrence and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this matter. In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it. The right to keep and bear arms is therefore not to be abridged by any State law. Sec. 941.23 must also fail under the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.
GO P&I![/quote:23f4tl5i]

Striking down the Wisconsin ban was doing the right thing.

Doing it using the P&I clause is just showboating :).

Slaughterhouse is technically still in place, and only the Supreme Court can reverse it.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,140 Posts
Open carry is a distasteful option to many regular civilians. If that's the only way carrying is allowed, they would rather not carry at all.
Allowing a concealed carry option is necessary to give full force to the right to go about in public armed for self-defense.

And it looks like Wisconsin's definition of "open" carry meant it was basically impossible to carry "openly" in a vehicle. Since if the gun is on your hip or otherwise not up high were people can see it through any window, it's not open enough.

I guess if you had a convertible you could wear a helmet, and attach a holster to the top of your helmet..... :lol:
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top