Wis. DA says he won't prosecute some gun laws

[keeper7011]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A Wisconsin prosecutor said he won't enforce a host of state weapons laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute Wisconsin's prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns and carrying switchblades and butterfly knives. He said the Supreme Court's ruling renders those statutes unconstitutional.

"These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over," Fox wrote in the statement, released this week.

He ended the statement with "Let Freedom Ring."

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was stunned. He said Fox is inviting crime into his county and if he won't enforce the state's laws he should be removed from office.

"To announce this publicly, to tell all these would-be scofflaws they can go ahead and break the law, makes matters worse," Hamm said.

Fox, a Democrat with self-described Libertarian leanings, faces re-election in 2012. He said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press but if the Brady Campaign wants to mount a recall drive, the organization should "bring it on."

"If a majority of people want me to move on, that's the price for standing up and saying 'this is what I believe,'" Fox said.

He said he doesn't have any pending cases that would be affected by his decision and will continue to prosecute unlawful gun use, including the prohibition on felons possessing a firearm and using a gun in a crime.

Wisconsin Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh declined comment, saying only: "These decisions are a matter of a DA's prosecutorial discretion."

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The ruling expanded the conservative court's embrace of gun rights, but it seemed unlikely to resolve questions and ongoing legal challenges.

Jackson County is a mostly rural county in west-central Wisconsin that is home to about 20,000 people. It leans Democrat, voting for presidential candidates John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008.

Donald Gilberg, chief of police in Black River Falls, the county seat, said he'll continue to enforce the city's gun ordinances that mirror the state's bans on concealed weapons, entering a bar with a gun and possessing a switchblade. Gilberg said he doesn't want a "wild west atmosphere" in his town.

"Ten minutes after publication of the district attorney's decision, every wannabe Wyatt Earp in this county will strap on their hog leg and strut about town not because they need to protect themselves, but because they can," Gilberg said in a statement. "This will have a chilling effect on the community."

But Fox, who has served in Iraq with the Wisconsin National Guard, said he believes police officers should uphold the U.S. Constitution.

"He (Gilberg) doesn't trust his neighbors to act responsibly with firearms. I do," Fox said. "In our system, when the Supreme Court speaks, all us law enforcement officers are required to salute and move out. And that's what I'm doing.

 

[Karat]

"Ten minutes after publication of the district attorney's decision, every wannabe Wyatt Earp in this county will strap on their hog leg and strut about town not because they need to protect themselves, but because they can," Gilberg said in a statement. "This will have a chilling effect on the community."

Unfortunately this is probably what would happen.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Here's the press release:

Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the amendment.

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. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).

Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state’s interests first, and would only create an exception to these laws when the individual’s need for protection outweighed the state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant’s personally-owned place of business. Well, as the United States Supreme Court held yesterday, that view was exactly backward.

As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons, and effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm in your personal vehicle does not pass that test.

Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore. That’s not an American value; it puts concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to self-defense. The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.

I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, I want to emphasize that with fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue to vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms, such as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed while intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and endangering safety by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a few. Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves and their neighbors safely.

A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

A copy of the amicus brief joined by J.B. Van Hollen, the Attorney General of Wisconsin, can be viewed at: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuStateofTexas.pdf

Let Freedom Ring.
Gerald R. Fox



Read more: http://www.altenhofel.com/blog/i-das-view-second-amendment#ixzz0t899wzuO
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

 

[Glocktogo]

I'd say he has pretty good precedent for not enforcing the law. After all, the United States will not enforce immigration laws.

 

[buckeye]

Unfortunately this is probably what would happen.

So what?

In any case, freedom to bear arms doesn't turn every citizen into a crazed vigilante, nor does it have "a chilling effect on the community" or promote a general "wild west" environment, contrary to the police chief's silly commentary.

 

[crazy8]

Originally Posted by keeper7011
"Ten minutes after publication of the district attorney's decision, every wannabe Wyatt Earp in this county will strap on their hog leg and strut about town not because they need to protect themselves, but because they can," Gilberg said in a statement. "This will have a chilling effect on the community."

Unfortunately this is probably what would happen.

so what?

 

[BallisticGuy]

I think they should keep him around for ever!!!!!

 

[Michael Brown]

"In our system, when the Supreme Court speaks, all us law enforcement officers are required to salute and move out. And that's what I'm doing."

I found this a particularly important part of his statement.

This is really what the multiple arms of enforcement are all about IMO.

Michael Brown

 

[kriket1911]

That is awesome the rest of the.Country's da's need to fallow suite
But there shuld at least be a certificate of competence needed to carry but it should be available to everyone except felons

 

[Kaw77]

the problem is - look at a state map of WI
his county is some dinky one with no major cities in it