From his 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….
Let Freedom Ring.
Gerald R. Fox
This strikes me as an overreading of McDonald and Heller, which made clear (whether or not correctly) that concealed carry bans and bans on carrying into public buildings are constitutional. But a D.A. is entitled, given his prosecutorial discretion, to refuse to enforce laws that he believes to be unconstitutional, even if the courts think the laws are constitutional. And of course the voters who elect the D.A. have the final say in the matter; Fox seems to have run unopposed in 2008, both in the general election and in the primary. Thanks to Prof. Joe Olson for the pointer.
David Welker says:
I don’t think you can just assume this is true. I think it would depend on the laws of Wisconsin and what level of discretion is granted to the District Attorney in that state. Also, there is a difference between exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases based on individual circumstances and broadly declining to enforce broad classes of laws that are normally enforced elsewhere in the state based on possibly idiosyncratic individual interpretations of the Constitution. Also, keep in mind that in many states, district attorneys exercise discretion independently from the governor and other centralized executives accountable to the people of the entire state, but such broad enforcement decisions like this could majorly impact other counties within the state. (As when individuals from his county are under the mistaken impression that it is legal to have guns in public buildings or in establishments that serve alcohol in the state when in other counties.)
Anyway, I am not saying you are wrong about the D.A. having authority to do this. But I really would not be quick to assume that he does without doing appropriate legal research and I think whether he does or not would depend on the particulars of Wisconsin law. It is not the case that the office of the D.A. has certain inherent powers regardless of the state; usually the office is created by the state Constitution, at least it is in California. So, I think that the powers and limitations of powers of the office would depend on the particulars of state law.
July 2, 2010, 6:10 pmAJK says:
While it’s clear that the McDonald decision doesn’t obligate him to take this position, do you think that it provides additional justification?
July 2, 2010, 6:12 pmOrenWithAnE says:
It provides political justification for a political decision. He needs no legal justification, after all.
If the WI legislature or the people of WI are unhappy with his political decisions, they can remedy it in a variety of democratically sanctioned ways.
July 2, 2010, 6:21 pmnotaclue says:
If POTUS can allow his Justice Department not to enforce federal immigration law, why can’t a county DA not enforce certain gun laws?
July 2, 2010, 6:23 pmJohn A says:
Certainly he is “overreading” the Supremes. But I think he may be reading the part of the populace who neither live nor work in cities of over 1 million [adult] headcount.
I do not own, nor particularly want to own, a firearm. But I have long held that convicted violent criminals may be kept from having guns, those who are convicted of behaving dangerously while physically in possession of a gun the same, those found to be a danger to others perhaps – but barring that, not so much.
July 2, 2010, 6:23 pmLarryA says:
Wisconsin is one of the two states where there is no provision for concealed carry. (The other being Illinois.)
Their legislature has actually passed shall-issue about three times, only to have the governor veto. The last time they came within one vote of overriding.
In 1998 Wisconsin added an RKBA provision to their constitution: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.” It was approved by 79%.
There are actually three different concealed carry organizations pushing for CHL laws, http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/, http://wisconsincarry.org/, and http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/.
Interesting situation.
July 2, 2010, 6:23 pmDavid Welker says:
But he does need a legal justification. Does his office include the power to exercise prosecutorial discretion on this basis? There is a good chance that it does, but it is possible that it doesn’t.
July 2, 2010, 6:24 pmDavid Welker says:
Just as the discretion that the President has to execute the laws is matter of federal law (whether the President has the power to impound money allocated by Congress for particular programs is a matter of federal law, for example) the discretion that a governor or a local DA has in the execution of their duties is determined by state law (and this may be further limited by federal law, i.e. the Equal Protection clause). Also, the discretion of an elected governor and an elected DA may differ from each other in their extent, scope, and nature, depending on state law.
July 2, 2010, 6:37 pmTTT says:
Since there is only one Judge in this entire county this guy is not too busy, which is why he spends his time making up long press releases about hypothetical crimes he probably has never charged.
July 2, 2010, 6:39 pmLynn says:
We had a similar problem here in S.C. many decades ago. IN the lower part of the state(coastal resort area) the blue laws (no Sunday sales of various consumer goods) were not enforced since there were a lot of out-of-state tourist who we wanted to please, but in the bible-thumping upstate, every Sunday saw a sting operation and prosecution of someone like Pottery Barn for selling a bath towel or cutlery set.
Governor stepped and upset the apple cart, and directed all law enforcement agencies under his control to rigorous enforce the Blue Laws everywhere, or face removal for malfeasance.
Legislature then quickly repealed them.
July 2, 2010, 6:41 pmOwen H. says:
I thought that he wasn’t allowed to do that?
July 2, 2010, 6:48 pmTTT says:
Further to my prior comment. There are only 7000 households (with about 4500 families), and 19,000 people in this whole county, with a population density of 19 people per square mile.
July 2, 2010, 6:50 pmArkady says:
And refusing to enforce these laws in particular:
is a good thing because?
July 2, 2010, 6:52 pmcboldt says:
Jackson County DA says he won’t prosecute several state gun offenses – JSOnline
July 2, 2010, 6:59 pmTTT says:
He’s never had to?
July 2, 2010, 6:59 pmMark Jones says:
Because prohibiting someone from carrying a firearm for self-defense in these locations violates the right to be armed for self-defense? Because possessing or carrying firearms (openly or concealed) in any of these places doesn’t threaten anyone? USING the firearm (or even threatening to do so) is another matter. And will still be prosecuted.
July 2, 2010, 7:05 pmKharn says:
See the cases in Heller’s Footnote 9 (see below), IIRC every one of them states concealed carry can be banned only if open carry is allowed. In the 1800s honorable men carried their arms openly as a sign they had nothing to hide, it was brigands and highwaymen that hid their arms under their coats so they could approach their unsuspecting victims. Today the public attitude has shift to any exposed firearm is a threat unless there is a badge right next to it (at least in blue states, many red states allow open carry though it may be rare; TX and FL are two notable exceptions, banning open carry but boasting shall-issue concealed permits).
Heller Footnote 9:
July 2, 2010, 7:06 pmSee Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, 91–92 (Ky. 1822); State v.
Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840); State v. Schoultz, 25 Mo. 128, 155
(1857); see also Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833) (inter
preting similar provision with “common defence” purpose); State v.
Huntly, 25 N. C. 418, 422–423 (1843) (same); cf. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.
243, 250–251 (1846) (construing Second Amendment); State v. Chan-
dler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 489–490 (1850) (same).
Bama 1L says:
Rural Wisconsin has more than its share of colorful DAs. Besides this guy, there’s Scott Southworth (of v. University of Wisconsin fame) in Juneau County threatening to arrest public school teachers for teaching sex ed.
Also, do grave responsibilities come with fundamental rights, as Fox thinks? That doesn’t ring true at all. I can’t think of the grave responsibility that comes with my First Amendment rights. No, the grave responsibilities here come with deadly weapons.
July 2, 2010, 7:07 pmKatahdin says:
Because Vermont has done that for a century, and suffered no ill effects, and not having unneeded laws is a good thing?
[I don't object to concealed carry laws and so on, but it's not like there is a lot of evidence that doing what VT does leads to rivers of blood in the streets or whatever]
July 2, 2010, 7:07 pmMark N. says:
Some of these regulations have pretty good historical provenance, don’t they? It’s not as if 20th-century liberals first invented the idea of banning guns in saloons and courtrooms.
July 2, 2010, 7:16 pmbyomtov says:
After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them.
I wonder how he, or anyone else, could possibly know that. It’s true, I suppose, that if someone is determined to do something that is against the law, they are going to break the law. When criminals resolve to rob a bank no law will stop them.
But that tells us nothing about whether anyone ever didn’t do something they wanted to do because it was against the law. Does Fox imagine that no one in Jackson County ever thought, “I’d love to (beat up, shoot, rob, rape, etc.) X, but it’s not worth going to prison for?”
July 2, 2010, 7:23 pmKharn says:
Saloons and courtrooms are both special cases, one for the consumption of alcohol and the other for the safety of the court and the risk of a jail-break. Both locations are much higher risk for bystanders than allowing a person to carry a gun to protect their business’s receipts on the way to the bank or their loved ones during their daily routine.
July 2, 2010, 7:23 pmPraetorius says:
Because the laws that prohibit murder, assault, robbery, etc have NOT stopped murder, assault, robbery, etc…..
July 2, 2010, 7:41 pmWade says:
A prosecutor who actually wants to obey his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? I am amazed that such a creature exists.
July 2, 2010, 7:42 pmcboldt says:
– It’s true, I suppose, that if someone is determined to do something that is against the law, they are going to break the law. When criminals resolve to rob a bank no law will stop them. –
July 2, 2010, 7:42 pmROTFL. You asked “How can he know that?” then asserted the same point yourself.
As to whether or not the law is a deterrent, it generally is. But he’s not said he is going to decline cases that involve harm to a person.
public_defender says:
If my clients were charged with those offenses, I’d raise the defenses the prosecutor lists, but I would expect the prosecutor to defend a duly enacted statute so long as there was a plausible argument to do so. For at least most of those statutes, there seems to be a plausible argument that the fall within the reasonable regulation portion of the decision.
Those on the Right who applaud this prosecutor’s actions should remember what they thought when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson declared that he would permit gay marriage because he believed (correctly as it turned out) that the statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
I believe in the adversary system, and I respect prosecutors who do, too. If I had clients in this guy’s county, I would be happy for them, but I’d lose some respect for the prosecutor.
July 2, 2010, 7:50 pmbyomtov says:
ROTFL. You asked “How can he know that?” then asserted the same point yourself.
OK. I was unclear. I was trying to say the statement is true as a tautology, but pointless.
His implication is that the laws are useless because he knows no one has ever been deterred by them. He can’t know that. His statement is just like saying we shouldn’t have laws against bank robbery because actual bank robbers aren’t deterred by them.
July 2, 2010, 7:51 pmptt says:
If you resolve to harm someone after your seventh drink at a bar and your gun is at home, at least the law delays you…
July 2, 2010, 7:53 pmDavid G Epstein says:
All the Supremes’ comments about what the 2d Amendment did not cover are obiter dicta, perhaps indicative of the court’s view, but not essential to the decision.
It’s quite likely that some restrictions, even excessive restrictions from where I sit, will be ruled consititutional, but neither Heller nor McDonald is binding precedent in that regard.
July 2, 2010, 7:54 pmcboldt says:
– His statement is just like saying we shouldn’t have laws against bank robbery because actual bank robbers aren’t deterred by them. –
July 2, 2010, 8:02 pmMaybe one sentence in isolation is, but the point of the complete action is that we shouldn’t have laws against concealed carry, because bank robbers aren’t deterred (from either concealed carry or robbing banks) by them.
Again, he isn’t saying he is going to decline to pursue a case that involves harm. The implication being that merely carrying is not a harm.
byomtov says:
but the point of the complete action is that we shouldn’t have laws against concealed carry, because bank robbers aren’t deterred (from either concealed carry or robbing banks) by them.
Again, there is no way to know that, because there is no way to identify those who are deterred. If you want to argue concealed carry should be allowed because it’s not harmful, go ahead. But you can’t say such a law doesn’t deter anyone from carrying.
If you resolve to harm someone after your seventh drink at a bar and your gun is at home, at least the law delays you…
Yes. It does. Letting drunks carry guns does not seem like a terrific idea to me. But hey, I’m sure there are many commenters just itching to explain what a wonderful idea it is.
July 2, 2010, 8:26 pmMalvolio says:
Ah, that’s your problem, you don’t understand his implication.
What he was trying to say was that no one who is resolved to commit a serious offense has ever been deterred because doing so necessarily entailed committing a minor offense.
Would a terrorist refuse to double-park his car-bomb?
Would a rapist decline to use sexist language?
Would a hijacker return his seat to an upright and locked position?
Of course, this restated argument somewhat misstates the gun-control position (if I understand the gun-control position correctly). Someone who argues for gun control believe (again, to my interpretation) that gun-control prevents crime not by deterring the would-be murderer or bank-robber but by deterring less-motivated accomplices, such as gun traffickers and dealer, from supplying the weapons.
The problem with this argument is that empirically, it just isn’t true. Gun control has not, in fact, driven up the cost of illegal guns to anything comparable to the others costs of crime, from the criminal’s point of view, such as the risk of punishment and the moral opprobrium.
Of course, that might be a contingent fault, that if gun control were enforced in some more efficacious manner, guns would be so difficult to acquire that criminals resorted to less-effective but cheaper weapons. On the other hand, we could spend the same effort improving, for example, the risk of punishment.
July 2, 2010, 8:40 pmcboldt says:
– But you can’t say such a law doesn’t deter anyone from carrying. –
July 2, 2010, 8:46 pmI was pointing out first that you said the same thing you were criticizing the DA for, and then that you “put words in his mouth” (characterized his statement) that weren’t there. You said, “His statement is just like saying we shouldn’t have laws against bank robbery because actual bank robbers aren’t deterred by them.”, and that’s not a parallel to what he said.
– Letting drunks carry guns does not seem like a terrific idea to me. –
Did he say he would decline to prosecute a “drunk in possession” charge? No, he did not.
gladetariba says:
is a good thing because?
Because
July 2, 2010, 9:21 pm. There are only 7000 households (with about 4500 families), and 19,000 people in this whole county, with a population density of 19 people per square mile.
So nobody will heard you screaming or you will not reach a safe harbor before been killed ( like you would have to do in the brooke State)
Joe Veenstra says:
I know this prosecutor and I went to law school with him. He is a decent fellow and a former public defender. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if I was a judge in his county I’d probably ask that he/the police/security enforce the prohibition on carrying concealed handguns in public buildings, e.g., the courthouse.
I’m pretty sure this is mostly politicobloviation in a very rural county.
July 2, 2010, 9:24 pmgladetariba says:
His statement is just like saying we shouldn’t have laws against bank robbery because actual bank robbers aren’t deterred by them.
July 2, 2010, 9:25 pmIt is the same argument used by prochoice and pro legalization,
Stephen Lathrop says:
If you take a gun into a bar, every drunk in the place gets a chance at using it.
July 2, 2010, 9:39 pmMike S says:
What meaning does a “lawful purpose” constitutional requirement have? Isn’t a constitutional provision meant to have superior authority over the law? If a “no one can own a gun” law were passed, isn’t the constitutional provision moot, since there is then no “lawful purpose?”
Seems like lip service, to me.
July 2, 2010, 9:43 pmMike S says:
My local police/prosecutor wouldn’t go after the kids who put a firecracker in my mailbox, so there must be discretion involved. I also see people jaywalking all the time, and that’s illegal, too.
July 2, 2010, 9:45 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I would think it’s the other way around — a power delegated is a “may” not a “shall” unless otherwise noted.
Vermont (and I love the place, just got back from there actually) is not typical.
July 2, 2010, 9:47 pmDoug says:
I worked as special prosecutor in a rural WI county, similar in size to Jackson Co. I can tell you that those sections of code are not an important part of the DA case load. In fact, be publicizing that he is no long criminalizing this behavior, he is definitely setting himself up for reelection. I am also sure that he believes he is right. I can also state, that he probably has at the most one full time assistant DA. That means he is usually very busy with his job, and as an elected official, he would need to attend to county board business on a regular basis each month.
July 2, 2010, 9:50 pmmack says:
Seems to conform pretty well to keeping a fundamental right and the text of McDonald and Heller. And Vermont has been getting along with less in the way of gun laws for a long long time. But, thank goodness this isn’t a populus county or blood might run in the streets like it did in the 30 plus states that decided to approve shall issue carry. Oh wait, it didn’t.
July 2, 2010, 9:50 pmvinnie says:
No, his statement is more along the lines that someone who is going to rob a bank will ignore speeding laws during the get away and probably park in the handicapped spot for the robbery. I, as a law abiding citizen am deterred from carrying a weapon illegally if I have to go into a dangerous part of town. People who make that part of town dangerous by preying on us law abiding people that will not be deterred by these laws.
July 2, 2010, 10:02 pmA.W. says:
its interesting that he has more or less the DA is engaged in administrative review. that is the administrative branch has engaged in constitutional review. yes, prompted by the interpretation of the SC but they are not waiting for the SC to say how far the decision goes.
I also wonder if they will truly forswear those prosecutions. For instance, imagine if there was a guy they believed was an abusive husband but couldn’t prove it. would they be tempted to use these laws to throw the guy in jail, sort of the way that al capone was a gangster, but they ended up getting him on tax evasion. Will there be a temptation to selectively prosecute it that way?
July 2, 2010, 10:26 pmbyomtov says:
What he was trying to say was that no one who is resolved to commit a serious offense has ever been deterred because doing so necessarily entailed committing a minor offense.
That may be what he was trying to say. It’s not what he said.
July 2, 2010, 10:37 pmMaryG says:
On Wisconsin !
July 2, 2010, 10:48 pmParenting Blog » DeKalb school worker accused of violating political campaigning policy says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Jackson County (Wisconsin) District … [...]
July 2, 2010, 10:50 pmKatahdin says:
Is human nature that different? If the other shall issue states adopted VT’s firearms laws, would they experience problems that VT doesn’t? For that matter, if NYC adopted VT’s laws – people legally allowed to own guns can carry them as they see fit – do you think the people in NYC are so different that there would be problems?
WA is shall issue, and the only requirement for the permit is that you have $50 and can legally own a firearm. There is no test on deadly force law, no marksmanship test, and no safe handling test. That has been in place almost 50 years, with the same negligible problems as all the other shall issue states. Is WA, like VT, atypical? WA has reasonably sized metropolitan areas, so it’s not that only rural areas can get away with loose permitting schemes.
Again, I don’t object to permits – in fact, I think there may be some benefit in a scheme where people worry about ‘losing my permit’ (even if the only way to do that is to also lose the right to own a gun at all); having people with guns being uber cautious seems like a desirable feature. But I also suspect that nationwide VT carry would be a non event, as it is in VT, AK, and ?recently AZ?.
July 2, 2010, 11:01 pmMalvolio says:
I think the idea is to allow sentencing enhancement.
For example, if robbing a bank while being a Scientologist were subject to a more severe punishment than ordinary bank-robbery, that would be a clear First Amendment violation.
The “lawful purpose” requirement would make it Constitutional (or perhaps just make it clear that it is Constitutional) to make robbing a bank with a gun more severely punished than doing so with, say, a knife.
July 2, 2010, 11:08 pmTim says:
The dicta about the concealed carry in McDonald is meaningless.
July 2, 2010, 11:30 pmArlington Rapper says:
…until it isn’t. Which is to say, until the next court trying to avoid reversal hears a concealed carry case.
July 2, 2010, 11:37 pmMark Horning says:
I’ll let you know in another 28 days. But I suspect the answer is NO.
July 3, 2010, 12:03 am(The AZ constitutional carry law goes into effect on 29 July)
William Miller says:
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?
BRAVO, Mr. Fox!
July 3, 2010, 2:24 amKharn says:
Palmer v DC will be at the Supreme Court in around two years asking about concealed carry. The district court ruling has been (unofficially) on hold pending McDonald, it should have been released at least a month ago if you go by the normal timeline. We’ll see how meaningless that dicta is.
July 3, 2010, 2:28 amwhit says:
WA state has no law that prohibits “drunks” from carrying guns, fwiw.
we also do not ban guns on college campuses.
any “public buildings” that ban guns (such as courthouses) also have scanners so that you can be assured nobody else (except for security/law enforcement) is carrying.
also, just for the record, saying you are not going to enforce law against carrying guns in bars =/= saying you are ok with drunks carrying guns. i have no idea if wisconsin has such a law.
WA state DOES have a law against carrying guns in bars, but no law against carrying if you are intoxicated fwiw
i am not aware it has caused any problem here.
July 3, 2010, 3:33 amLarryA says:
Actually many of the gun control laws have a very bad historical provenance. A lot of them were written as Jim Crow laws to keep blacks disarmed. For example, banning concealed carry. If someone is carrying openly law enforcement officers can hassle the “wrong” people for carrying, and ignore the “right” people. With concealed carry they can’t tell. See The Racist Roots of Gun Control.
People do so. And such people aren’t “criminals.”
“Establishments where alcohol may be sold or served” does not equal “bar.” Alcohol is sold in grocery stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores where it cannot be consumed. Alcohol is served in many family restaurants where no one gets drunk. It is also quite possible to go into a bar and drink only soft drinks. Designated drivers do it all the time.
The specific inclusion of “security, defense, hunting, recreation” in the law would preclude a ban. Other lawful purposes might be collecting or providing instruction, both of which it would be unreasonable to prohibit. The “lawful purposes” provision simply allows prosecution if someone carrys during a robbery.
Nitpick, actually 39 states have shall-issue. Plus Vermont’s constitutional carry.
July 3, 2010, 3:37 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
I do.
What are “levels of discretion” for a DA? What would it look like for a prosecutor not to have prosecutorial discretion? A “law of Wisconsin” that says that prosecutors must prosecute all people arrested, or all people arrested for a particular offense? How would that work, exactly? Would he have to prosecute them even if he believed they were innocent, or didn’t think he had sufficient evidence to convict, or if the courts had declared a similar law unconstitutional?
July 3, 2010, 5:49 amepluribus says:
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. When bank robbery is outlawed only bank robbers will rob banks. When murder is outlawed only murderers will commit murder. Some people obey the law. Some don’t. Yawn.
July 3, 2010, 6:46 amOwen H. says:
So, since the bank robber is going to ignore speeding laws anyway, laws against speeding only affect the law abiding and should therefore be done away with.
July 3, 2010, 7:23 amBen P says:
Although it’s not a gun case, a number of states have exactly that law regarding DWI arrests. See e.g. Ark. Code Ann 5-65-107.
To my knowledge it’s been challenged and upheld under the state constitution, I’m not aware of any federal constitutional challenges.
July 3, 2010, 8:10 amlivermoron says:
The constitutional right to speed is where?
July 3, 2010, 8:16 amYour argument is just sophistry.
CableGuy says:
I think that’s a false comparison. It was common for people to have to “check their guns” at the door, so to speak, but that was at the discretion of the owner of the business, not a law passed by the legislature. I think it would fine for the owner of a restaurant, for example, to refuse to seat someone packing heat, but then again, I am one of those idiots that think restaurant owners should be permitted to allow smoking it their establishments, too. Silly me.
July 3, 2010, 8:21 amDoDoGuRu says:
No, it’s not. Robbing a bank is directly a crime. Carrying a weapon may or may not be ancillary to a crime.
There’s nothing inherently criminal about having a gun in a public place.
July 3, 2010, 8:31 amnoahp says:
Perhaps we should recall the widespread looting that occurred in Montreal when the police went on strike to devine what citizen’s might do when the threat of apprehension is removed.
But this DA is not removing the threat of prosecution of crimes against persons or property. Rather he is removing the threat of prosecution of crimes against state control.
July 3, 2010, 8:33 amShelbyC says:
I dunno. Suggesting he lacks the “power” to exercise prosecutorial discretion in certain circumstances implies that he has a legal obligation to bring certain cases. I’ve never heard of such a thing, and I don’t know how it would work. If he brings the case, can he just “rest” after his opening statement?
July 3, 2010, 9:01 amPraetorius says:
Wow. I carry into establishments that serve alcohol all the time, on occasion there are drunks there too. None of them have ever had a chance at using my firearms.
But assuming your statement is at all correct, we should therefore require police to disarm before entering bars…after all, most police officers are shot with their own firearms: The ability of drunks to get a chance just makes it more dangerous for them.
July 3, 2010, 9:24 amXenocles says:
This is, of course, why it’s illegal in most jurisdictions to park a car at or possess car keys within an establishment that serves alcohol.
You do realize that not everyone in a bar is drunk (or even drinking), right? We have designated drivers, why can’t we allow for the idea of a designated carrier?
July 3, 2010, 9:24 amDave in Dallas says:
I continue to be amazed at how hard some politicians, and a LOT of citizens, work to make the case that someone being shot by a law abiding citizen protecting himself with a firearm is some sort of tragedy to be prevented at ANY cost, while that same citizen being attacked, robbed, harmed or killed is considerably less of a problem.
If ONLY, if only, when people consider preventing citizens from defending themselves, they would also consider how much crime is prevented, stopped, opposed every DAY in this country by people using arms to defend themselves and others.
THere is simply no case to be made that the danger outweights the benefit. Until the entire nation is fully and constantly armed, and statistics are available to compare with those of current gun crimes, we will never know. But it is certainly not a decision that gets made in a vacuum. read The Armed Citizen blog and see how many stories of self defense are culled from local papers and TV stations. It literally happens in America EVERY DAY. Those are the people who would be dying, being injured, raped, robbed, abused, EVERY DAY, if they were not armed.
July 3, 2010, 9:27 amXenocles says:
I think this is exactly why it’s inappropriate to apply prosecutorial discretion in this manner. Government agents should uphold the law – the consequences of their failure to do so are dire. Discretion should not extend to a license to ignore extant law. If laws are absurd then prosecutions will put a spotlight on them and raise pressure for their repeal.
July 3, 2010, 9:33 amOrenWithAnE says:
On the other hand, if the prosecutor is abusing his discretion then the electorate can replace him. Or the State legislature can remove the discretion. Or the State Executive can prosecute these cases.
There are no shortage of democratically valid ways to rein in a rogue prosecutor.
July 3, 2010, 10:01 amJay Lewis says:
Is there a legal mechanism for compelling a district attorney to prosecute a case? If not, then the discussion about whether he should prosecute is an academic exercise.
July 3, 2010, 10:27 amcboldt says:
– Government agents should uphold the law — the consequences of their failure to do so are dire. –
July 3, 2010, 10:38 amLike what? Lack of respect for the law?
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/wisconsin
Tim says:
I don’t know what you’re getting at here, at all.
My prediction is that the Court will refuse to hear the case.
July 3, 2010, 11:10 amGMT says:
Actually, there are 2 mechanisms in Wisconsin whereby the DA’s decision to not prosecute may be overridden: First, a judge may order the case prosecuted (see James Lofton)and second, the Attorney General has concurrent jursdiction and may independently prosecute. The current AG is unlikely to do so, but the previous one would have, he being the man who vetoed CCW 3 times and attempted to ban cheap pistols as AG
July 3, 2010, 11:15 amkcom says:
No, he’s not saying or even implying the laws are useless. He’s not saying that no one has ever been deterred by a law. But he is saying that once someone crosses the line and is resolved to violate a law (even knowing the penalties) then the existence of the law on paper is no protection to a potential victim. It’s not going to save anyone in a situation, for instance, where they are threatened by an armed criminal accosting them on the street. In that situation, a gun is a source of protection that the law, at that moment, is not. It’s not either or. The law has its place and the possession of a means of self-defense has its place.
Plus, you’re completely ignoring the other purposes of laws. It would be nice if the existence of a law deterred all instances of that offense. But even if a given law doesn’t deter a crime, it still serves the purpose of defining what behavior society finds unacceptable, and, very importantly, it defines the punishment for committing that offense.
July 3, 2010, 11:19 amXenocles says:
No, like government not feeling as though it’s bound by the law.
July 3, 2010, 11:27 amJoe in N. Calif says:
And, having to “check your guns at the door” implies that enough people were able to carry legally as to make some business owners see it as a reasonable rule in their establishments. It it wasn’t common for people to carry, then why would that custom have developed?
July 3, 2010, 11:42 amJoe in N. Calif says:
I should add, while he may be “overreading” the McDonald decision, he is not overreading the intent of the founders and framers. “The sword, and every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of every American.”
July 3, 2010, 11:50 amcboldt says:
– No, like government not feeling as though it’s bound by the law. –
July 3, 2010, 11:52 amI’ll give the fellow credit for announcing his intention, rather than being secretive. I agree that a sweeping “no prosecute” call should be made by the legislature, in principle, but I see no harm in this particular call.
What you are asserting is that he should support the arrest, and he should vigorously prosecute those who violate the law; even if the person in violation is doing nothing more than going about his own private business, armed only as a precaution. I’d agree with that on one condition – that the person arrested and prosecuted INTENDED to be used as an example, ala Rosa Parks. Otherwise, you are calling to cause significant inconvenience to an innocent person, just because the (stupid) law demands submission.
David M. Nieporent says:
Who would have the standing to challenge such a law?
On the face of it, though, it just forbids plea bargains; it doesn’t require the DA to prosecute. How could it? How would such a law be enforced if a DA doesn’t want to do so? Who would do the enforcing? And how would you force him to do so? Drag him to court kicking and screaming? Could you force him to put on a legally sufficient case, too? What if he simply stalls and violates the speedy trial rule?
July 3, 2010, 12:03 pmcboldt says:
– On the face of it, though, it just forbids plea bargains; it doesn’t require the DA to prosecute. –
July 3, 2010, 12:12 pmI read it otherwise. “A person arrested for violating 5-65-103 shall be tried on those charges or plead …” are words of mandatory significance, giving only two options, and both options involve prosecution of an offense against the statute.
– And how would you force [the DA] to do so? Drag him to court kicking and screaming? –
Yep. I imagine the arresting officer or police department would sue for performance.
In this case, the police department has asserted it will continue to arrest and confiscate weapons. Same sort of deal, going the other way.
Gordon Langston says:
And refusing to enforce these laws in particular:
July 3, 2010, 12:21 pmSection 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;
is a good thing because?
OrenWithAnE says:
The State DOJ (or equivalent) can prosecute it for itself.
July 3, 2010, 12:25 pmDaily Pundit » A Great District Attorney says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Jackson County (Wisconsin) District Attorney Takes Broad View of the Second… Jackson County (Wisconsin) District Attorney Takes Broad View of the Second Amendment [...]
July 3, 2010, 12:34 pmpublic_defender says:
There is a big difference between a prosecutor exercising discretion to take the rough edges off of a statute and a prosecutor effectively writing multiple statutes off of the books. That’s not the prosecutor’s job.
I believe in the adversarial system. The people of a state have a right to representation. They also have a right to have their duly-enacted statutes defended in court. The prosecutor’s job is not to ask how he would rule if he were a judge. The prosecutor’s job is to defend a statute if there are plausible grounds for doing so.
July 3, 2010, 12:49 pmXenocles says:
Almost. A person in violation of a law is not “innocent” (though I agree he may not be acting wrongly). The law does demand submission – in a law-based society such as the one we are supposed to be living in, it demands the submission of everyone, including its administrators.
Let me expand. Tolerating this brand of discretion invites more pernicious selectivity down the road. Perhaps the prosecutor lets his friends off discreetly or declines to prosecute police who torture the people they arrest. Demanding a rigorous adherence to the law has two distinct benefits. First, they reinforce the meme that a government must operate within the bounds of the law – importantly, this includes the laws that restrain its power. Secondly, they raise public awareness of the stupid laws. This awareness might lead to demand for repeal, or it might not – maybe the public actually really hates tattooing, for instance – either way the people know that their laws are being taken seriously by the people they hired to administer.
July 3, 2010, 12:59 pmDavid Welker says:
It would depend on the state, but one could imagine many mechanisms. For example, maybe the District Attorney could be removed by the Attorney General or the Governor. One can imagine many more mechanisms that a state might devise to remove an elected official who willfully refused to execute affirmative duties.
Also, I think this is a good example of a problem we attorneys sometimes have, and that is thinking that everything gets resolved with a lawsuit. And maybe it would; probably a lawsuit by the District Attorney fighting removal denying and malfeasance, not necessarily by a citizen .
Intentionally? This is not a hard question. What if he stalls and violates the speedy trial rule because he has been bribed by the defendant? Clearly, one can look at the prosecutor’s intentional malpractice.
What if a private attorney stalls and doesn’t file a lawsuit before the expiration of the statute of limitations? Sounds like malpractice to me.
A decent argument might be that it isn’t desirable to limit the discretion of a prosecutor in this way. I don’t know what I think about that; it is an interesting question. But I don’t think the argument that it isn’t possible flies.
Finally, I don’t know why it wouldn’t be possible for a state to grant an affected citizen standing in such a case (for example, someone who is shot during a bar fight), although I am not sure about this without doing legal research. As you may recall, when the Supreme Court ruled against citizens trying to get the police to do affirmative things, it noted that the states were free to create such rights as a matter of state law.
July 3, 2010, 1:15 pmDavid Welker says:
And maybe the District Attorney can be removed from office.
July 3, 2010, 1:19 pmTim says:
Is there a right to drive?
The state in which I reside:
1. Does not regulate drinking while carrying, even if the carrier is intoxicated
2. Allows carry in bars and other places that serve alcohol
It doesn’t appear to have caused any problems.
July 3, 2010, 1:24 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
The law makes bars and liquor stores a preferred and relatively safes place to commit an armed robbery.
Those that sell the Demon Rum should be treated as outside the protection of the law. This is good public policy. The DA is an embarassment and a danger to armed robbers in Jackson County.
July 3, 2010, 1:35 pmCharleyCarp says:
Vermont doesn’t have the death penalty. Maybe we ought to be emulating that as well.
July 3, 2010, 2:07 pmSDN says:
Of course, there’s the minor difference that Mayor Newsome didn’t wait for the Supreme Court to find a right to gay marriage….. as opposed to waiting for them to admit that there’s an explicit right to bear arms….
July 3, 2010, 2:22 pmlgm says:
I understand people interested in technical legal minutia arguing about the second amendment. But what gives with the right wing gun fetish? Why is it a symbol of loving freedom to swagger around with a deadly weapon? Flag burning and swastikas also are legal, but that doesn’t make them good.
July 3, 2010, 2:32 pmquick_bear says:
To honestly seek the truth and permit others to do so even when you disagree about the most fundamental things?
July 3, 2010, 2:46 pmpublic_defender says:
But the laws that this DA is invalidating have not been found unconstitutional. To the contrary, the US Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions expressly leave open large areas of reasonable regulation of firearms. And there are perfectly fair arguments that that at least some of the statutes remain constitutional.
Generally, the executive branch has a duty to defend laws in court if there’s a plausible argument to do so. Conservatives wouldn’t want Obama to concede that DOMA, DADT, or federal abortion restrictions were unconstitutional. Liberals wouldn’t have wanted Bush to have conceded that environmental laws were unconstitutional.
July 3, 2010, 2:57 pmhtom says:
Cheering now, and remembering cheering then, and still happily married to my other-sex partner. Where’s the conflict? Oh, your presumption that those who are “pro-gun” are “anti-gay”. Well, that’s presumptions for you.
July 3, 2010, 3:00 pmcboldt says:
– A person in violation of a law is not “innocent” (though I agree he may not be acting wrongly). The law does demand submission — in a law-based society such as the one we are supposed to be living in, it demands the submission of everyone, including its administrators. –
July 3, 2010, 3:14 pmOur system has some slack built into it, as you know. It is also not error-free, in that some laws really are stupid, or unconstitutional.
– Tolerating this brand of discretion invites more pernicious selectivity down the road. Perhaps the prosecutor lets his friends off discreetly or declines to prosecute police who torture the people they arrest. –
I think this brand of discretion is radically different from the selective prosecution that is common in our system. First, it’s narrow, and comes with a reason (agree with it or not) for being implemented. Second, the DA has announced his intention. The police chief has announced his. In the scheme of things, this squabble is over a fairly small trifle, in that what is to be permitted (or not, depending on how you characterize being arrested, weapon confiscated, but no charge by the county DA) is in itself inherently harmless.
Your contention is that the action of this DA invites other DA’s to disregard some other laws. I’m not buying it. Each decision to disregard is made by a “smart person,” and is not being undertaken because some other DA did it. For example, this DA wasn’t emboldened by the gay marriage fiasco in California.
–either way the people know that their laws are being taken seriously by the people they hired to administer. –
The people view the Brookfield tattoo law as a joke. There is a divergence of opinion as to whether or not laws than ban carry are sensible and/or constitutional. I think everybody is taking that battle seriously – the gun grabbers are quite earnest and persistent in their action to forcibly strip the law abiding from the right to keep and bear arms.
jack osborne says:
Same arguments, same conclusions, and nothing at all changes in the minds of people who are bound to think one way or the other.
A little problem, such as switch blade knives, metamorphasing into a crime spree where children cut and stab each other, where having a gun in your house results in wife beating and child abuse, where police are safe with guns in public, but soldiers are not, where politicans think their politics are the law!
Attorneys are noted for their ability to make decisions based on the needs of their clients, and not on the needs of the law.
But it is all fun reading! If you realize it is smoke in the wind!
Jack
July 3, 2010, 3:15 pmpublic_defender says:
Fair point, to an extent. I was trying to turn the argument around in a way that conservatives could see that their ox could get gored. But you’re right–not all pro-same-sex marriage people are against gun rights. So, pick a law that you support that others argue is unconstitutional. Whatever that law is, as long as there’s a plausible argument to defend it, the prosecutor, DA or AG should defend it.
As a defense attorney, I am looking forward to using the recent SCOTUS decisions against prosecutors in ways they never expected. But I respect a good opponent, and I expect prosecutors do their jobs just like good prosecutors expect me to do mine. This DA, in my opinion, is not doing his job.
July 3, 2010, 3:26 pmcboldt says:
– I was trying to turn the argument around in a way that conservatives could see that their ox could get gored. –
July 3, 2010, 3:35 pmWhose ox is being gored with this decision? As for other, independent decisions, they can also be addressed. Which one is “goring the conservatives’ ox?” The only one I’ve heard of, recently, is an allegation that the US DOJ is declining to prosecute Black Panthers for polling place intimidation violations.
David Perry says:
Also, not to use freedom of speech to defraud others or destroy their reputations unfairly.
July 3, 2010, 4:08 pmDavid Perry says:
What gives with the left-wing gun phobia? Believe or not, it is possible for people to touch handguns–heck, even actually fire them–without turning into psychotic maniacs who want to shoot everyone in sight.
The other point, of course, is that people who believe in classically liberal values (as opposed to the degraded political philosophy known as “liberalism” in modern times in this country) generally believe in self-reliance. When one’s life and property are threatened, there’s a lot to be said for being able to take care of the situation yourself, and not have to wait for the police to bail you out (beyond the practical issues of whether the police will come in time to bail you out, of course).
July 3, 2010, 4:13 pmLarry Bloomer says:
I understand this is primarily a legal-analysis sort of forum, but my first reaction to this post was not legal. It was exhiliration at hearing a government official actually consider the liberties of ordinary Americans as a first priority. This has become a rare experience, indeed.
July 3, 2010, 4:15 pmwhit says:
complete rubbish.
cite please…
fwiw, last i checked, about 1/5 of officers shot are shot with their own (or their partners’) weapon.
not even close to “most”
what you might have read is that most of the time (80% iirc) that an officer’s gun is taken from him, it is used against him.
July 3, 2010, 4:41 pmwhit says:
not bad… not GOOD but not bad…
troll-o-meter…
–weak——meh——not bad——–sweet——–hella sweet—-
———————^——————-
July 3, 2010, 4:55 pmElliot says:
That’s reasonable. But, I would suggest respect for the law and the legal system is declining as laws and regulations multiply, and people see government failing at many levels. Consider the general contempt the population has towards Congress. Is it reasonable to expect respect for what is duly enacted when people have no respect for the enactors?
July 3, 2010, 5:17 pmOwen H. says:
Does this twit plan to also ignore such laws as those regarding full-automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and grenades?
July 3, 2010, 5:21 pmElliot says:
I live in one of the 40(?) states that allows “shall issue” concealed carry. There has been no increase in swaggering that I can see. Has anyone seen more swaggering since such laws were enacted? Where? Is the Illinois swagger index lower than the Kansas index? Exactly how does one detect the swagger?
Perhaps the right wing swaggers, while the left wing swishes?
July 3, 2010, 5:25 pmKatahdin says:
If you’re carrying, you probably want to be in condition yellow. If you are intoxicated, you probably aren’t in condition yellow.
July 3, 2010, 5:43 pmwhit says:
If you’re carrying, you probably want to be in condition yellow. If you are intoxicated, you probably aren’t in condition yellow.
i agree.
but again, despite the fact that there is no LAW prohibiting it, i have yet to see any problems coming from the lack of such a law.
fwiw, i am a firearms instructor. i am well aware of condition yellow, etc.
regardless, the proof is in the pudding.
July 3, 2010, 5:45 pmcboldt says:
– Does this twit plan to also ignore such laws as those regarding full-automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and grenades? –
July 3, 2010, 6:19 pmThe federal laws in that scope are outside of his jurisdiction. If there are Wisconsin laws on the subject, those laws are not on his twit list.
Gordon Langston says:
The swaggering I am seeing is being done by Mayor Daley and the Alderman of Chicago. They demand training but are they authorizing ranges for practice? Are they allowing gun stores in the city limits? The answer so far to those items is no. They seem more than a little disingenuous.
July 3, 2010, 7:11 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Gah. The phrase is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” meaning that the value of the thing is determined by what is made of it. Saying “the proof is in the pudding” is precisely the semantic opposite.
July 3, 2010, 7:54 pmDavid Perry says:
Let’s put it this way: either they should be enforced completely, or (like many of the “dumb laws” referenced here) they should be ignored completely. Where you get into trouble is the inbetween stuff.
In fairness, I can also see discretion regarding practical matters. For instance, if you’ve only got so many police, I’d rather they go after the murderers, rapists, and thieves than the folks with one gram of pot. Similarly, you may think someone’s guilty as hell, but if you don’t have the evidence to have a good chance to prosecute, then it may not be worth it, at least until later.
July 3, 2010, 8:06 pmAn Observation says:
To the attorney who “believes in the adversarial system”: any adversarial system is simply a stylized fight. Fights of any type are won not by the person who is right – but by the person who fights the best. Fights are a complete waste of time and energy; all they can possibly prove is which participant is the best fighter.
I find it difficult to believe that there is any benefit to society whatsoever in demonstrating which lawyer in a courtroom setting is the better fighter.
July 3, 2010, 8:40 pmFederal Farmer says:
I don’t think he is over-reading Heller (which McDonald applies to the states “fully”):
July 3, 2010, 9:10 pmHercules says:
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY
July 4, 2010, 8:35 amPat H. says:
That would be because the intrinsic right to self defense with any weapon is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
July 4, 2010, 10:18 amFederalist Paupers » Blog Archive » Happy Independence Day from Black River Falls, Wisconsin says:
[...] River Falls, Wisconsin In Jackson County, Wisonsin, (pop 19,100), the elected district attorney has decided to stop prosecuting several gun laws, based on last week’s McDonald decision from the Supreme Court. I don’t think the [...]
July 4, 2010, 2:27 pmilbob says:
The chances of getting a successful prosecution and not having it overturned by an appeals court are very high on the list of things prosecutors consider when deciding whether to proceed with a case.
Of course there are often other factors as well, such as politics (being as they are all politicians) and ideology.
My guess is this is at least as much about politics and ideology as anything else. Just as the decisions by other DAs to continue prosecuting such cases will be mostly driven by politics and ideology.
July 4, 2010, 3:50 pmArthur Kirkland says:
That is quite the unqualified declaration. Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Chemical weapons? A bazooka in a school hallway?
Is this unqualified right provided by the God of the Bible, or by the natural order of things?
July 4, 2010, 4:27 pmkoveras225 says:
Why exactly does it need to be qualified? Being as he specifically referenced self defense, why would it in any way be even remotely logical to include four different weapons what would defeat the entire point of defending your life by likely ending or otherwise negatively effecting it in the course of their use?
As for whether or not it is provided by God or by the natural order of things… For all intents and purposes, there is no difference. For those that believe, God is the natural order of things.
Preserving your life simply does not need qualification.
July 4, 2010, 9:25 pmOCLVroadrider says:
Why does one loose a fundamental Right to personal defense because one has has a glass of mead or wine with dinner? This was common for many of our Founders who wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They would have been appalled with the idea of such an infringement. Many States even allow consumption by those who choose to defensively carry. One just can’t be drunk. Drunkards should be held totally responsible for their actions.
July 5, 2010, 12:01 amLarryA says:
Actually it was shooters who went to Congress and campaigned for the tax. It’s been a good thing for a long time.
July 5, 2010, 2:01 amDjDiverDan says:
Yes, this particular County DA was guilty of grossly overreading the McDonald v. Chicago Decision. But that is not terribly surprising, since, in his case, it was probably a politically popular statement to make in rural Wisconsin, just as it would be very popular in Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Iowa, the Dakotas, and any other location with a strong pro-gun rights population.
What’s more surprising to me is how many experts without a political agenda are willing to equally overread the decision. For Example, EV states in this post:
July 5, 2010, 7:23 amArthur Kirkland says:
Antidotes and protective equipment could make biological or chemical weapons effective in self-defense, could they not?
July 5, 2010, 6:31 pmArthur Kirkland says:
1) Why can’t one be drunk? Are drunks expected to acquiesce in their demise at the hands of hoodlum mobs?
2) Non-drunkards should not be held totally responsible for their actions?
July 5, 2010, 6:34 pmkoveras225 says:
Technically pepper spray and such could be defined as a chemical weapon, so yes… they could. However, based the context presented, I seriously doubt that was the type of weapon referred to. Chemical and biologic weapons are largely indiscriminate, and are therefore especially unsuitable for personal defense.
July 5, 2010, 7:27 pmWI Paralegal says:
He did say specifically that he would continue to enforce possession while intoxicated. So basically, you can have a gun in the bar if
A) You are the barkeep.
B) You are a designated driver.
C) You are in the bar for some reason other than to drink.
Someone else mentioned that if you are in a bar with a gun, you give every drunk there a chance to use it. First, they have to get it from you. I don’t know about most people, but the only way someone’s going to get my gun from me is by force, and if it comes down to that, I’d rather be the one with the gun.
Now, some people say that if you have a gun it is because you are itching to use it. This is not the case. Do you keep a spare tire in your car? Probably… not because you will necessarily need it, but because you want to be prepared for the possiblity that you might. It is the same way with guns.
I am a soldier in the US Army. I don’t carry an M4 because I like the extra weight, or because I wish to go crazy and kill a bunch of people… I carry an M4 in case the need to use it arises.
July 6, 2010, 1:07 pmAlpheus says:
I wouldn’t say it’s a wonderful idea to let drunks carry, but I would say this: it’s a mistake to assume that, just because we have banned a drunk from carrying a gun, that he’s completely harmless. At the very least, he has his fists and his legs, and could do severe harm with those; at the opposite extreme, he could easily be carrying a gun or a knife, or pick up a glass bottle, or a club, or any number of non-weapon weapons, and do lethal harm to others.
July 9, 2010, 11:32 amAlpheus says:
So, would you oppose Jury Nullification as well? Yes, I understand that juries can nullify laws I agree with; nonetheless, jury nullification is an important tool to prevent tyranny. As is Executive discression to leave certain laws unenforced.
For example, if the President came out and said “I don’t care if the PATRIOT Act was passed, I’m not going to use the powers in that Act, since they are unconstitutional” would we be saying that the President needs to enforce the law? Or if Congress passed a law demanding that Arab-descendent Americans be gathered into camps, and passed it, over-riding the veto of the President, would we lose sleep if the President actively prevented that law from taking into effect?
July 9, 2010, 12:01 pmAlpheus says:
And if he does, do you really expect that blood will be flowing in the streets? There was a time when all of this–and more–were legal, but we didn’t have massive problems with these things (except with gangs using full-auto in the roaring twenties…but then, gangs are using full-auto today, as well, despite the ban).
In fact, technically full-auto is legal. Currently it’s very expensive, since you can only own guns made pre-1986, but even that ban had no crime-spree justification for it!
July 9, 2010, 12:06 pm