Jackson County D.A. Stops Prosecuting Unconstitutional Gun Laws
I admit, I struggle with actions like this.
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).
On the one hand, the D.A. should prosecute the laws as written until told otherwise. He is an instrument of enforcement and not a legislative body. On the other hand, it is his duty to uphold the Constitution and he has a higher obligation to the people of his county to act within their rights. The Supreme Court was rather clear on this issue and he is duty bound to act accordingly even if the state legislature hasn’t caught up yet.
Such is the push and pull of protecting our rights.
No, Owen. He’s got a duty to uphold the laws of the state. District Attornies are enforcement officials rather than interperetive officials. SCOTUS ruled on something very narrow last week and this man is twisting that into something entirely different. It’s called dereliction of duty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0600 hrs
Depends on his oath of office. Most of them swear to obey the Constitution.If a law or directive violates that, then they have a duty not to act on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0649 hrs
I tend to agree with grumps here. Unless those specific statutes are struck, it is duty to enforce them.
The same thing could be said about the President, his Attorney General and immigration laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0812 hrs
On the one hand, the D.A. should prosecute the laws as written until told otherwise.
Correct. How much money do Jackson County taxpayers want to sink into lost causes?
Posted by dad29 on July 06, 2010 at 0817 hrs
A D.A. always uses his or her discretion in prosecuting people. In this case, if the D.A. sincerely thinks that the laws are now rendered unconstitutional by SCOTUS’ decision and any convictions will be eventually overturned, then why waste the taxpayers’ money prosecuting them?
Posted by Owen on July 06, 2010 at 0824 hrs
Saying a DA has to follow uncositutional laws is like saying that the people have to follow them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0853 hrs
D.A. Fox should be commended for his bold action to follow the Constitution. Remember that the Wisconsin Supreme Court came very close to overturning 941.23 (the concealed carry ban) a few years ago. They went so far as to instruct the Legislature to fix the law because it is in conflict with Article I Section 25 of the State Constitution, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Legislature tried. They passed a permit to carry law, twice. Our disgraced governor vetoed it, twice. Now it has come to this. If another concealed carry case now goes to the WSC we may well see the law overturned. We will then have what is known as “Constitutional Carry”. Constitutional Carry is the law in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona. No permits. No training. No background checks. Anyone who may lawfully own a sidearm may carry it as they please, open or concealed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0930 hrs
Whoa, that’s ridiculous. I wonder if he stopped enforcing state laws against murder based on a similarly limited understanding of Roe v. Wade?
What’s with all this bizarre political posturing by DAs in rural Wisconsin this year? Shouldn’t these guys be required to get law degrees?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1224 hrs
Everyone, ask yourself WHY he did this. The WI Constitution has had a stronger-than-2A RKBA provision since 1998. Why now? It sounds more like political posturing going into the next election cycle to me.
Posted by M Gallo on July 07, 2010 at 1456 hrs
The fact that we don’t have enough cops and prosecutors to enforce every law means the job is always somewhat discretionary. I do not think, however, that a DA is doing his job well by publicly announcing those laws he doesn’t wish to pursue.
I doubt that conservatives would be thrilled if Wisconsin passed laws restricting abortion, for instance, and lefty DA’s announced they wouldn’t enforce them because they don’t believe the laws are constitutional.
DA’s aren’t elected to be jurists, they’re elected to be prosecutors. If they want to interpret the constitution, run for judge.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 07, 2010 at 1542 hrs
I doubt that conservatives would be thrilled if Wisconsin passed laws restricting abortion, for instance, and lefty DA’s announced they wouldn’t enforce them because they don’t believe the laws are constitutional.
I don’t want the DA to act on only the laws he believes in, but laws that declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS should no longer be enforced. No grey area there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1953 hrs
Based on what, his reading of a majority opinion? Great, we can have 72 different sets of laws! That’ll be outstanding. I’m sure someone will be stoked when they found out that “but my DA said so” isn’t an effective legal argument in 71 other counties.
If there’s an interpretive issue involved, it should be one decision made by the Attorney General.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 07, 2010 at 2245 hrs
Total Entries: 19999
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:08 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 06:15 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).