District Attorney declares most state gun laws unconstitutional

[nffritos]

Wisconsin Army National Guard JAG officer, and Jackson County District Attorney, Gerald R. Fox has something to say about the US Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago released earlier this week and holding that the Second Amendment's protections apply against state regulation. In a press release Fox declared 5 Wisconsin state statute unconstitutional:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gu...constitutional

[wpage]

That should be interesting.

[Terry_P]

I love this quote from the article:

Though declaring 5 Wisconsin statutes unconstitutional, Fox cautioned Wisconsin gun owners to be careful until the Wisconsin legislature repeals these statutes - however, he added with emphasis, "in Jackson County, they don't risk prosecution" for violating these 5 statutes

Using the tactics of the left against them.

[Old Grump]

Wish he was my district attorney.

Just dos centavos from an old dinosaur but I think most gun laws passed since the constitution became the law of the land are unconstitutional.

In 1837 Georgia passed a law banning handguns. The law was ruled unconstitutional.

Every gun law since then should have been thrown out just like that one was.

[lentz]

Run him against obama in 2012

[Trouble 45-70]

Unconstitutional or not, if you are charged, it will cost you a pretty penny fighting it even if you know you will win.

[hogger129]

"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."

Now if only the SCOTUS could see it this way.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by Trouble 45-70

Unconstitutional or not, if you are charged, it will cost you a pretty penny fighting it even if you know you will win.

A very good reason for loser pays.

[199er]

A very good reason for loser pays.

A law like that would go a long way to leveling that playing field!!

[belercous]

Mr. Fox has an opinion, and it counts for squat. If he can convince a District Court judge, and a Circuit Court judge, he may have swomething but only in that judicial circuit. McDonald held no law unconstitutional, it merely stated that handgun ownership cannot be banned and remanded the case to the trial court for review in light of the ruling. Of course, Chicago's handgun prohibition will be found unconstituional, but the Wisconsin laws cited are still constitutional under McDonald. Read the case.
McDonald was a very narrow ruling which dealt only with handgun possession in the home. It did not deal with anything more. Not concealed carry, transportation, knives, possession in bars or public buildings. Mr. Fox is quite optimistic, although mistaken (as of today, under the McDonald holding). I wish he were correct, but it is quite a stretch to say that McDonald permits concealed carry, it just ain't in the Court's opinion.
I hate to be such a wet blanket, but that's reality.

[nffritos]

"I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

[belercous]

Certainly Mr. Fox can decline to prosecute cases, that is within his purview. What is not within his puriew is declaring laws unconstituional. SCOTUS is the final arbiter on that. Mr. Fox has obviously not read the McDonald and Heller decisions. A first year law student could tell you that neither Heller nor McDonald held that concealed carry (or the other 4 Wisconsin laws) were held unconstitutional. (Nor technically was Chicago's handgun ban. Although for all practical intents, it was)
Don't get me wrong, I wish he were my D.A. as I live in Illinois where C.C. is banned. But I certainly wouldn't hire him to defend me using his legal theory.

[Trouble 45-70]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

A very good reason for loser pays.

Agree, Looser pays. Problem is suers are a major constituency group of the members of congress. That's why we can't get Tort reform either.