Aa
Wis. DA Says He Won’t Prosecute Some Gun Laws
How Refreshing! A District Attorney who follows the Constitution instead of bowing to special interest groups who want to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights! Hooray!
_____________________________________________________________________
Wisconsin DA Institutes His Own Nullification
Wis. DA Says He Won’t Prosecute Some Gun Laws
Friday, 02 Jul 2010 06:00 PM
Published originally at http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Supreme-Court-Guns/2010/07/02/id/363734
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.”
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.
_____________________________________________________________________
Wisconsin DA Institutes His Own Nullification
Wis. DA Says He Won’t Prosecute Some Gun Laws
Friday, 02 Jul 2010 06:00 PM
Published originally at http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Supreme-Court-Guns/2010/07/02/id/363734
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.”
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.
Barb: I wouldn't be so worried about being blown out of the water. It's those darn mine fields you got to watch out for! LOL
To my knowledge, your explanation is correct. I believe it's called nullification. Many years ago, Andrew Jackson and John C Calhoun had a rather infamous showdown concerning nullification. To no one's surprise, Andrew Jackson "blew Calhoun out of the water".
Chicago immediately passed a new law identical to the one struck down by the Supreme court.
www.newsrunner.com/topic/nation/343149299/0
For more about nullification on this subject please see:
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/supreme-cour.
Another interesting article on the handgun issue: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/06/scotus_dc_gun_law.html?hpid=topnews
This one is from 2008 but is about striking down the city of Washington's hand gun law and is relevant to the discussion.
To my knowledge, your explanation is correct. I believe it's called nullification. Many years ago, Andrew Jackson and John C Calhoun had a rather infamous showdown concerning nullification. To no one's surprise, Andrew Jackson "blew Calhoun out of the water".
Chicago immediately passed a new law identical to the one struck down by the Supreme court.
www.newsrunner.com/topic/nation/343149299/0
For more about nullification on this subject please see:
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/supreme-cour.
Another interesting article on the handgun issue: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/06/scotus_dc_gun_law.html?hpid=topnews
This one is from 2008 but is about striking down the city of Washington's hand gun law and is relevant to the discussion.
You are right -- the Supreme Court determined that American citizens have the right to bear arms, according to the Constitution. Some States had passed their own laws regarding the ownership of guns - those laws have now been found to be unconstitutional. The State laws in question are no longer valid because Federal laws take precedence over State laws; State laws take precedence over County laws; County laws take precedence over City.
That's my understanding of the situation --- if I'm wrong, rest assured someone will come along to blow me out of the water................
That's my understanding of the situation --- if I'm wrong, rest assured someone will come along to blow me out of the water................
I seem to be having a whole lot of "I am confused moments" today. So if I am understanding this, some state? laws were passed with regards to gun ownership that the Supreme Court overthrew as being unconstitutional. So, would that not mean he shouldn't prosecute them? The laws in question would no longer actually be the law right? Or am I completely wrong here. How complicated!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
