Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Dave Kopel's testimony on the Kagan nomination | Main | This settles one thing »

Reaction to McDonald v. Chicago

Posted by David Hardy · 3 July 2010 09:24 AM

In the wake of the decision, the Jackson County (WI) prosecutor has announced he's no longer taking CCW and similar gun cases.

"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 personallyowned
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."

Hat tip to reader Dave Van...

· Chicago gun case

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Brerarnold | July 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Reply

A courageous public servant!

5thofNov | July 3, 2010 1:39 PM | Reply

I love this site....A big thank you to Mr. Fox...Think I'll shoot him an email for this well written letter. I love it when people get it.

"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."

Jim D. | July 3, 2010 3:31 PM | Reply

This is in rural Wisconsin on I-94, located roughly between Eau Claire, Madison and La Crosse. Unbelievably, it is located deep in the progressive heart of the state. Population is about 20,000. The DA's office is held for two years and elected during even numbered years.

He's up for re-election. Might make for an effective donation!

M Gallo | July 6, 2010 8:03 AM | Reply

Given the fact that our state has a stronger RKBA provision than the 2nd Amendment, I'm confused as to why he's doing this now. I think this is political cover for the shitstorm this November; he does have a (D) after his name, after all...

Leave a comment