Has anyone here heard (analyzed) the circuit court decision on this? I hadn't even heard a whisper about this decision. I'm no expert, but the stuff I read in the link makes my heart go pitter patter!
http://www.examiner.com/wisconsin-gun-rights-in-milwaukee/wis-stat-941-23-unconstitutional
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Plaintiff/Petitioner DECISION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
vs.
JOSHUA D. SCHULTZ Case No. 10-CM-138
Defendant/Respondent
.
.
.
When this court examines this case in view of Hamdan as affected by Heller and McDonald, Justice Crooks’ analysis prevails—leading to the conclusion that sec. 941.23 in not narrowly tailored and therefore is unconstitutional. “A statute which under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional.” Heller, p. 56, n. 27. “The breadth of [sec. 941.23] is incompatible with the broad constitutional right to bear arms. Its prohibition extends to anyone at any time and, therefore, improperly an unnecessarily impinges on a person’s right to bear arms ‘for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.’ … [The statute] logically extends to such a wide variety of scenarios that it leaves no ‘open ample alternative channels by which the citizen may exercise the right at issue.’” Hamdan, concurrence,pp. 495-496.
.
.
.
http://www.examiner.com/wisconsin-gun-rights-in-milwaukee/wis-stat-941-23-unconstitutional
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Plaintiff/Petitioner DECISION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
vs.
JOSHUA D. SCHULTZ Case No. 10-CM-138
Defendant/Respondent
.
.
.
When this court examines this case in view of Hamdan as affected by Heller and McDonald, Justice Crooks’ analysis prevails—leading to the conclusion that sec. 941.23 in not narrowly tailored and therefore is unconstitutional. “A statute which under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional.” Heller, p. 56, n. 27. “The breadth of [sec. 941.23] is incompatible with the broad constitutional right to bear arms. Its prohibition extends to anyone at any time and, therefore, improperly an unnecessarily impinges on a person’s right to bear arms ‘for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.’ … [The statute] logically extends to such a wide variety of scenarios that it leaves no ‘open ample alternative channels by which the citizen may exercise the right at issue.’” Hamdan, concurrence,pp. 495-496.
.
.
.
