DA says he won’t prosecute gun laws

[downzero]

Thus my argument all along. The DA is applying the law correctly, in his best judgment.

When has the administration and application of the law ever been as simple as words on a page? This one is destined to be duked out in in the state legislature.

In as far as the police are concerned in this matter: Its irrelevant to the argument as far as how McDonald is being applied to WI law by the DA. The police perform their duties as they deem applicable, and the DA his. Personally, I see the LE in said county spinning their proverbial wheels.

But it's obvious that he's not applying the law correctly, because there's nothing at all in McDonald about carrying firearms.

There's nothing to duke out. It's not in the holdings.

Like I said, it's crazy to me how some will cry activism when it comes to other violations of separation of powers, while chanting about how great this is.

It shows that "activism" just depends on the content of the person's action, and whether the person agrees with them politically.

Last I checked, a "police state" was a country in which the executive branch made the laws. In this case, that's precisely what is happening here.

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, DZ he's not making laws, he's choosing to ignore them. That's the opposite of a police state member.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[antsi]

Actually, DZ he's not making laws, he's choosing to ignore them. That's the opposite of a police state member.

Actually, ignoring laws can be just as tyrannical as making up laws.

The Soviet Union had a bill of rights, including the right to free speech, trial by impartial jury, etc. They just didn't pay attention to them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, ignoring laws can be just as tyrannical as making up laws.

The Soviet Union had a bill of rights, including the right to free speech, trial by impartial jury, etc. They just didn't pay attention to them.

Yes, it can. This instance is certainly an exception, tho. This DA has taken the decision to err on the side of liberty, not against it. Guess that's a little too radical for some folks.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

It's hard to fire an elected official, and based on what voters want in WI, I doubt he'll get much grief over it come election time. The Governor of WI went against the will of the people and vetoed the CCW law there. With any luck this type of stance will lead to a reasonable set of laws to guide WI toward CCW.

 

[antsi]

Guess that's a little too radical for some folks.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the sentiment of what he's doing.

Some have questioned whether his legal arguments will really hold water. Seems like a reasonable question.

Let's say Mitch comes out tomorrow and says, "We're no longer enforcing the requirement for a license to carry a handgun. From now on, it's Vermont/Alaska style carry in Indiana. The reason we're doing this is that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision prohibits states from restricting the people from carrying handguns, and licensing is a form or restriction."

Despite the fact that I do agree with the policy Mitch is announcing in this scenario, I'd feel compelled to call him on his legal reasoning. Roe v. Wade says nothing of this kind.

It is perfectly possible to agree with someone's conclusion, while still disagreeing with the argument they used to reach that conclusion.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

We need an INGO contest for Attorney General uniform,

How about this one? All prosecutors need jump wings and brown short.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How about this one? All prosecutors need jump wings and brown short.

Really?

I see prosecutors in khaki and armbands.

 

[Fargo]

Actually it's quite possible that he can be removed from his position for refusing to follow the law.

Yeah, if he doesn't get re-elected or gets recalled by the voters. Other than that, just what procedure are you talking about?

He is an elected official. At least in Indiana, it is solely at the elected prosecutor's discretion to file charges. (Except the coroner in one certain circumstance). He can also dismiss charges at any time whether the judge likes it or not. The only remedy I am aware of is to vote him out if you don't like it.

You seem to miss that this is the man the voters have trusted with this discretion. If he believes a law to be unconstitutional, he can absolutely decide not to enforce it. Heck, if he feels that any criminal offense should not be prosecuted, there is nothing forcing him to do it.

This is a check upon the state and was willfully done. Otherwise, you give all that discretion to the police. Do you really want the arresting officers deciding who gets charged with what?

Joe

 

[historian]

It's hard to fire an elected official, and based on what voters want in WI, I doubt he'll get much grief over it come election time. The Governor of WI went against the will of the people and vetoed the CCW law there. With any luck this type of stance will lead to a reasonable set of laws to guide WI toward CCW.

Actually, the governor did not go against the will of the people. In most states, the governor's veto is to put a check on a tyrannical legislature. The governor, so long as he is elected to office, as Wisconsin's is, is following the "will of the people." If they do not like him, they can vote him out and the following legislative session can introduce and pass the bill.
The "will of the people" currently put Pelosi, Reed, and Obama into the House, Senate, and Oval Office, so, according to your logic, the "will of the people" is Obamacare and socialistic legislature.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually, the governor did not go against the will of the people. In most states, the governor's veto is to put a check on a tyrannical legislature. The governor, so long as he is elected to office, as Wisconsin's is, is following the "will of the people." If they do not like him, they can vote him out and the following legislative session can introduce and pass the bill.
The "will of the people" currently put Pelosi, Reed, and Obama into the House, Senate, and Oval Office, so, according to your logic, the "will of the people" is Obamacare and socialistic legislature.

This presumes that what the people want, literally "the will of the people", never changes. Case in point: in November of 2008, the people wanted "no more George W. Bush", and no matter who was elected, they would have had that, though as was demonstrated at the time, many did not know and of those who did, some did not care; they were going to vote for "something different". They voted for "Hope" and "Change".

As the slogan goes now, "How's that hope and change workin' out for you?"

The people loudly voiced their objection to the bailouts, and no one with a vote seemed to care.
The people loudly voiced their objections to Obamacare, and no one with a vote seemed to care.

The website "Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution" shows that a huge majority of Illinois' counties want an end to onerous gun laws, but the inordinate disparity of the population in C(r)ook County makes their desire irrelevant.

In Wisconsin, the people may have voted in the governor at the time of the election, but their representatives, and IIRC, their phone calls, letters, emails, etc. all made clear that they wanted citizens to have the right to carry concealed as well as openly. By defying those indications, the governor did, in fact, defy the will of the people who elected him.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jbombelli]

Everything else aside, I think I'll take the opinion of a DA in Wisconsin when it pertains to how the law applies in the state of Wisconsin, than I will anyone else who is 1) not a lawyer, and 2) not living in Wisconsin.

I'm funny that way, though.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Has anyone considered contacting our local prosecutors and asking them to examine our gun laws to see if they would find they unconstitutional. Might get a surprise and have a few that conclude the samething as this guy. I'm going to email Brizzi about this.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I love how the LEO claims armed citizens will make their communities "less safe".

Based on what facts? Certainly nothing he can actually substantiate... just more bleeding heart liberal PC policy making at its finest. If it feels like it should be wrong, by golly, it is wrong.

 

[ak keep the second]

Finally good to hear a positive story like this and good to hear a government official is doing the right thing even when others refuse.