Under the provisions of Wisconsin Act 35, the law that allows citizens to carry concealed firearms (and which was rubber-stamped into law by Republicans last year) elected district attorneys are allowed to carry concealed weapons into our state’s courtrooms.
However, judges in Winnebago County have said Winnebago County District Attorney Christian Gossett can’t carry his gun into their courtrooms without the written permission of whatever judge or court commissioner is presiding where Gossett might appear. As a result of the judges’ decision, Gossett and his chief deputy Scott Ceman – both of whom are concealed carry permit holders – have asked the state Supreme Court to declare that the circuit judges have exceeded their authority and for a writ of prohibition to block them from enforcing their ban.
Given the decidedly conservative bent of our state’s Supreme Court, I expect the order issues by judges in Winnebago County will be overturned, because apparently district attorneys need to be armed to the teeth when they’re arguing briefs in court.
If it’s America, then “shall not be infringed” applies to all citizens. Self-defense is unalienable.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
– John Marshall, Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“Arguing that the words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning is tantamount to arguing
that we have no Constitution; a Constitution serves no purpose if the branches of government
it is supposed to limit can define their own powers.”
– W. James Antle III
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation which would abrogate them.”
– U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
Sorry I missed the part of the Constitution which states that there is an unalienable rights to carry concealed weapons.
Seriously… you missed the part of the constitution that declares the right to bear arms? “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: (right out of the 2nd Amendment)
I didn’t miss the part of the constitution which declares the right to bear arms. I missed the part where it says there is a right to conceal arms.
The 2nd amendment in its entirety states:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Noticeably, there is no grant of a right to conceal and carry arms.
Dan, which arms do we have a right to bear, muskets and sabers or semi automatic pistols and assault rifles?
I know that’s a typical point to bring up, but does it really have anything to do with this particular issue? Do you mean to suggest that if it were a musket or saber, it would somehow change things in this case?
I was just trying to be a smart-alec.
Ultimately though, I have to agree with Super Id – where in the Constitution is the citizenry granted the right to carry concealed arms?
Given what’s there, I don’t know how you can argue absolutely either way. I can see just as clear of an argument that “keep & bear” includes concealed as it excludes it.
Your argument (and Super’s) would seem to be that there is no reason the it can’t be limited. Fair enough. But if I say your right to keep a pencil shall not be infringed, wouldn’t preventing you from putting it in your pocket be just that? Doesn’t a right to “keep” something pretty well cover possession in any manner, hidden, in plain sight or at home in a box?
“Keep” and “bear” are two different things, at least in my opinion.
You don’t have to take my word for it. It has been long established by the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons does not violate the constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapon.” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82, 17 S. Ct. 326, 329, 41 L. Ed. 715 (1897);
On such matters, I most certainly would take your word for it. I have no problem deferring to your knowledge of the current state of legality formed from a couple hundred years of case law. As a matter of the application of the laws – and honestly from a practical matter, I really don’t have any real problem with the ruling. I do find it a bit odd to require written permission from the particular judge presiding at the time. So if there’s a change of judges, over a matter of a few minutes the same act could go from being allowed to prohibited and vice versa. I’m guessing that the answer is that it’s not at all unusual – that each judge has a great deal of latitude with regards to what goes on in “their” court. But seems to me the rules of the courthouse should not be so flexible. What is deemed proper and more importantly, safe should apply regardless of what judge happens to be holding the gavel. I’d also have to say that I don’t see such a bright line of delineation between law enforcement officers who are explicitly exempted and and district attorneys.
That said, the discussion was about the Constitution. I find Heller most closely matches what I think of when I read the what was written:
I’ll just note that Heller confirmed the second amendment is not unlimited, and it does not affect bans on concealed carry or possession of fire arms in government buildings (I presume that would include courtrooms)
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 571, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2786, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
As a practical matter, allowing a D.A. to carry is dangerous as it would invite appeals. A convicted inmate could argue in appealing his sentence that the Jury was intimidated by the D.A.’s gun as a basis for a reversal. When your moving around a court room, even a concealed weapon will be spotted.
From a strictly practical standpoint, how does it make sense for a county attorney to get in a pissing contest with a bunch of judges over this? I can see some pretty good reasons to prohibit anyone other than a highly trained police officer or deputy from having deadly weapons in a courtroom. Chris Gossett must be having a mid-life crisis.
All the lawyers in the room, from the parties’ counsel to the judge, ought to be worried about free-floating guns. Lawyers and judges have often been the target of gun violence from disgruntled clients and opposing clients. Lawyers are not exactly beloved in America. Courtrooms are places where emotions run high. This has to be a prime venue to limit the opportunities for violence.
Why? He wants to run for another office.
I would never enter in a courtroom knowing the lawyer was armed. How come all this law is about protecting the right of some asshole to carry a gun, but never about the rights of the people around him to feel safe. Also, why did the authors of the Bill of Rights add in that phrase about a militia? It seems silly that gun-rights people totally ignore that phrase, and just focus on the guns.
Right to bear arms. Don’t infringe.
Musket, knife, sword, concealed, holstered. Arms. Do not infringe. Do not.
The court may decide what it will. But the right to bear arms is unalienable.
If the right to protect my life is not unalienable, then no other rights exist. No life, then… what?
Then we are just slaves to those who have arms.
Those who wanna be your ‘massah’, don’t want you armed. Your strict obedience depends on their ‘monopoly of force’.
A well conditioned slave is uncomfortable defending his own life, and only feels safe when his massah is protecting him.
Gun Control = Don’t let the slaves have guns.
So you believe ordinary citizens should be able to bear Stinger missile systems, or rocket propelled grenades, without government interference?
<<< BTW- That icon pic is the USS New Jersey. Big Guns.
It was from a place called 'the united States of America'…many of you seem unfamiliar with it.
It has been long established by the U.S. Supreme Court that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons does not violate the constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapon.” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82, 17 S. Ct. 326, 329, 41 L. Ed. 715 (1897)”
-superid
Everyone in court has a natural right to be armed. It’s unalienable. Not granted by some douche in a robe.
The right to bear arms is unalienable. We constituted this government to protect our rights.
Any government agency that makes itself repugnant to the constitution, also renders itself Null and Void.
Those principles founded the country.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
– John Marshall, Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation which would abrogate them.”
– U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
Infringe, and the court renders itself Null and Void (like it has with concealed weapons and automatic weapons and artillery- King George had similar reasoning when his troops marched on Lexington and Concord to take Cannon and Powder from some hicks out in the sticks. You modern day Tories do not respect your own lives, and cannot fathom that we americans respect our own enough to fight the mightiest military in the world over unalienable rights. New day. New perfumed princes. Same misunderstanding on your part.)
Unalienable.
“some douche in a robe.”
I’m willing to bet you’d be using different language if said “douche in a robe” issued an opinion that agreed with your very narrow world view.
“I would never enter in a courtroom knowing the lawyer was armed.”
-BrianE
If you consider that the country is well armed… You can leave now.
100 million guns just in the last 3 years.
The only place you can be sure that only uniformed folks have guns, is when you’re in prison.