WI: Journal Sentinel editorial on the DC ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trip20, you just got "edited."

The JS deleted an entire paragraph, and changed some other words around. Standard practice for the Milwaukee Journal for decades.

Here's the letter that Trip20 submitted:

****To the editors:

Judging from the Journal Sentinel’s March 16th editorial, “A deadly wrong ruling,” the paper’s editorial board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.

The editorial repeats the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on the states, and not on individuals.

Not only does this notion fly in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution, but it also ignores prior academic research and legal precedent regarding the Second Amendment.

Constitutional scholars--including self-admitted liberal constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz--have pored over the amendment, and have concluded that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective (state’s) right.

Further, the DC Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In US vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases--US vs. Miller in particular--and came to the same individual rights conclusion.

Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments all reference the words “the people.” Can anyone say with a straight face that “the people” in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second Amendment “the people” means states?

There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.
*****
And here's what the Journal Sentinel printed:

*********

Judging from the March 16 editorial "A deadly wrong ruling," the Journal Sentinel's Editorial Board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.
Advertisement

Buy a link here

The editorial repeated the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on states and not on individuals. This notion flies in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution and ignores academic research and legal precedent regarding the amendment.

The D.C. Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In U.S. vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases - U.S. vs. Miller in particular - and came to the same individual rights conclusion.

Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments all reference "the people." Can anyone say with a straight face that "the people" in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second "the people" means states?

There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.


******

(I guess the young graduate from Jurnalizm skool didn't know how to spell "tenth," wasn't sure if Trip20 was right, so just stuck "10th" in the sentence.

And why would the Journal be afraid to look at what scholars like Tribe and Dershowitz have written? Or are the editors at the JS too lazy to simply Google "Lawrence Tribe Second Amendment" to verify?
 
I fear that the editors of the JS fall in line with the preminition that there is no way a reader could be more knowledgable or more eloquent than the paper itself. To make not only a statement that is the antithesis of the JS philosophy and utilize support for the statement from one of their own, well...that is too, too much. In the same vein, the JS has always taken the skeen that either they or the government knows what is best for all other people, instead of those people themselves.
 
But the legalities aside, the wise course is for the people, through their government, to have the right to regulate firearms for safety's sake. The people ought not to overregulate - which D.C.'s ban on pistols and revolvers not registered before Sept. 24, 1976, does.

The gun-control ordinance calls for keeping firearms in the home unloaded and disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock. But the wording is such that it can be interpreted as barring the assembly of the weapon or the removal of the trigger lock in a moment of self-defense. That defect needed fixing, but not by the courts.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the District's government had no intention of doing any "fixing," although they had plenty of opportunity. Instead they fought tooth & nail to preserve the laws that the Journal Sentinel admits goes too far, and even proposed to enact even more strict controls. In the face of the government's position there was no viable alternative but to take the matter to court.

Of course the whole editorial is full of typical left-wing Progrssive twisting of the truth, but the above comment should not be overlooked. The whole purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the people when government did go too far.
 
I've been edited by the Journal-Sentinel the same way.

They really don't like cites for some reason in their editorial letters.

In a letter to the editor during one of the prior WI CCW legislative cycles, I referenced the FBI study from the 90's that showed that of all "coping methods" with crime, armed resistance resulted in the lowest victim injury rate of all methods, including fleeing, martial arts, and even complete compliance with criminal demands…

I even put the publication and date into the reference and they still struck it.

My guess is that it's not outright bias, but that they want letters to be "emotive", a.k.a."Don't confuse us with the facts." school of editorial pages. Probably indicitive of an even bigger problem at the J-S than mere bias...
 
Strings, give it a year or two, WI will have CCW. I know the governor fights it, but it keeps being brought up and it wont go away. How many no issue states does the leave us? Be nice if we could covert California to 'shall issue' (although from what I understand, certain counties in CA such as Orange, Placer and Nevada county are de facto shall issue)
 
Strings, I don't think there's really any way that the D.C. Circuit ruling can affect the WISC, because the WI RKBA amendment is already as unambiguous as it can be, it's painfully crystal-clear with the words "defense", and "all lawful purposes" in the verbiage. The J-S Editorial Board is just nervous about the national implications of the D.C. decision as are the rest of the anti-RKBA complex.

Unfortunately, when Judge Sykes was promoted by Bush to the Federal Circuit, Doyle was able to appoint a liberal in her place. We do have an election coming up on April 3rd, and so far the front-runner Anette Zeigler, a conservative, seems to be the front runner, but her election would only keep the balance of the court from gettng any worse.

We've already seen the contortions the Court will go through to avoid any kind of endorsment of universal carry. IIRC, the current "Affirmative Defense" standard is that you had to be a prior victm of violent crime. In essence, it's as if the WISC has made wearing seat-belts illegal, except for those who've previously been in car crashes. Of course, the Milwaukee north-side pizza delivery man who shot an armed robber a few months ago meets the criteria perfectly, yet the DA's office stil threw the book at him.

Ratzinger_p38, everyone in WI is encouraged by all the Federal investigations of "Pay for Play" that seem to constantly be orbiting the current administration conveniently just beyond Doyle's direct reach. Unfortunately, these things take time. Unless there's a serious "smoking gun" that turns up, it'll probably take at least two years before the cuffs go on him, or he's at least backed into a corner and forced to retire.

Personally, I think Doyle is merely trying to hold out until the '08 elections in hopes of a Democratic POTUS who will pull our great Fed. Prosecutor and assign some Democrat-friendly shill in his place.

If we get lucky, and Doyle goes down well before his term is up, I doubt that the Lt. Governor will be any more amenable to carry legislation than Doyle was, but the natural weakness of a Lt. Gov. after such a scandal is certainly something we'll try to exploit.

Either way, I do agree with everyone that WI carry is merely a matter of "when" not "if". WI is in an odd position, politically, we're one of the states where carry legislation has good traction, but just liberal enough, and with just enough naieve social conservatives who fall for Democrats now and again to keep getting it deep-sixed by one or two obstructionists like Doyle, Sherman, Chavala, etc. etc. etc.
 
AJ, the legal beagles at the NRA believe that, if the Vegas case (the pizza delivery driver) makes it to the state supreme court, that case, combined with the DC decision and the New Orleans decision, will strengthen our hand.

I don't understand the legal reasoning behind their position, but that's one reason why the NRA is so intent on pushing the Vegas case.
 
I'd love for the D.C. case to help, but since it's overturning a gun ban about 1000% more draconian than anything WI has ever had, and how unambiguous the WI RKBA amendment is, I can't see how it would help us or Mr. Vegas other than in the sense of "general momentum". And I just don't see the WISC as a very "finger in the wind" type of organization.

I guess it's that I just don't give the J-S Editorial staff that much credit to look into it that deeply, and presume they're only upset over the broad national implications and aren't looking at anything specifically Wisconsin at the moment.

Also, if I were an anti-gun WI Appeals Court judge, I'd overturn any conviction Mr. Vegas might get on the "Affirmative Defense" criteria the WISC has already laid out since he was the victim of an attempted armed robbery once before, for fear it would otherwise go to the WISC and create even yet more pro-carry case law.
 
AJ, you're right about the appeals court. But Vegas hasn't even gone to court yet. In fact, his pre-trial isn't until Monday.

I don't understand the NRA's legal department's strategy on this. Maybe there's something bigger going on than us non-attorney types can appreciate.
 
Part of it might be trying to convince Vegas to be a pawn in this political effort rather than taking a plea bargain at the pretrial. Or, perhaps they taking the most time that they can in order to solidify as much of their strategy as possible before they head into trial.

In any case, I hope Vegas comes out well and that the verdict comes out in favor of his right to self-defense.
 
Journal Sentinel treatment not much different from my home paper

I had a 600 word op-ed edited to a 288 word letter
to the editor once (although I have had full guest
op-eds published). The editor not only cut stuff out
but re-wrote what was published, prompting my
opponent to post on his blog that I argued with
inconsistent lucidity. Newspapers are like that. Oh,
the subject was the Second Amendment.











(My lucidity may be inconsistent, but my
charliebrownness is always spot on.)
 
Matt, when Munir Hamdan was arrested in his store back in 2000 or 2001 (forget the year), he was fined $1.

Nonetheless, he was persuaded to take his case all the way.

I'm hoping that Vegas goes the same route.
 
I completely agree, Dick. I expect he's going to be hard to convince when he has a record of being taken to court by landlords for not paying rent and makes his living delivering pizzas. A plea bargain that lets him walk and get back to work would be attractive. If the NRA can show him enough financial incentive to do otherwise, however, then we've got a good trial to watch :).

In any case, the prosecutor is going to do everything s/he can to prevent this going to an expensive, widely publicized, potentially long trial.
 
Matt, Andy Vegas delivers pizzas whenever he needs extra cash. He has a regular day job.

While his record isn't perfect, there's nothing in it that I see that would make the court wince.

As for his time, once it gets to the appeals court, he won't even have to show up. It will just be the attorneys.

As for the prosecutor, she's just ticked off because she told Vegas last year not to carry a gun anymore. So, it would seem this is personal for her.
 
As for the prosecutor, she's just ticked off because she told Vegas last year not to carry a gun anymore. So, it would seem this is personal for her.
Click to expand...

Ah-ha! So we get to the heart of the matter...

The fact that it was yet another justified defensive shooting has really got to chap her hide! :D That's actualy perfect! If it's personal, she'll be more prone to overlook any fear of creating more pro-carry case law. Is there any intel on the judge? He/she would obviously be the next step in trying to nip this in the bud. Although it ought to be a slam-dunk for dismissal, seeing as Mr. Vegas almost perfectly meets the WISC's affirmative defense criteria...

And as to Mr. Vegas's prior court record, petty civil stuff is not even on the radar when it comes to the criminal system. It's even less than a non-issue.
 
I seem to have given the wrong impression when I mentioned the land-lord history. I mean that it demonstrates that he is frequently strapped for cash. Dick corrected my erroneous assumption that the pizza delivery bit was his main source of income.

Whether or not the prosecutor has a personal bug against Vegas for carrying, she has to answer to the city/politicians. Budget concerns, negative publicity concerns, and fears of a trial that results in more expensive lawsuits over their existing gun-control laws--these things may politically influence the prosecutor to drop the charges on some pretense. The privilege statute at first seems to clear him, but State vs. Hamdan only found in favor of being able to use a firearm in a home or business--vehicles are not discussed.

After this speculation, I'll bow out to those more experienced in legal proceedings. I enjoy how education THR is, and thanks for taking the time to correct me.
 
Matt, Hamdan isn't the only precedent case involved here: there's a more recent case, where the WSC decided that the State does have the ability to restrict the RKBA, and gives an affirmative defense if you've got a previous history of assualts against you.

This affirmative defense is where they can possibly derail any case. We'll see what happens...
 
Yes, that's the Fisher case.

So now the affirmative defense is not just needing your otherwise "illegally" concealed firearm at the time you're discovered because an attempted violent crime precipitates the discovery you were carrying concealed, but you had to have a reasonable belief you needed the firearm because you'd been a victim of violent crime previously.

So here's an announcement: Criminals of Wisconsin, the first time is "free", but you'd better "finish the job", because the second time, the victim can shoot back!

The only analogy I can keep coming up with is if it were illegal to wear seat-belts in your car unless you'd already been in a life-threatening crash once before. And, it's not even legal to put your seat-belt on the "first time" at the last minute should you be lucky enough to see the crash coming.

I swear, the "perfect case" to get the WISC to rule that carry is legal in WI is when one of us RKBA-nuts gets killed in street crime, and it's documented that we'd worked towards shall-issue carry. So keep everything the new WCPS sends you where your family can find it. :mad:
 
AJ, I don't have the Fisher decision in front of me, so I'm just going by memory.

IRRC, the court's decision stated that, because he wasn't in a high-crime area, he didn't have a reasonable need for security. Hamdan, having been robbed before and being in a high-crime area, had a need for security that overrode the state's interest in prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

That phrase--a need that overrides the state's police powers with regard to carrying a concealed weapon--keeps coming back to me.

As in, what the heck does it mean?

Anyone who's been to the Senate/Assembly hearings over the last six years has heard the testimony of Theresa Sweet. She was gang-raped in a building across the street from her town's police station. And her attackers have never been caught.

Doesn't Theresa Sweet have a need for security that overrides the state's police powers with regard to carrying a concealed weapon?

The law, and the court, are crazy. Come April 3rd, we'll have an election for a justice to replace retiring Justice Jon Wilcox. If Annette Ziegler wins, we'll preserve the 4:3 liberal majority on the court. If Clifford wins, we'll be down to a 5:2 liberal majority.

Whoever wins that race will be hearing the Vegas case, if it gets that far.

The media has been doing its best to attack Ziegler. Let's just hope that the public doesn't buy their spin.
 
What constitutes a high-crime area? :uhoh:

Do you have to have no choice but to be in said high-crime area? Do you lose the affirmative defense if you could have been elsewhere? :rolleyes:

Does simple assult override the state's police powers with regard to carrying a concealed weapon? How about rape? No? Murder? :mad:

Either way, the last WISC decision requires prescience on the part of the victim... :fire:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top