Quote:
DT: May 18, 2006
FR: Senator Dave Zien
RE: Supreme Court’s opinion on State v. FisherView the Supreme Court’s opinion at
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=251
65This is a concealed carry case in which Fisher was a tavern owner in Black
River Falls who kept a loaded gun in his center console of his vehicle
because he transported large sums of cash from his tavern to the bank.The Supreme Court ruled against Fisher’s right to keep and bear arms for the
following reasons:
Law enforcement are at risk because citizens tend to have criminal
tendencies when they have firearms outside their home or business
Fisher was not in a high crime area
Fisher was not in immediate danger of his life
Fisher had not been a victim of violent crime in the pastBecause Fisher was not in his home or business, he was not in a high-crime
area, he had not been a victim of violent crime in the past, and he was in
no immediate danger of losing his life, the Court ruled the state has a
“strong interest” in ensuring Wisconsin citizens have no right to keep and
bear arms for security unless these criteria are met.
Likewise, do you keep a fire extinguisher on hand because your house is in a
high-fire area, and it has been on fire in the past, and there is an
immediate danger of your house starting on fire? The State’s interest would
probably also say you shouldn’t have a fire extinguisher on hand until these
criteria are met because a fire extinguisher in your hands any other time
would cause you to commit crimes against firefighters.The Court answered the first of the two questions required to be asked as a
result of Hamdan. The first was answered, which is “Was the need to carry a
concealed weapon substantial?” The latter was not answered, and that was
“Was concealing the weapon the only reasonable means? The Court’s answer to
the first question was NO.The court referred to the Hamdan case when it created exempted places where
“the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex”.
Those places are a privately-owned business or private home. The court
ruled against Fisher because he was in neither of those places.As Justice Crooks point out in his dissenting opinion, the court should have
struck down the statute and has no business doing the job of the legislature
when it judicially rewrote the concealed carry statute. He further writes,
“The legitimate concerns of law enforcement are best addressed by the
legislature, not by a piecemeal approach by this court.”The court compared the circumstances of Hamdan to those of Fisher, and ruled
that you don’t have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms unless the following are
true:
Your business or home is in what would be classified as a high-crime
neighborhood using FBI crime statistics
Your store or home had been the site of past robberies AND homicides
You had been a crime victim at your business or home
You had concerns for not only your life, but your family and customers
You had good reason to anticipate future crime problems at your business or
home and need to provide your own security to deal with the problems.So, Fisher had no constitutional right to keep and bear arms because he had
not been the victim of a violent crime and he did not live in a high crime
area (Milwaukee).The court compared in detail the “high-crime neighborhood” where Hamdan’s
store is located in Milwaukee with the neighborhood of Fisher’s tavern, and
stated “Fisher’s tavern. cannot realistically be considered to be situated
in a high-crime neighborhood.”In the court’s view, Fisher might have the right to keep and bear arms if
his tavern’s neighborhood had:
At least three homicides,
24 robberies,
and 28 aggravated batteries reported that yearThe court inferred that an individual has a “weak interest” in personal
protection outside a business or home compared to the state’s “strong
interest” in banning concealed weapons. The state’s “strong interest” in
banning concealed weapons in Statute 941.23 were identified in Hamdan:
Carrying a concealed weapon permits a person to act violently on impulse,
whether from anger or fear.
People should be put on notice when they are dealing with an individual who
s carrying a dangerous weapon. Notice permits other people, including law
enforcement officers, to act accordingly.
Concealed weapons facilitate the commission of crime by creating the
appearance of normality and catching people off guard.
Concealed carry laws promote the preservation of life by affixing a stigma
of criminality to those who carry concealed weapons except for law
enforcement officers.The court is saying that guns in the hands of citizens cause them to be
criminals, thus, the state’s “strong interest” in banning concealed weapons
outweighs a citizen’s “weak interest” in having the right to keep and bear
arms.The court states, “Of particular concern is the potential danger to law
enforcement to law enforcement officers if an individual is carrying a
concealed weapon during the course of a traffic stop.” (p. 14)How and why have the Justices come to such a conclusion? Have 48 other
states with concealed weapons statutes produced evidence showing grave
danger to law enforcement?The court states, “only in extraordinary circumstances will and individual
carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle be able to demonstrate that his or
her interest in the right to keep and bear arms for security substantially
outweigh the state’s interest in prohibiting that individual from carrying a
concealed weapon in his or her motor vehicle.”
“If a defendant reasonably believes that he or she is actually confronted
with a threat of bodily harm or death and that carrying a concealed weapon
is necessary for protection from the threat, extraordinary circumstances
would be present.”The court says you can’t have a gun for personal protection UNTIL the moment
a violent attacker appears at your car window, AND you have to be in a
so-called “high-crime area” according to FBI crime statistics. Then what?
Will your gun magically appear in your glove box in that exact time of need?The court stated “there is no evidence in the record that in the
approximately five years Fisher had owned the tavern it was ever the site of
an armed robbery, a fatal shooting, or any other violent criminal episodes.”
(p. 19)Apparently Fisher hadn’t “earned his stripes” like Hamdan had. In the
court’s view, once you’ve gone through what Hamdan went through, you might
earn your right to keep and bear arms.The dissenting Justices were right on the money when they stated “the
majority. fails to strike down Wisconsin’s overbroad and very restrictive
concealed weapons statute, and instead continues to judicially re-write it,
in order to attempt to cure its constitutional defects.”
May 19, 2006 at 4:37 pm
#209746
. And, crime only exists in certain areas. 
