Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Why not apply the same means as Heller Vs. DC to try to legally overturn the Wisconsin “Gun-free School zone” law? In this way no one would need to be in a legal quandary. The Wisconsin State Statute reads:
To me, a legal layperson, it seems that someone should be able to request a license, subsequently be denied, and bring it up on constitutional grounds just like the Heller case. Of course we would need someone who lives in a place like Milwaukee. A place with so many overlapping school zones that it severely restricts his or her right to bear arms.
Maybe I’m way off base on this? Thoughts?
Why not apply the same means as Heller Vs. DC to try to legally overturn the Wisconsin “Gun-free School zone” law? In this way no one would need to be in a legal quandary. The Wisconsin State Statute reads:
[/b]948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this
section:
(a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
starter pistol.
(am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone” means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco[/b]
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is[/b]
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,[/b]
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement[/b]
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the[/b]
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;[/b]
3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
grounds is authorized by school authorities.
8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the
school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
To me, a legal layperson, it seems that someone should be able to request a license, subsequently be denied, and bring it up on constitutional grounds just like the Heller case. Of course we would need someone who lives in a place like Milwaukee. A place with so many overlapping school zones that it severely restricts his or her right to bear arms.
Maybe I’m way off base on this? Thoughts?