Someone in “power” who gets it.
By now I am sure most people have read or heard about the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDonald Vs Chicago. If not what rock are you living under? Click that link and educate yourself.
The decision basically says that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is an individual right and it applies equally to Local, State, and Federal Government.
The reason I bring all this up is this.
“The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.”
Jackson County, WI DA Gerald R Fox
Obviously, Mr. Fox gets it.
Of course not everyone agrees with this. Like Donald Gilberg, Chef of Police in Black River Falls.
“Ten minutes after publication of the district attorney’s decision, every wannabe Wyatt Earp in this county will strap on their hog leg and strut about town not because they need to protect themselves, but because they can,” Gilberg said in a statement. “This will have a chilling effect on the community.”
I am sure it will have a “chilling effect on the community.” The “community” of local criminals who might now think twice before trying to mug the formerly defenseless citizen walking down the road. Maybe that “community” criminal will just decided to go for some easier pickings in another county or state where they have less chance of encountering an armed citizen?
And of course Peter Hamm from the Brady Campaign chimes in with this:
“To announce this publicly, to tell all these would-be scofflaws they can go ahead and break the law, makes matters worse,” Hamm said.
Really? “would-be scofflaws”? The way I read the United States Constitution it is the supreme law of the land. How can you break a UnConstitutional law?
If a state passed a law saying that Mr. Peter Hamm, or anyone in any way affiliated with the Brady Campaign, could not speak in said state would that be Constitutional?
Of course not. The First amendment guarantees the right of free speech, and the Second guarantees the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms.
Read the whole article where the Peter Hamm and Donald Gilberg quotes are from here.
The big question I have is why are more DAs across the country not doing this? Does this not seem like the proper thing to do after the Supreme Court decision?
From my point of view it is. In fact I would probably go even farther than Mr. Fox has, but that is a post for another day I think.
