So does thisdecision mean that Wisconsin’sstatute banning concealed weapons is going to be struck down?
That’s opento debate. The ban will most likely be challenged in state courts, MilwaukeeCounty District Attorney John Chisholm predicted. But the outcome is uncertainbecause the Supreme Court did not rule on state and local restrictions on gunsin public.
Even conservativeJustice Samuel Alito wrote in Monday’s decision that reasonable laws preventingthe mentally ill and felons would not be affected by the Chicago handgun ban ruling.
That said, Wisconsin’s concealedcarry ban could be vulnerable.
TheWisconsin Supreme Court’s most recent decision on concealed carryin 2003, onwhether a business owner has the right to keep a concealed gun in hisstoreupheld the ban. But it also showed that the Wisconsinjustices were concerned about the “overbreadth of the concealed carry statuteas a whole,” Chisholm said.
That’s whatcould be challenged in the courts.
Chisholmsaid the state Legislature needs to develop a comprehensive gun reform packagethat affirms Second Amendment protections but also includes regulations thatprotect public safety. That could include background checks on all gun sales aswell as a concealed carry permitting system that makes concealed carry of afirearm without a permit a felony. That would keep firearms out of the hands ofthose who shouldn’t have gunsthe mentally ill, minors and felons, for example.
“We need tolook at it as a comprehensive public safety package that would assure peoplethat their access and right to keep firearms isn’t going to be impinged in anyway and at the same time allows public safety officials a reasonable way ofpreventing dangerous people from having firearms,” Chisholm said. “I stillargue it can be done.”
But JeriBonavia, executive director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE),argued that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t affect the state’s concealedcarry ban, which WAVE supports.
“Thedecision basically strikes down Chicago’shandgun ban in homes,” Bonavia said. “But it didn’t go further than that. Itdoesn’t eliminate or eliminate the possibility of any other types of gunviolence prevention or regulations.”
She saidthat those concerned about gun violence shouldn’t be disheartened by theSupreme Court’s ruling.
“In someways it’s beneficial to us because it takes the extremes off the table and thesides can’t be talking about either no guns or guns everywhere all the time,”Bonavia said. “Now maybe we can actually get to work on that middle groundwhere the vast majority of Americans think we should be anyway, and seriouslytalk about what we can be doing to prevent gun violence in an effective waythat respects the Second Amendment as defined by the Supreme Court.”
