http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=224

Go get ‘em, buddy! :)

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin prosecutor said he won’t enforce a host of state weapons laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute Wisconsin’s prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns and carrying switchblades and butterfly knives. He said the Supreme Court’s ruling renders those statutes unconstitutional.

…

Fox, a Democrat with self-described Libertarian leanings, faces re-election in 2012. He said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press but if the Brady Campaign wants to mount a recall drive, the organization should “bring it on.”

“If a majority of people want me to move on, that’s the price for standing up and saying ‘this is what I believe,’” Fox said.

There are some really lulzy quotes in there from a mentally defective police chief, so go read the whole thing. I’d really like to know if the predicted hogleg rush came to pass, hurr… I’m going to guess not.

Fox’s whole press release can be read here.

“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.”

OH MY GOSH JUST GO READ IT.

Maybe I’m a nerd, but this makes me positively giddy. I really want to email Mr. Fox and thank him for his badassery. Right now all I have is, “Dear Mr. Fox, you’re fantastic. Love, Me” so I should probably wait until I stop swooning.

We win!!!

I also saw someone quicker-witted than I changed the Brady Campaign’s Wikipedia page to label them, by definition, a hate group – due to their stated opposition to an established constitutional right. Love. It.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Later in the same statement:

We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

If the NRA gets its piece of the pie, they’ll stay quiet. Only if they don’t will they actively oppose the bill.

That’s pretty much the definition of selling out, you two-faced, double-speaking morons.

EDIT: By the way, I’m really, REALLY sick of everyone making excuses for the NRA’s bad behavior. It absolutely galls me how many gunnies are willing to turn a blind eye every time they sell us up the river “compromise” on something because they’re the biggest gun rights organization out there. I don’t really give a good god damn how big they are when they fail at actually protecting our interests.

I don’t give anyone carte blanche to speak on my behalf, especially an organization hell-bent on securing a monopoly – to what effect? When every last check on the NRA is stripped of its political power, by a combination of gun owner fear and legislative action, and we have only the NRA to represent us… Do you really trust them that much? If we treat the NRA with such undeserved reverence when we have other options, they know they’ve got us on complete lockdown if they can kill the competition. And then what?

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I kinda want to make the motorboating frame my avatar on everything for the rest of the internet.

Warning: Language and irreverence ahead. (Seriously, Grandma, I live with a Marine!)

—————–

GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and immunities, YOU CAN HAS! 
SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due process. I hate due process and I even think that. 
GURA: Uhhh
SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school? 
GURA: Oh shit
SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU 
GURA: But you hate due process
SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW
GURA: Uhhh
GINSBURG: I’m a bitch!
SCALIA: LULZ 
STEVENS: I’m a bitch! 
CLEMENT: This should obviously be incorporated under due process.
ALITO: Werd 
BREYER: *motorboats Sotomayor*
FELDMAN: Here’s my first argument.
SCALIA: That argument sucks.
FELDMAN: Ordered liberty?
SCALIA: We haven’t used that since 1937.
FELDMAN: Have too.
SCALIA: When? 
FELDMAN: Uh, here’s my second argument.
SCALIA: You just argued against your first argument.
FELDMAN: Did not.
SCALIA: Did so. 
FELDMAN: DID NOT!
SCALIA: …
FELDMAN: *cries*
SCALIA: …
ROBERTS: You just argued the losing Heller argument.
FELDMAN: *pees pants*
BREYER: Let’s make a chart. 
ROBERTS: Madison made a chart!
BREYER: STFU
THOMAS: *reads the Bible* 
SCALIA: The 2A puts the fun in fundamental. 
FELDMAN: Let me tell you what Heller says.
SCALIA: I wrote Heller, fucknuts. 
KENNEDY: So if we’re going to just incorporate the militia purpose of Heller, what case do we use for precedent? 
FELDMAN: No fucking idea. 
SCALIA: Why are you talking about the right to self-defense? That’s not in the Constitution. 
FELDMAN: See above. Besides, nobody would really restrict the right to keep and bear arms so that it affected self-defense. 
SCALIA: Have you even read Heller? 
FELDMAN: I don’t think so. 
KENNEDY: Gura, let’s use your last three minutes to talk about everything but the 2A.
ROBERTS: I’m going to give you the chance to take back that privileges and immunities thing. 
GURA: No, we think it’s a good idea!
ROBERTS: *sigh*

—————–

P.S. I want to give a shout-out to Gura, who I didn’t really give proper credit in the summary. I do think he did a good job, I just think he was a little taken aback by Scalia coming out swinging on privileges/immunities – as was I.

To be perfectly honest, I lost a little bit of Scalia love today. I can’t get behind the idea that, if something’s bad, just because it’s been bad for 140 years we should perpetuate it.

EDIT: Um, er, yeah… one of the hits I got on this is from a forum poster who apparently knows Justice Scalia and promised to forward it. 0_0 The good news is they think he’ll get a kick out of it. I feel obligated to point out, just in case, that I’m married to a 1L who happens to be a HUGE Scalia fan and would gladly take a shoe-shining or trash-emptying internship.

Just in case.

EDIT: mcouey over on Arfcom took this and ran with it… Here’s the result, which had me rolling: