Source: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/statute-prohibiting-switchblades-doesnt-apply-to-possession-by-a-person-at-home/
Timestamp: 2020-03-30 20:09:45
Document Index: 779072751

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 941', '§ 941', '§ 941', '§ 941', '§ 941', '§ 941']

¶12 …. The State argues Wis. Stat. § 941.24(1) serves an important governmental objective—namely, protecting the public from the danger of potentially lethal surprise attacks posed by individuals using switchblade knives. However, the State cites no evidence to establish that this danger actually exists to any significant degree. Again, the State has the burden to establish that § 941.24(1) satisfies intermediate scrutiny, and it must do so by showing the existence of real, not merely conjectural, harm. See Turner Broad. Sys.[, Inc. v. F.C.C.], 512 U.S. [622,] 664 [(1994)]. Thus, on the record before us, we are not convinced that § 941.24(1) serves an important governmental objective.
Finally, the court doesn’t address how a person can buy a switchblade and transport it home with the statute’s broad prohibition still intact. As another court has held, however, “the core right to possess a protected weapon in the home for self-defense necessarily entails the right, subject to reasonable regulation, to engage in activities necessary to enable possession in the home,” State v. DeCiccio, 105 A.3d 165, 207 (Conn. 2014), and buying and transporting the knife are surely “activities necessary to enable possession in the home.” Even under Hamdan‘s now-invalid pre-Heller balancing test, the exercise of core Second Amendment rights might provide a “constitutional defense” to an otherwise valid regulation of the right. 264 Wis. 2d 433, ¶86. Of course, § 941.24(1)’s burdening of “activities necessary to enable possession in the home” is one more reason why it should ultimately be struck down on its face, and not just as applied.
Peter Heyne November 25, 2015, 9:31 am
¶ 16 n.8, citing a 2012 Michigan case, also suggests that the 2nd Amendment can also protect other currently proscribed weapons like Tasers and stun guns. So challenge Wis. Stat. § 941.295. Possession of electric weapon!
But given Heller and Pocian (2012 WI App 58)’s clear language upholding strict weapon prohibitions for felons (even non-violent felons), Wis. Stat. § 941.26(4)(L) (possession of pepper spray by a convicted felon) will certainly stand.
Next post: Habeas petitioner’s speedy trial claim stopped cold
Previous post: Expunction: Not quite the “fresh start” that Hemp advertised