imported post
[align=left] Here is the selected text Pvtshultz mentioned. Sorry about the font, don't know how to turn it back to normal lol.[/align]
[align=left] Ben[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created[/align]
[align=left]Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for[/align]
[align=left]security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[/align]
[align=left][1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998][/align]
[align=left]The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute.[/align]
[align=left]This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of[/align]
[align=left]review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the[/align]
[align=left]statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264[/align]
[align=left]Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.[/align]
[align=left]The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms[/align]
[align=left]are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public[/align]
[align=left]benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s[/align]
[align=left]need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an[/align]
[align=left]otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and[/align]
[align=left]bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry,[/align]
[align=left]and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately[/align]
[align=left]operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises.[/align]
[align=left]State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.[/align]
[align=left]A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may[/align]
[align=left]raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s[/align]
[align=left]interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep[/align]
[align=left]and bear arms substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment[/align]
[align=left]was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his[/align]
[align=left]or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665[/align]
[align=left]N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.[/align]
[align=left]Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to[/align]
[align=left]exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in[/align]
[align=left]the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily[/align]
[align=left]follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of[/align]
[align=left]security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations.[/align]
[align=left]An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121,[/align]
[align=left]714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.[/align]
[align=left]The most natural reading of “keep arms” in the 2nd Amendment is to have weapons.[/align]
[align=left]The natural meaning of “bear arms” is to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the[/align]
[align=left]person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready[/align]
[align=left]for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Putting[/align]
[align=left]all textual elements together, the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right[/align]
[align=left]to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights,[/align]
[align=left]the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. District of Columbia v.[/align]
Heller, 554 U. S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 128 S. Ct. 2783, (2008)