Posted on 01/24/2026 4:18:02 AM PST by marktwain
In 1998, Wisconsin concluded the lengthy process to amend the state constitution to add an amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment passed by a super majority, 74% to 26%.
The amendment is straightforward.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
The amendment was codified in the Wisconsin state constitution as section 25 of Article I. Court cases challenging Wisconsin laws that infringed on rights protected by section 25 began fairly quickly.
In July of 2003, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found the state ban on the carry of concealed weapons to be presumptively legal, in State v. Cole. They stated that a Constitutional amendment is still subject to “reasonable regulation“. The court essentially neutered the right to keep and bear arms as a significant protection of people’s rights. The court had a nominally conservative majority. The case was heard five years before the Heller decision in 2008. Cole was an ugly case with the defendant a convicted drug dealer. In June of 2016, another case was being heard in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This case also challenged state law. In this case, the defendant was squeaky clean. The case was, in essence, a prequel to the famous Kyle Rittenhouse case in 2021. The prosecutor was the infamous Thomas Binger, the same as for Rittenhouse. The judge was none other than the now-famous Honorable Bruce Schroeder. The case was clear-cut. Guy Smith had a revolver in his truck for his protection. Thomas Binger prosecuted the case through the point where it was going to trial. Judge Schroeder presided over the case. Judge Schroeder correctly ruled against the prosecution’s motion before the trial. Binger dropped all charges, then refused to give
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
It is a shame that with a strongly worded constitutional amendment we have to pass another wording to protect it.
The purple haired loonies out of madison want everyone unarmed. Their gay man friends agree.
Does living in cities make you stupid? I the degree of stupidity dependent on city size or is there a certain size that over that the average IQ drops to Somali level. Or is it just that people who live in cities think they’re superior and fall for every current trend because in their arrogance they have given up critical thinking. Look at NYC their current socialist madness isn’t a sudden phenomenon. When I lived there 55 years ago they were mostly Democrats, but every one was horrified at the thought of people owning guns.
That wording, to me, seems completely opposite of the wording and intention of the 2nd amendment to The Constitution of the United States. Wouldn't the 10th amendment void this Wisconsin amendment...because the right to keep and bear arms IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution?
Wouldn’t the 10th amendment void this Wisconsin amendment...because the right to keep and bear arms IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution?
I don’t see the contradiction. Could you explain how there is a conflict with the U.S. Second Amendment?
Why? Anything they write will still be subject to the 2nd Amendment.
Better no charges being brought.
Better local protection.
Some states are resisting the U.S. Supreme Court direction.
“..lawful purpose” There, right there, is the loophole thru which every gun control law/regulation will continue to be implemented.
Commie trash will simply declare that “such and such” is not a lawful purpose — and, away we go to SCOTUS once again.
Such qualifiers are deliberately put there by the gun control nuts . If non-controllers sign onto this, they are stupid.
US Const say “..keep and bear arms.” No justification.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."
Big difference in those two sentences.
The second amendment in the US Constitution states no reasons for keeping and bearing arms. Nor does it bestow any rights. It takes for granted that we have them and they shall not be infringed.
The amendment in the Wisconsin Constitution does. Its language seems to bestow such rights...and only for lawful reasons.
The second amendment was written for one reason...having nothing to do with...security, defense, hunting, recreation.
In fact, it was written with a very unlawful purpose in mind. Under British law.
At least to my eye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.