Given how expensive it is to challenge a gun control law in court (taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court can easily end up costing 2A advocates hundreds of thousands of dollars), it's always nice to get a win without having to spend years in court battling over a Second Amendment violation. In Wisconsin, the threat of litigation was enough to persuade the state's Department of Natural Resources to rescind a decades-old rule prohibiting anglers from possessing a firearm rather than try to defend the rule in federal court. 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources agreed in an order released Wednesday to rescind the rule barring anglers from carrying firearms. The lawsuit challenging the ban as a violation of the constitutional right to bear arms was brought by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The DNR agreed to rescind the rule, enacted in 1999, as soon as possible and both sides submitted a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The rule was originally put in place to stop anglers from using a firearm to shoot fish, but as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports, the rule has essentially prohibited the lawful carrying of firearms while fishing. 

Skylar Croy, associate counsel for WILL, said regulation created concerns it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

[Plaintiff Travis] Kobs, according to the complaint, is an avid outdoorsman who also has a permit to conceal-carry a pistol for self-defense, which the regulation prevented him from doing while fishing.

The complaint also notes that musky fishing in Wisconsin can be dangerous, and until 1966, anglers often carried small guns to kill or incapacitate the fish before reeling them in. It also said Wisconsin's rules regarding fishing with firearms are some of the most restrictive in the nation.

Because there is a risk that a gun may be used for fishing, the regulation prohibited the possession of firearms completely.

According to the DNR, it will still be illegal to shoot a fish, so I suppose the issue of shooting musky remains unresolved, but this is still a big step in the right direction and it's great to see the agency decide not to defend the indefensible. 

There's no way that all waterways, lakes, ponds, and streams in the state are "sensitive places" where guns could be prohibited without violating the Second Amendmetn, even if the "gun-free zones" only applied to anglers. The rule was bound to be tossed out by the courts. It's just a shame that it took the threat of litigation to get the DNR to rescind their ridiculous statute rather than the agency repealing the rule of its own accord. 

Besides the two-legged predators who might see a fisherman as an easy target for a robbery, the state is also home to a booming population of black bears, bobcats, and a smaller but stable population of wolves who could pose a threat to anglers casting their lines in remote parts of the state. They might not be allowed to use a shotgun on a musky before reeling it in, but at least they'll soon be able to protect themselves with a firearm while they're enjoying the great outdoors.