While some states in the Midwest seem to be leaning more and more toward gun control, it seems that Wisconsin has lawmakers who are trying to head in the other direction. Sure, they've got a Democratic governor who is likely to veto any constitutional carry bill that comes to his desk--a bill that is on the table for discussion this year--but they're not backing down.
They've got a constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms, and they want to beef that up.
Yeah, really.
See, like a lot of state constitutions, it includes the right, but there are qualifiers here and there. A proposal is on the table for an amendment that would basically remove those qualifiers.
Elsewhere at the Capitol on Wednesday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee debated a change to the Wisconsin Constitution that would expand how the state defines the purpose of bearing arms. Currently, the state constitution says people “have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.” It states that that right is “fundamental, but it is not absolute.”
The proposed change would redefine that right as “inalienable” and that “any restriction on that right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” That refers to a high legal standard in which challenges must be motivated by achieving a compelling state interest.
That proposal would have to pass out of the state Legislature this session and next before it would go before voters. It is not subject to a governor’s veto.
While much of the rest of this article focuses on constitutional carry, which is something I'd love to see Wisconsin get, with Gov. Tony Evers still in office, that's not likely to happen.
However, putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot gets around Evers completely. It puts the power in the hands of the voters, which bypasses any veto, as noted above.
Will the voters of Wisconsin support it? That remains to be seen.
If there's an issue I have here, it's that the strict scrutiny standard is actually a lower one than what the Supreme Court ruled as applicable for gun laws in the Bruen decision. That called for a history, text, and tradition standard that overrides even a compelling state interest in restricting firearms. While state constitutions are different, the federal right to keep and bear arms reigns supreme regardless of what words are at the state level.
Of course, with that in mind, some might ask why it matters.
The simple answer is that this gives state courts two bludgeons to use to smack down gun control laws, including permitting requirements.
While constitutional carry is, currently, too hard a sell to a Democratic governor, a court can use this amendment, hypothetically, to determine that there's no compelling state interest in requiring concealed carry permits.
Intermediate scrutiny, which is what many courts used before Bruen, basically made it so the right to keep and bear arms wasn't really a right if the state really wanted to infringe upon it. While strict scrutiny isn't quite the Bruen standard, it's still a tougher hurdle for anti-gunners to clear, and that's still a good thing.
This is going to be one of the more interesting stories to watch this year. If it goes anywhere, and it's too early to tell, this could be a bit of a game-changer for Wisconsin.
We will, of course, be monitoring it as things develop, but I'd love to see other states do things like this to get around anti-gun governors in relatively pro-gun states.
It's not like anti-gunners wouldn't try it if they thought they could get away with it, now is it? We all know they'd do it in a heartbeat.
