Quote:
Originally Posted by wiphan
Got me.
Now how about those 220,000 + citizens of the state of WI that are disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. Isn't that same segment disenfranchised with the current gun laws? Why don't you care about that since that right is guaranteed under the US constitution? Anyone without an ID can't legally own a gun yet the constitution states
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
What is the difference between that right and the right to vote or do you just choose which rights you fight for and let the others go
|
Guns laws have nothing to do with this. That's merely an argument for why the proposed new law was written.
What is pertinent now is Wisconsin's Voting Laws, which are very well-written and one of the most detailed and inclusive of all the fifty states, regarding outlining Wisconsin citizens freedom to vote.
Again: the judge itemized in detail the reasons within the temporary injunction that this newly proposed law is objectively measurably restrictive to certain groups,
disenfranchising them, and thus goes against current Wisconsin Voting Law regarding maintaining Wisconsin voters rights.
The only way the new law gets implemented is if that changes.
So if I were you, I would quote sections out of the PDF detail of the Judge's decision - the actual reasons why the new law does not comply with the lawful standards Wisconsin has established - and show why the judge is incorrect in interpreting the law in that specific way.