In Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, a court informs the irascible character of Mr. Bumble that it assumes a level of control of his wife’s conduct. Mr. Bumble responds that “if the law supposes that, the law is a ass – a idiot.” The scene came to mind with a decision yesterday when the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4-3 in Sojenhomer v. Village of Egg Harbor that a sidewalk is not a “pedestrian way.”
Where the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland asked “why is a raven like a writing-desk?,” the Wisconsin Supreme Court asked why a sidewalk is not like a pedestrian way. The result is equally maddening.
At issue was the effort of the state to create more sidewalks. Faced with resistance from homeowners, the state was using eminent domain to simply condemn the land and claim it for sidewalks. However, Wisconsin has strong protections for home owners, including statutes expressly stating that the power of eminent domain must be “strictly construed” against the government.
Moreover, there is a statute that expressly bars the use of eminent domain to take property for “pedestrian way[s].” It defines a “pedestrian way” as “a walk designated for the use of pedestrian travel.”
To every Bumble and non-Bumble alike, that would seem to describe a sidewalk, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a usually paved walk for pedestrians at the side of a street.”
Not so says Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet:
Reading the text of this section as a whole, we find several indications that the definition of pedestrian way does not include sidewalks. For starters, both § 346.02(8)(a) and (b) use the terms “sidewalk” and “pedestrian way” in ways that signify that each term has a separate, non-overlapping meaning. … Section 346.02(8)(b) states that pedestrian ways shall be treated ‘as if’ they were sidewalks for utility installation and assessment purposes. The phrase “as if” signals that one category (pedestrian ways) should receive the same treatment as a different category (sidewalks). That is the same way the legislature used “as if” in, for example, Wis. Stat. § 53.03, which states that Wisconsin courts “may treat a foreign country as if it were a state” in guardianship proceedings. Just as foreign countries are not states, but should be treated as if they were for guardianship purposes, pedestrian ways are not sidewalks, but should be treated as if they were for utility-installation and assessment purposes.
The analogy is a poor one, in my view. The treatment of a foreign state like a domestic state captures the fact that both are governing units with similar inherent functions and powers. That is a far cry from saying a “pedestrian way” is NOT a “sidewalk.”
Justice Dallet then adds:
The language of § 346.02(8)(a) also suggests that sidewalks are not pedestrian ways. That paragraph makes the rules of the road pertaining to sidewalks also applicable to pedestrian ways. But if sidewalks are pedestrian ways, then the rules of the road applicable to sidewalks would already apply to pedestrian ways. The point here, to be clear, is not that reading the term “pedestrian way” to include sidewalks would result in surplusage….
However, that may indicate that “pedestrian ways” are a broader category than just sidewalks. It does not suggest that sidewalks are not pedestrian ways.
That seems to be the point of the dissent by Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler:
The plain language of the statute demonstrates that the term “pedestrian way” is broadly defined, and includes sidewalks. A sidewalk���—that portion of the highway created for the travel of persons on foot——is clearly a subset of pedestrian ways——walks set apart or assigned for the use of pedestrian travel. It is a straightforward, common sense interpretation of the statutory language that a “walk designated for the use of pedestrian travel” necessarily includes that part of the highway “constructed for the use of pedestrians…”
[I]n other words, a closer look at the plain meaning of the statutes reveals that all sidewalks are pedestrian ways, but that not all pedestrian ways are sidewalks….
What is particularly galling about the decision of the majority is that they avoid the required strict construction of the law against the government as inapplicable by simply declaring that there is no ambiguity in the language of the statutes, a preposterous claim that requires a level of willful judicial blindness.
The creative effort to ignore the obvious is reminiscent of the fictional Canadian case where a horse was declared a bird. Though sometimes cited as a real case, it appears to be an opinion written to show how legal interpretations can take on absurd dimensions to result in desired ends.
In Regina v. Ojibway (8 Criminal Law Quarterly 137 (1965-66)), a Canadian indigenous tribe member puts down a suffering horse but is then charged under a criminal provision for shooting a bird under the Small Birds Act (R.S.O.). Blue, J., delivers the opinion for the court, granting the appeal, saying:
For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two-legged, feather-covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals with feathers as well.
Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals “naturally covered” with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase “naturally covered” would have been expressly inserted just as “Long” was inserted in the Longshoreman’s Act.
Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purpose of this Act to be a bird, a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird.
In Wisconsin, it appears that the Supreme Court would have simply said that the pony, since a pony can be treated “as if” it is a horse, it is not a horse.
Jabberwocky.
I would wager a few bucks that if the four Justices who made this ruling do not have sidewalks in front of their homes now, and you tried to put one in they would be really pissed! I bet they would be making some legal arguments against these sidewalks that would make a contortionist laugh.
Read the statues. Pedestrian ways are different than sidewalks. They serve different functions. Sidewalks are part of the roadway as they also serve as barriers for water drainage from their raised nature. Pedestrian ways are more for recreational use as they are listed with other ways of leisure travel.
The Village of Egg Harbor must now make due on their project to include the recommendations for the intersection of County Highway G and State Highway 42 to include valid purposes in their condemnation of property belonging to Sojenhomer.
A sidewalk is an improved pedestrian way built on the side of a roadway.
A gutter is a gutter.
See Below, as Dennis the cock sucking LIAR, who falsely accused DDC of being “fine with bumstocks”, calls his LIES a “disagreement”.
There is no disagreement here Dennis, unless it is with regard to the sheer VOLUME of your lies.
Who can even count them. Why is that?
Because Dennis McIntyre is a LYING COCK SUCKER.
See below as Dennis runs his ignorant mouth again.
Dennis is a fvcking LIAR
No one here said bump stocks are OK. NO ONE.
NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON
Thats not the question, Dennis Brown-Jackson. Get a grip.
And I don’t care what that lying, cock sucking democrat said on the floor.
Did you read the bill?? No, you didn’t. You just ran your mouth out of turn again.
See below as Dennis the COCK SUCKER lies again, and accuses DDC of being “for bumpstocks”
Can Dennis make one post without lying?
No.
Why is that?
Because he is a LYING COCK SUCKER
By the way, Dennis the lying cocksucker, that cock sucking lying democrat had 3-1/2 years to introduce legislation to codify what was well known to be an unlawful overreach of power by the ATF.
WHY DIDN’T HE???
See below, as Dennis the cock sucking LIAR gets the show vote in the Senate shoved up his f@ggot ass.
“This bill may be called the BUMP Act, but it’s not really about bump stocks,” Ricketts said. “This bill is about banning as many firearm accessories as possible and giving ATF broad authority to ban most semiautomatic firearms.”
Its no more about bump stocks than the “Inflation Reduction Act” was about reducing inflation.
Rube Dennis fell for the gaslight and wants Turley, whos honesty he impugns daily, to come to his rescue.
You are a bltchy little kunt, Dennis.
DDC said “No one here said bump stocks are OK.”
I won’t get involved with your disagreement with the other poster, but if by “bump stocks are OK” you mean that they are covered by the 2nd Amendment and must be permitted to be sold and used, I SAID THAT, and will continue to say it. “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Bump stocks are clearly included within the scope of “Arms”. Now, if you want to postulate that bump stocks are a relatively crude and fairly stupid way to increase rate of fire, I tend to agree, but that is NOT a justification to ban them.
Number 6,
I think bump stocks are a gimick, but agree with your overall position.
I can make a semi-auto fire like a machine gun with a good trigger. But I know a thing or three about firearms.
UpstateFarmer said: “I can make a semi-auto fire like a machine gun with a good trigger.”
I believe you. NTM that effective use of a fully automatic small to medium caliber firearm requires good trigger discipline, which nearly always means firing in short bursts. Far too many people form their opinions on firearms from watching movies. I hate to say it, but that applies to those on both sides of firearms rights issues, although the left has the greatest number of offenders (and the most egregious examples) in that regard.
relatively crude and fairly stupid way to increase rate of fire
Well, I suppose that depends on what your intentions are. If you want to shoot up a concert from a high-rise across the street, with zero marksmanship skills, seems pretty effective.
You represent the polar opposite of Dennis. You don’t see any issue with anyone having an automatic weapon. Because you don’t connect the mass shootings with the lefts attempts to abridge 2A completely.
Anonymous said: ” If you want to shoot up a concert from a high-rise across the street, with zero marksmanship skills, seems pretty effective.”
Not buying that. If someone truly wanted to wreak maximum casualties on a large crowd of innocent people, I can think of many far more effective ways to accomplish that than using a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock. Most of those would not involve a frearm at all.
“You don’t see any issue with anyone having an automatic weapon. Because you don’t connect the mass shootings with the lefts attempts to abridge 2A completely.”
I subcribe to a literal reading of the Constitution, including the 2nd A. That Constitution includes a means to change it. If anyone doesn’t like what it says about arms rights, they should feel free to try to get it changed. Alternatively, they should feel free to migrate somewhere where a ban on automatic weapons can validly be enforced. That isn’t true in the U. S., much as the courts would prefer to dance around the issue. It doesn’t even pass the Bruen decision test (which is actually fairly weak), as there were clear analogs to automatic weapons in use before 1790 (few, and expensive, but they existed). Every argument that you can make about the danger of citizens owning fully automatic weapons could subsequently be made for AR-style rifles, then all semi-automatic weapons, followed by all weapons capable of firing more than one round without reloading. That is the slippery slope that you appear to endorse. You would ultimately hand the left the victory of the complete ban on firearms for citizens that it seeks, by constantly ceding ground to their incremental attacks on the 2nd (and the natural right to self-defense).
Not buying that. If someone truly wanted to wreak maximum casualties on a large crowd of innocent people, I can think of many far more effective ways to accomplish that than using a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock.
Not sure how that is relevant at all. You sure you arent Dennis?
I dont endorse any such thing, to be clear. But in case your werent aware, Dennis’s little friend introduced a bill to eliminate pretty much anything with a rate of fire above a bolt action.
Let the dems gain the presidency, the house, and the senate, and that little gem will pass, after they abolish the filibuster.
Then when they pack the SC, it wont require a constitutional amendment either.
I hear your slippery slope argument loud and clear, and its valid. But there are 58 families from the bump stock party who couldnt care less that you can think of better ways to do it.
If you agree that bump stocks have no practical application to 2A use, which you already did, then they dont represent an abridgment to the right to keep and bear. You could make a much better argument for select fire.
Full disclosure. I never destroyed my bump stock.
Anonymous said: “If you agree that bump stocks have no practical application to 2A use, which you already did, then they dont represent an abridgment to the right to keep and bear.”
So, all the gun grabbers need to do to justify seizing firearms and firearms accessories, according to you, is claim that those firearms and/or accessories are less than optimally effective? Gee, that claim would NEVER be made disingenuously by a lefist politician seeking to remove ever more firearms from the legal marketplace, would it? You are an 1d10t, and no ally of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, or of anyone who wishes to effectively exercise his or her natural right to self defense. Are you sure that YOU are not Dennis, you fvck1ng m0r0n1c a$$w1pe?