Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules for First and Second Amendments in Armslist Case

Justice Law Legal Lawsuit Judges Jury Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules for First and Second Amendments in Armslist Case

Wisconsin -(Ammoland.com)- The Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld a lower court's decision that Armslist's ads and tools are protected by the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  The act was designed to preserve freedom of speech on the Internet by immunizing web sites for the publishing of third party content. Armslist facilitates the communication between willing firearm sellers and buyers.  The lower court had been overturned by a Wisconsin Court of Appeals. This decision protects both First and Second Amendment rights. From fox6now.com:

Radcliffe Haughton’s wife, Zina Daniel Haughton, had taken out a restraining order against him that prohibited him from possessing a firearm. But he bought a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition from a person he met through Armslist.com, according to court documents.

His estranged wife had been granted a restraining order on 18 October.

From court records, Haughton purchased the gun from a private party, instead of trying to purchase it at a federally licensed dealer. He placed an ad to purchase a gun on 20 October. The ad was answered and he purchased a Glock .40 caliber pistol the same day, from a private party.

The next day, on the morning of 21 October, he murdered his wife and two other women, wounding others, then killing himself.

The Communications Decency Act protects First Amendment Rights on the Internet.

The lawsuit against Armslist is a direct attack against both First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. If successful, the lawsuit would have chilled the ability of websites to allow the free exchange of information on their sites by third parties.

If successful, the lawsuit would have chilled the ability of Americans to buy and sell firearms without government permission. No website, advertiser, or even gun show or gun club would allow private parties to meet arrange private sales of firearms using their facilities without the threat of a lawsuit. If the lawsuit had been successful, such exchanges would have made them liable for the criminal actions of others.

In the famous Heller decision, Justice Scalia mentioned that it might be Constitutional to regulate commercial sales of guns. Implied is that it would not be Constitutional to regulate private sales or the manufacture of guns by individuals for their own use.  From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court decision recognizes the intent and purpose of the CDA. The court explains the CDA does not have a “good faith” requirement. Websites only have to provide a neutral tool to their users. From Daniel v. Armslist,  courthousenews.com:

¶37 One obvious problem with Daniel's argument is that § 230(c)(1) contains no good faith requirement. Therefore, the issue is not whether Armslist knew, or should have known, that its site would be used by third parties for illegal purposes. Instead, the issue is whether Armslist was an information content provider with respect to Linn's advertisement. Armslist.com's provision of an advertising forum and the related search functions are all “neutral tools” that can be used for lawful purposes. Sales of firearms by private sellers are lawful in Wisconsin. Further, private sellers in Wisconsin are not required to conduct background checks, and private sales are not subject to any mandatory waiting period. Accordingly, the option to search for offers from private sellers is a tool that may be used for lawful purposes.

A Ninth Circuit case about the CDA buttresses the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision by showing “intent is irrelevant” for the CDA. From Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com:

Such close cases, we believe, must always be resolved in favor of immunity, les we cut the heart out of section 230 by forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that they promoted or encouraged——or at least tacitly assented to——the illegality of third parties.”

It is impossible to know if Radcliffe Haughton would have been dissuaded from murdering his wife and two other women if he had been unable to obtain a firearm through Armslist. There are two many imponderables. He might have been able to obtain a firearm at a federal dealer. We know that prohibited persons are not always listed to the NICS databases immediately. He might have purchased a gun from a newspaper ad, or from a friend, or at a gun club. He might have pursued a sale on the black market. He might have used another weapon, such as gasoline and arson of his wife's place of work. These are all imponderables we cannot know.

There are other crimes that might be prevented if we eliminate First and Second Amendment freedoms. We know great harm will occur if we eliminate the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect our inherent rights as people. It has served us very well.  It would be foolish to discard these protections in the hope the government could then prevent a few more crimes.

Homicide rates are not affected by the ownership of firearms. Homicides committed with firearms may be affected, but not overall homicide rates.

Those who push for perfect safety in protection by the government are pursuing a chimera. Perfection does not exist. Give a government too much power, and hundreds of thousands, or millions are likely to suffer, as we often saw in the 20th century.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 33
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    11 Comment threads
    22 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    19 Comment authors
    Ooh RahOohrahTSgt BJoeUSoonerTionico Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    TSgt B
    Guest
    TSgt B

    Dean, I would like to ask your permission to use some of the info in your articles. I will be making several presentations before the state House and Senate in favor of the PRO GUN side.

    m.
    Guest
    m.

    ow, were you a marine-ette?

    Mark Johll
    Guest
    Mark Johll

    Och is obviously a complete moron or a paid troll for one of the many organizations trying to take our rights from us. Which is it Och?

    JPM
    Guest
    JPM

    If the “Restraining Orders” followed due process (Red Flag laws don’t either) and allowed for fair treatment in an open court for both sides, then there shouldn’t be a problem with them, but they don’t. The occasional/rare example, as the one cited in this article, pales with the number of instances (80+%) where the restraining orders are tools used by divorce lawyers for leverage in court and by ex-spouses and ex-girlfriends, to exact retaliation for some imagined or perceived wrongs ie. revenge, not justice.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    the vast majority of divorce lawyers draft a restraining order as a matter of course, and quiely add it to the pile of papers for the litigant to sign, who nearly always simply signs them all/ More paperwork, more fees. Simple as that. And no, ther eis NOT any noral means of contesting them. And a huge number of them never find their way to the respondant. who, having been booted from his own house, ends up being rather transient for a season, hopeing against home things can be “fixed up” before long, so he never even knows about the… Read more »

    CRAIG
    Guest
    CRAIG

    A PERSON CAN BUY A GUN ANYWHERE HE CHOSES. IF HE IS LEGALLY ABLE TO BUY A WEAPON HE WILL…NO MATTER WHAT LAWS OR RESTRAINGHTS ARE IN PLACE ONE CAN BUY FROM OTHER PLACES….THE US GUN BLACK MARKET IS HUGH AND WILLL QUADRUPLE IF GUN CONTROL LAWS GO INTO PLACE..

    Oohrah
    Guest
    Oohrah

    Who said it has to be a fire arm? More deaths are by fists, or even a hammer. Nothing but pure drama, and a restraining order that may or may not be followed ….or not reasonable. One case where a law enforcement’s divorce, and a firearm is necessary to his job had to be dealt with. They can be issued on anyone even without any history of a problem. Like suicide, a firearm is convenient, but unavailable, there are many and all ways when the determination is made or it goes beyond emotional limits. Common issue in divorce cases but… Read more »

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    So, allowing an abuser to have a firearm DESPITE a court restraining order is good policy??????? Sure.
    And if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their ass when they jumped. What an idiotic position to take. NOPWHERE does the Second Amendment, written when what;e oil lamps were in vogue say that a domestic abuser should have a gun. How stupid. And that applies directly to all the abusive spouse gun owners who post here AND the clowns that published this crazed article. Sick sick sick.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Where in the 2A or any of the other 26 amendments to the Constitution or in all of the laws in the USA state he was “allowed” to murder someone? Where in all of those amendments and laws does it state he was legally allowed to possess and use a firearm in the commission of a crime? If frogs had wings and still bumped their asses on landing, who would you then rail against? Can you prove they wouldn’t? I have seen birds land poorly and they have had wings for millennia. The First amendment was written back then, too.… Read more »

    Walt
    Guest
    Walt

    Och Will, you state: “written when what;e (sic) oil lamps were in vogue” ha, you think “domestic abuser” just came along this year? I got news for ‘ya as long as there has been mankind these has been “abuse”. The founding fathers were well aware of “abuse”. Yet wrote “shall not be infringed”. Eliminating all firearms everywhere will not affect abuse, nor prevent domestic killing, only enable tyranny.

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    I agree with your assessment. One point, In the Federalist Papers, there is a comment that says something like this; “The One who is WANTON to harm others should not have weapons.” (My words might be different, however, the WANTON part is correct.)

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Musta been a victu of a gummit skewlm Och. Read for comprehension much? NOWHERE in the piece does it say he was a “domestic abuser”. His wife left him and filed a restraining order is ALL we know. Could have been for spite, to “get even”, a :”legal” form of domestic abuse on the part of the estranged wife….. and NO ONE said he SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED to have a gun. READ the issues of the case…. if the advert for the Glock he bought been published in the local town fishwrap, would the PAPER be held liable for… Read more »

    Oohrah
    Guest
    Oohrah

    Och the firearms owner did go through a background check and has no history of a criminal. No drug or Alcohol abuse. What makes you the judge that he is abusive? I have known abusive women at times! Family domestic are treated as felonies, and he would not be a firearms owner if convicted. You have him tried, convicted, and stripped. Now as he sits in the jail cell from your conviction, you get to help pay for the welfare it’s going to take to raise that family. The other judge can’t award child support and alimony because you rather… Read more »

    Huapakechi
    Guest
    Huapakechi

    If the woman was so justifiably worried about her ex, why didn’t she arm herself? A “protection order” is usually worth less than the paper its printed on. The police are not required to protect citizens from violence, per multiple supreme court decisions.

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    Some people don’t like shooting others. Ypu’re arguing that. a known abuser should be allowed to have a gun?????? Idiotic. Apparently you’re not aware of the number of female intimate partners who get shot by their partners annually in America. Maybe you might want to read about that. Here..ViolencePolicy.org

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Och, isn’t shooting someone without legal justification, illegal? Isn’t it already illegal to assault or murder someone? What other laws do you propose that will make people intent on harm or murder prevent them from doing such? Of the approximate 2,000 killed by hands, feet, and fists in the USA annually, what additional laws do you propose to prevent those murders? Should we have universal background checks on hands, feet and fists? How about a “hands, feet, and fists”-free zone? It should work as well as the drug-free and gun-free zones do. I live close to an elementary school and… Read more »

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Your first faux pas is to cite Violence Policy Sentre as a reliable resource. Give that one up. Next, NOWHERE does the article state he was an abuser, ALL we know is that he and his wife were “estranged”. Maybe she burned the toast too many times and he kicked her out. Maybe she wanted a cat and he would not allow that, preferring dogs, which he hates. I do not like shooting others, either. But I dislike shooting others just a little bit less than I dislike the prospect of those round about me, for whom I care VERY… Read more »

    joefoam
    Guest
    joefoam

    Had it not been for Armslist it would have been the dark web or the black market. People who push the ‘universal background check’ fail to acknowledge the existence of those entities. If you want something, and are willing to pay for it, you will get it, drugs, alcohol, guns, it make no difference. Happy to see that the courts in this case weren’t packed with activists.

    greg s
    Guest
    greg s

    the last four paragraphs are very insightful. violence began with Cain and Abel, and will continue while there are people on earth. you cannot legislate away violent intent and mental instability. if someone is intent on hurting anyone else they will accomplish that goal no matter the weapon. If I pick up a pencil and stab you in the eye, is that not a assault weapon? many other things kill people at a much higher rate than firearms, but firearms are the only thing that will stop someone from using those things to harm you. since the beginning of history… Read more »

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    Wow a bible beater argues for more guns. How intelligent. Whackadoodle.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Ouch, wow, the self-appointed court jester shows his/her ignorance and stupidity once again.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    you might do well to take out your OWN copy of that bible and READ it. A few crumbs of wisdom MIGHT rub off onto you. That Book is very clear as to our responsibility to preserve our own lives, and those of other innocents who are around us. Not only is it replete with examples of these things, there are clear commands to take heed to the safety and security of those round about us. WHO IS your neighbour? Jesus was asked this, then provided an illustrative story so the questioner had no doubt who IS his neighbour. Yes,… Read more »

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Actually, police do indeed have a responsibility to protect the general population as a whole, but not to protect any specific individuals within the population.

    Other than that one minute point (and we know that is exactly what Greg meant), I find no incorrect or misleading statement in Greg’s post. Not one.

    Your childish and sarcastic insults, with no other explanation of motive, clearly demonstrate exactly who the “whackadoodle” is here…

    Ooh Rah
    Guest
    Ooh Rah

    Yes indeed. Surprised if they played Judge, Bible and and all, how many of those nay sayers would jump in and support that family and child support, pay the man’s incarceration costs, and make up the difference of his salary to continue on with family costs. He may never find a job that paid as previous one did. Pretty plain it’s possible Uch or what ever the name, had a bad experience sometime during life. I’m thankful she isn’t a Judge. Think of how many lives she could ruin with a mind set like that. Strange but she has at… Read more »

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    I concur with your comment. One point; It is not only our RIGHT to self-defense, but is is our RESPONSIBILITY to defend ourselves and our family. Thus sayeth the SUPREME COURT JUDGES!

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Precisely! All rights carry concomitant responsibility.

    Ooh Rah
    Guest
    Ooh Rah

    Right on. Use Care as about time for hibernation for those large ones to come forth. Be nice if you could keep some of the cool and rain up there. It’s been a coolish rainy spring start with plenty of great fire load just a growing nicely. Second cutting on the pasture, but it’s looking like it was be a constant battle until the burn season. Sounds like you are enjoying and acclimating to your environment! Good to hear from you off and on!

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Guest
    Green Mtn. Boy

    It’s always a good day when the Constitution is up held,now as to how the case actually got their in the first place that is the problem.

    Ton E
    Guest
    Ton E

    The fact the case made it that far is a travesty.

    och will
    Guest
    och will

    Abusers should not have firearms. Hundreds of women are killed by gun owning abusers annually in America. Looks like you could give a sh/t. Impressive. Take the false patriotism and gun sales propgfanada somewhere else Rambo.
    Stunned that the knuckle draggers at AmmoLAnd would ac tally posts an anti gun safety arctic le like this… Dumber than a sack of hammers and much more dangerous.

    Michael J
    Guest
    Michael J

    Hundreds? Easy to throw out numbers, but the news won’t verify your statistics. Since every crime involving a gun is instantly reported.
    Looks like you’re the one spreading the propaganda.

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Och, it is already illegal for them to possess or acquire firearms. What laws do you propose will actually prevent them from illegally acquiring them? When you figure that out, we should use laws to prevent illegal distribution, sale, possession and use of illegal drugs. We might prevent hundreds of thousands of overdoses and deaths annually, a number orders of magnitude greater than murders, but you obviously don’t care how many die, you just want to rail against the firearms that you irrationally fear.

    Robert
    Guest
    Robert

    Och,whats your point? At l0cal gunstore 1 nite.guy came in all nervous wanting the cheepest shotgun for sale n 5 rounds ammo.store owner declined him out of reason. That guy took a knife n sliced his wife n kids up let em bleed to death.