It's a local victory at this point, but a case decided in Wisconsin yesterday might be setting the scene for a larger decision upstream in the legal process. The Clark County, Wisconsin Circuit Court dismissed a case brought by the state against Joshua D. Schultz for carrying a knife covered by his shirt. Schultz was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a knife in the waistband of his pants which was covered by his shirt. The State alleged that was in conflict with Wisconsin Statues (941.23). Schultz' attorneys, however, countered the statute was unconstitutional "on its face, and because the statute is overbroad, abridges his privileges or immunities as a United States citizen, and violates his due process rights as granted by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments." The Court, citing the recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, found the law to be, as the defendant charged, too-limiting and broad in its scope. Citing an uncertainty in the level of scrutiny which should be applied to the regulation derived from the Supreme Court cases, the Wisconsin Circuit Court applied strict scrutiny to the analysis. Strict scrutiny, the Court said, was a reasonable level of evaluation, since the law "absolutely prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons for all persons in Wisconsin, except 'peace officers.'" Applying an absolute standard to an absolute law, the Court reasoned the statute took away the rights guaranteed in Heller and McDonald as an "individual and fundamental right" by failing the three tests of strict scrutiny: justification by a compelling governmental interest; narrow tailoring (language) to achieve that interest; be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. While the court said the blanket prohibition's goal was protecting the State's "police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens" it followed an exceptionally restrictive scheme, failing the other tests of strict scrutiny. In fact, Judge Jon M. Counsell's decision cited earlier decisions, and found Statute 941.23 to be so restrictive as to prohibit an individual gun or knife owner from storing his weapons out of plain sight in a gun cabinet, closet or drawer of his own home, a businessman from storing his goods out of sight in a "rough neighborhood", loggers, hikers, cross country skiers and "other outdoor persons" from keeping his weapon out of sight, but available, in the event of a wolf, bear or other wild animal attack, or prohibiting judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court staff and child support agency workers (and many others) that have received legitimate death threats from carrying a concealed weapon. With the decision, it appears the stage is set for a more broad challenge to the statute. We're following the story, and we'll keep you updated. Meanwhile, some retailers, wholesalers and distributors are hopping mad at a couple of gun companies for their slashing of retail prices, primarily on their modern-style rifles. While the so-called "black gun bubble" fueled unprecedented sales over the past couple of years, there has been a decided deflation of that bubble. It's not unexpected, but it has meant a slowing in sales. In response, at least one manufacturer has made significant price cuts in its 5.56/2.23 caliber rifle offerings. On the surface, I'd thought that might actually be a good thing for everyone, but I have been corrected in that thinking by distributors and retailers who are sitting on rifles for which they paid significantly more for - wholesale- than they're being offered out to consumers for today. "It's the same thing we've seen before," an agitated store owner told me, "they dump prices to raise their sales numbers, and we're left holding the bag. I made a significant investment in their rifles because I believed they're very good guns. Now, they're leaving me - and my distributor- hanging because they're doing nothing to make up the price differences with us." That might sound like whining - if it were a consumer. Retailers and their suppliers, however, are the people who buy rifles on a recurring basis. While their on-hand inventory may vary, they're going to always have some quantity of popular firearms on hand, either in the wholesale warehouses or on store shelves. If the price is dropped with no warning - or price protection- they are faced with having to eat those losses. It's an interesting story- and we're watching it closely. If it continues, the deflation of the firearms sales bubble may put severe strains on relationships if manufacturers do, in fact, cut prices without doing anything to protect their channel partners from undue losses. If a company's not seeking to go direct-to-retailer or even direct-to-consumer with its products, it seems a strange way to keep partners. We'll keep you posted. --Jim Shepherd