Candidates divided over guns, NRA
Screnock endorsed by firearms group; Dallet says ‘no reason’ for AR-15
MADISON - Guns have emerged as a central issue in this spring’s race for state Supreme Court, with one candidate winning the backing of the National Rifle Association and the other calling for keeping “weapons of mass destruction” from criminals.
Sauk County Circuit Judge Michael Screnock secured the NRA’s endorsement last month but isn’t saying whether he believes two major gun rights cases were decided properly. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet said she thought the rulings — one by the U.S. Supreme Court, one by the Wisconsin Supreme Court — were made by “activist” justices.
Dallet has backed tighter gun regulations, particularly in light of the Feb. 14 shooting that claimed 17 lives at a Florida high school. Screnock said it isn’t up to courts to determine the best way to curb gun violence and criticized Dallet for taking a stance on an issue that could come before the high court.
The matter is the latest to expose an ideological divide in the race to replace Justice Michael Gableman, who is not seeking a second term. The election is April 3.
Screnock, who was appointed to the bench in 2015 by GOP Gov. Scott Walker, said he has handled one case centered on gun rights but couldn’t say much about it because it is ongoing.
Dallet, who has been a judge for a decade, has had more than 100 cases in which people have sought to recover guns that were taken from them. In one, she eventually returned a pistol to a gun rights activist who said it had been illegally seized but whose therapist initially said she was at risk of harming herself.
Dallet calls decisions ‘activist’
In a 5-4 ruling in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment extends the right to bear arms to individuals, not just militias.
Screnock said he had not read the decision and so did not know if he agreed with its reasoning. But he said he recognized that the precedent it set is binding
on other courts.
Dallet said lower courts needed to defer to the ruling but that the decision left the government with the ability to restrict access to certain types of weapons. In a statement, she said she was concerned the case was “an example of an activist court legislating to create a right.”
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 5-2 ruling that found Madison’s transit agency could not ban passengers from bringing guns on its buses.
Through a spokesman, Screnock declined to say whether he agreed with the ruling because a similar issue could return to the high court. Dallet said in a statement she was “concerned that the court acted in an activist manner, using the law to engineer a desired end result, rather than deferring to the Legislature.”
Dallet has sought to use Screnock’s NRA backing against him, noting in a series of tweets last month that he got his endorsement the day before Nikolas Cruz used an AR-15 to kill his classmates in Parkland, Fla.
“It’s lawful to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of dangerous criminals and those who shouldn’t have them,” she wrote in one tweet. “I value human lives over money. My opponent cannot say the same.”
And in an interview last month with Devil’s Advocates Radio, she said there is “no reason” for the AR-15 and that it is “not a gun that should be sold in the United States.”
Dallet said she used the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” to refer to semiautomatic weapons like those used in last month’s shooting in Florida and one in October in Las Vegas.
In seeking the NRA’s endorsement, Screnock said little about gun rights, according to a copy of an email to the group released by Screnock’s campaign. He told the group he knows about “the dangers of legislating from the bench” and the importance of interpreting and applying laws as written.
He told reporters last week that Dallet could be forced off cases because of what she has said about guns.
”I think it’s troubling. I think it’s unfortunate,” he said. “It will cause her problems now on the Circuit Court bench. If she were to win a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it would cause her problems under our recusal rule.”
He called the Florida shooting “incredibly tragic” but said it is up to the executive and legislative branches — not courts — to decide how to respond to gun violence.
“It’s not the courts’ role to determine what the law should be,” he said. “The courts’ role is to declare what the law is based on what work the two political branches have already done. “
Dallet struck a different tone, saying she wouldn’t take a position on specific proposals but also wouldn’t be silenced.
“As a mother of three teenage girls who attend high school and college, I care about whether or not their learning is interrupted by Code Red drills, armed guards in their hallways and metal detectors at the doors,” she said in a statement. “We have a duty to share our experience and values with legislators.”
Screnock said the only gun rights case he has handled is one involving someone who had a firearm in his vehicle. The defendant is seeking to dismiss the charges and Screnock said he couldn’t discuss it in detail because the case is pending.
In 2011, Dallet handled an unusual case involving Krysta Sutterfield, a gun rights activist who has drawn attention for several incidents before and after the one involving Dallet.
Sutterfield’s doctor in 2011 called the police after Sutterfield said during a therapy session she might “blow her brains out.” Officers visited her home, seized her pistol and ammunition and took her to a mental health facility for an emergency detention.
Sutterfield, representing herself, sought the return of her gun and provided Dallet with a doctor’s letter saying she was not a threat to herself or others. Dallet left a message with the doctor to verify the letter was authentic and put off a decision on returning the gun.
Two months later — after Sutterfield obtained the services of a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases nationally — Dallet returned Sutterfield’s gun.
In all, Dallet presided over 130 cases in which people came to court seeking to recover their guns, according to her campaign. She returned them 68 times but withheld them when the guns were used in crimes, the person didn’t have proof of ownership or the person was deemed a danger.