I agree with protias on all points.
As for why he's "banned",
a) it's an expression of how the board of directors of that organization feels about people who peacefully exercise their civil rights [
I think they need a new BOD]
&
b) they
think they could have him charged with trespass if he shows up again
I think they need to read the law about posting land:
943.13(1m)(b)
(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture: [up to $1000]
(b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises.
This paragraph does not apply to a licensee or out-of-state licensee
if the owner's or occupant's intent is to prevent the licensee or out-of-state licensee from carrying a firearm on the owner's or occupant's land.
I'm curious to know how many other parents were lawfully carrying (concealed) & nobody knew so nobody made a fuss? And will those parents, now thinking that they have to obey the new "keep out, evil people" signs, put up a fuss of their own?
948.55 Leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child.
(1) In this section, "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 14 years.
(2) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor [up to 9mo / $10,000] if all of the following occur:
(a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
(b) The child under par. (a) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes bodily harm or death to himself, herself or another.
Nobody has claimed there was anyone shot, luckily - and that's probably all it was.
(3) Whoever recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor [up to $500 / 30d jail] if all of the following occur:
(a) A child obtains the firearm without the lawful permission of his or her parent or guardian or the person having charge of the child.
(b) The child under par. (a) possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place or in violation of s.
941.20.
So if the kids or the guy who attempted to steal the gun are charged with / convicted of 941.20, the idiot who was negligent in storing his pistol could be charged / convicted for that.
941.20 is a much more serious crime than 948.55(3) - potential penalty of 9mo / $10,000 vs. 30d / $500.
Of course, being convicted of 948.55(3) means the state would steal & destroy his pistol.
If they go after the lesser crime just to make an example of him, and let the kids / thief skate on the more serious crimes, I'd be pretty upset with the prosecutor. Doing it the other way around makes sense.
ETA: the kids were 5 & 6 years old. No way they're competent to be charged with anything. But their parents should be proud that at least some of their instruction about gun safety paid off.
941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon
It sounds like the kids were responsible & safe (
though it would have been safer to leave it there with 1 standing by & the other going for an adult), so I don't think the DA can make a case against them either.
Not to say that s/he won't try...
DAMHIK
And how about the thief? He committed a
felony.
943.20 Theft.
(1) Acts. Whoever does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (3):
(a) Intentionally takes and carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of such property.
(3) Penalties. Whoever violates sub. (1):
(a) If the value of the property does not exceed $2,500, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor [9mo / $10,000].
...
(d) If any of the following circumstances exists, is guilty of a Class H felony [6 years / $10,000]:
5. The property is a firearm.
I think that lying about giving it to someone else + hanging onto it for an hour when it was very obvious that the police were looking for it shows pretty clear intent that he meant to keep the pistol.
Looking forward to seeing who gets charged with what in this mess.
If they're
all charged with their respective bits of idiocy, that's fair.
But if only the LAC who was an idiot gets charged (with the lowest crime of the bunch) there's a definite bias.
