Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Wisconsin Circuit Court Sides With Gun Owners!

  1. #1
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Circuit Court Sides With Gun Owners! Monday, September 24, 2007 Today, Monday, September 24, the 31st Circuit Court of Milwaukee County ruled that the Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) statute was unconstitutional as applied to a particular defendant -- in this case, a pizza delivery driver who carried a gun for self-defense on the job, after being robbed repeatedly in a high crime area.

    Andres Vegas is a pizza delivery driver and has been robbed and mugged while attempting to deliver a pizza on four different occasions. The first time was in March of 2005. The second time was July 14, 2006, when Vegas was attacked and threatened at gunpoint. Vegas, armed with a firearm, exercised his constitutional right of self-defense and shot one of the assailants. Vegas was not charged with the crime of carrying concealed and was ruled as acting in self defense. Not only was his firearm confiscated at the time of arrest, but it was never returned. He was subsequently told by the prosecuting District Attorney that if he were to use a firearm in self-defense again he would be prosecuted.

    On September 13, 2006, an unarmed Vegas -- acting under the orders of the District Attorney to avoid prosecution -- was robbed, beaten, and sprayed with pepper spray by three assailants. Consequently Vegas went out and purchased another firearm. On January 4, 2007, Vegas was again attempting to deliver a pizza when two men approached him and pointed a gun in his face. This time, he responded by again exercising his right to self-defense and shot his assailant in the hip. Vegas then secured his assailant' s firearm along with his, placed them both on the roof of his car, dialed 911, and waited for the police to arrive. The DA determined that he acted in self defense, but he was subsequently charged with CCW for the moments before he was assaulted and defended.

    Even though this charge was brought forward by the DA’s office, the court has ruled in favor of Vegas, saying:

    “Defendant Vegas has demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances that warrant his concealed weapon…Vegas legally purchased his firearm for the purpose of security and protection. There is a strong inference that Vegas’ concealed firearm has saved his life during these violent assaults…Vegas has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon.”

    “This Court is not convinced that there are any reasonable alternatives that would have secured Vegas’ safety. Vegas' concealed weapon has most likely saved his life on several occasions; this the State cannot ignore. The State has conceded that Vegas did not have an unlawful purpose for concealing a weapon. Given the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant has affirmatively answered the two-prong analysis as outlined in Hamdan and Fisher and thus grants the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”

    This is a giant step forward in the battle for Right-to-Carry in Wisconsin. This court ruling will likely lead to future citizens exercising their right to self-defense by carrying concealed firearms. Unfortunately this will likely lead to subsequent prosecutions, but this circuit court ruling will become a perfect example of law-abiding citizens' need for concealed firearms for protection against crime, especially in high crime areas such as Milwaukee.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3242

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    This is an OUTSTANDING ruling.

    And it points out why it is so very important to get out and vote during those spring elections for Judge. Whether it's a State Supreme Court Judge, a Circuit Court Judge, or even a local municiple Judge, it is crucial that we be educated on them and vote accordingly.

    Especially here in Wisconsin where are efforts in the legislature are thwarted by Governor vetos.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    So, in Wisconsin, you must get attacked several times, and then you have a constitutional right to carry concealed. If, however, you have not been attacked by armed criminals several times, you must carry openly.

    Am I reading this right?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    So, in Wisconsin, you must get attacked several times, and then you have a constitutional right to carry concealed. If, however, you have not been attacked by armed criminals several times, you must carry openly.

    Am I reading this right?
    Yeah, it's a cluster situation here. But we gotta start somewhere and this ruling is a good one.


  5. #5
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    So, in Wisconsin, you must get attacked several times, and then you have a constitutional right to carry concealed. If, however, you have not been attacked by armed criminals several times, you must carry openly.

    Am I reading this right?
    Frankly, yes.

    In other words, victims of multiple violent crimes have more constitutional rights in Wisconsin than those lucky enough to have avoided such encounters.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    The Second Amendment Foundation just weighed in on this case, poking a stick in Gov. Doyle's eye.

    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=242





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I think that the Wisconsin Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 25) speaks for itself.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Here's my take on the situation.

    Wisconsin Code 167.31 is constitutionally infirm entirely, as it prevents all lawful open carry in a vehicle.

    Wisconsin Code 941.23, and the court rulings interpreting concealed, is infirm because of the fact that no one can really carry openly without not seeing the handgun.

    Wisconsin Code 948 (which applies a Class I felony count to any gun carry within 1000 feet of school grounds) is completely constitutionally infirm.

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    The Second Amendment Foundation just weighed in on this case, poking a stick in Gov. Doyle's eye.

    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=242





    "Wisconsin is an open carry state, as affirmed in the case of State v Hamdan,” Gottlieb noted, “and even Gov. Doyle seemed to recognize this in March 2006 when he told a Lake Delton crowd that ‘If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip.’ Perhaps Wisconsinites ought to take Doyle’s advice. Remember when Ohio citizens did the same thing? The Ohio Legislature passed a concealed carry law in record time, and then at the next election, citizens elected a new governor. Perhaps there’s a lesson in the Ohio experience. "

    Open Carry walks? So when do they start? California doesn't even have a recognized "right" and more people are beginning to talking about an open carry march: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=70071

    It's past time for Wisconsin too!


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    SAF Says Milwaukee Judge Understands State Constitution Better Than Doyle
    BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Milwaukee County,
    WI Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan understands the Wisconsin Constitution
    far better than Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature's Democrat majority, the
    Second Amendment Foundation said today.

    Judge Noonan nullified charges Monday against a Milwaukee pizza
    delivery man who had been accused of shooting two would-be robbers, ruling
    that a state law prohibiting concealed carry -- at least as it applies to
    the case against Andres Vegas -- is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 25
    of the Wisconsin State Constitution affirms that "The people have the right
    to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any
    other lawful purpose."

    "Anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle and his cronies in the Legislature should take
    a lesson from the Vargas case and stop interfering with the civil rights of
    their constituents," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Twice in the past
    five years, Doyle has blocked sensible concealed carry legislation.
    Evidently he would rather see hard-working citizens like Vargas be robbed,
    and perhaps worse, than have the ability to defend themselves against a
    criminal element that has been emboldened by Doyle's disarmament policies."

    Gottlieb said Judge Noonan's ruling, although it only applies to the
    Vegas case, should serve as a catalyst for passage of a state concealed
    carry law. He said the judge clearly recognized the right of a citizen like
    Mr. Vegas to defend himself, and how the state's concealed carry
    prohibition impairs that right and the right to keep and bear arms under
    the state constitution.

    "Wisconsin is an open carry state, as affirmed in the case of State v
    Hamdan," Gottlieb noted, "and even Gov. Doyle seemed to recognize this in
    March 2006 when he told a Lake Delton crowd that 'If you want to carry a
    gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip.' Perhaps Wisconsinites ought to take
    Doyle's advice. Remember when Ohio citizens did the same thing? The Ohio
    Legislature passed a concealed carry law in record time, and then at the
    next election, citizens elected a new governor. Perhaps there's a lesson in
    the Ohio experience.

    "Bouquets to the judge," Gottlieb observed, "but brickbats to the
    governor."

    The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation's
    oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal
    action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately
    own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more
    than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to
    better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.





    [/code] s.server=server() s.channel="News Release" s.pageName="SAF Says Milwaukee Judge Understands State Constitution Better Than Doyle" s.prop2="104" s.prop3="09-25-2007" s.prop4="" s.prop5="" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code); //--> SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    YUP!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •