Why Wisconsin shuld be armed - In Brief: Family robbed outside of home, Two robbed while sitting in

imported post

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/01/14/local_news/doc478c3235c31a9219892637.txt

Racine In Brief: Family robbed outside of home By Journal Times staff Monday, January 14, 2008 10:10 PM CST

A family returning home from the grocery store just after 9 p.m. Saturday was robbed by three suspects outside their house in the 1900 block of Mead Street.

Racine police said the 25-year-old mother was approaching the house with her three children when two of the suspects demanded her purse. The 29-year-old father was locking their vehicle when a third suspect pointed a gun at him. The father gave the robber his checkbook and bank card.

The couple told officers the three suspects then fled the area together.

Women shot at while in car

Four young women sitting in a parked van early Sunday morning were shot at, according to Racine police.

Reports said the driver, age 20, and three girls, ages 15, 16 and 17, were parked in the 700 block of Villa Street when they heard about five to six gunshots. The driver told officers she drove away.

Police said one shot entered the driver’s door and just missed the 20-year-old’s leg. Six spent shell casings were recovered by officers from the area.

Two robbed while sitting in car

Two men were sitting in the back seat of a car drinking and listening to music Sunday when they were robbed and assaulted.

Racine police said the men, ages 26 and 37, were sitting in a vehicle in the 1800 block of Center Street when one of two suspects opened the driver’s door. Reports said the robber pointed a gun at the 26-year-old and demanded he get out of the car. The suspect struck the man in the head with the gun and took the man’s wallet and cell phone.

Police said the 37-year-old was searched, but the robber took no property from him.

According to reports, a second suspect stood at the back of the vehicle and the two fled together.

Journal Times staff

imported post

I read the police reports (Milwaukee) almost every week. People being robbed waiting for busses in broad daylight, homes being broken into at all hours of the night, punks carrying guns everywhere when the rest of us can't legally (concealed) and when we are afraid of harrassment (open) (harrasment especially in Milwaukee county).

Wisconsin needs vermont style carry. I am fine open carrying, but when winter comes or when its raining really hard, open carry is cumbersome. I don't want to ask the government for permission to CCW. The NRA calls CCW in most states "right to carry" but they are wrong. Since it is licensed it is NOT a right, because you ask the government for permission. IF people had a "right to carry" they would never ask permission from the government. I also believe that CCW permits are a back-door way to register gun owners. I wish to conceal as much about my life as I can from the government, since it has shown it's not worthy of my trust.

The whole prohibition on CCW was passed back in the 1800's!! And it was never intended to disarm people in public, just a reasonable measure of knowing if someone's armed.

imported post

smithman wrote:

The whole prohibition on CCW was passed back in the 1800's!! And it was never intended to disarm people in public, just a reasonable measure of knowing if someone's armed.

Click to expand...

Will you/can you, please, tell me how to track the history of 941.23 (assuming that's to what you're referring)? My copy shows a late 20[sup]th[/sup] Century 'history.'

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Will you/can you, please, tell me how to track the history of 941.23 (assuming that's to what you're referring)? My copy shows a late 20[sup]th[/sup] Century 'history.'

Click to expand...

That may be my mistake, I know I have read somewhere that this is the case. But I have not verified it myself. Perhaps it would be prudent to do so before I post.

imported post

Yes, the Wisc. Statutes are turgid. Perhaps some one can provide some history on

941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221.

Click to expand...

or perhaps enlighten me on the meaning of "c. 173," since I ANAL.

imported post

Doug:
The first concealed carry law in Wisconsin was enacted in 1872. It read:

If any person shall go armed with a concealed dirk, dagger, sword, pistol, or pistols, revolver, slung-shot, brass knuckles, or other offensive and dangerous weapon, he shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not more than two years, or by imprisonment in the county jail of the proper county not more than twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, together with the costs of prosecution, or by both said fine and costs and either of said imprisonments; and he may also be required to find sureties for keeping the peace and against the further violation of this act for a term not exceeding two years: provided, that so going armed shall not be deemed a violation of this act whenever it shall be made to appear that such person had reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury or violence to his person, or to his family or property, or to any person under his immediate care or custody, or entitled to his protection or assistance, or if it be made to appear that his possession of such weapon was for a temporary purpose, and with harmless intent.

In 1878 it was changed to read:

Any person who shall go armed with any concealed and dangerous weapon, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months, or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars: provided, this section shall not apply to any policeman or officer authorized to serve process.

In 1955 it was renumbered as 941.23 and revised to read as it does today.

Any person except a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Doug:
The first concealed carry law in Wisconsin was enacted in 1872. It read:

If any person shall go armed with a concealed dirk, dagger, sword, pistol, or pistols, revolver, slung-shot, brass knuckles, or other offensive and dangerous weapon, he shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not more than two years, or by imprisonment in the county jail of the proper county not more than twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, together with the costs of prosecution, or by both said fine and costs and either of said imprisonments; and he may also be required to find sureties for keeping the peace and against the further violation of this act for a term not exceeding two years: provided, that so going armed shall not be deemed a violation of this act whenever it shall be made to appear that such person had reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury or violence to his person, or to his family or property, or to any person under his immediate care or custody, or entitled to his protection or assistance, or if it be made to appear that his possession of such weapon was for a temporary purpose, and with harmless intent.

Click to expand...

Lammie thanks.

Look at how explicit they were in banning all types of concealed weapons. If they had wanted to ban all weapons in public then they would have (thank God they didn't). For the above reason, this was never meant to fully disarm people in public...

So that begs the question, what caused the good old days of common OC in WI to go away I wonder?

imported post

Not only that, but is specifically gives an exemption for those who had reason to believe they were in danger, or hadno nefariousintent. A dangerous slope, yes, but it still shows that they valued personal carry of arms for defensive use at that time.

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Not only that, but is specifically gives an exemption for those who had reason to believe they were in danger, or hadno nefariousintent. A dangerous slope, yes, but it still shows that they valued personal carry of arms for defensive use at that time.

Click to expand...

Very true... Reminds me of Andres Vegas' case, his recent charge of CCW was dropped and the law ruled unconstitional applying to his case. Apparantly to lawfully defend yourself "illegally" carrying concealed in Milwaukee you have to be robbed 3 times (one at gunpoint if I remember correctly). But history has shown that criminals toting illegal guns could care less about a prohibition against concealed carry, in fact it makes their job much easier.......

imported post

Yes, and what the state supreme Court continues to not understand is that it only takes the first time for a victim to be killed.

imported post

Yes, and what the state supreme Court continues to not understand is that it only takes the first time for a victim to be killed.

imported post

I often wondered if there was an "equal protection under the law" lawsuit available to us at this time. If Vegas's case had gone further, it surely would have opened the door to us.

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

I often wondered if there was an "equal protection under the law" lawsuit available to us at this time. If Vegas's case had gone further, it surely would have opened the door to us.

Click to expand...

Will you expand on this comment, please?

imported post

Well, let's just say that someone is told by the court that they are exempt from certain statutory requirements (such as Judge Noonan did in Vegas's case) and the court uses, in its decision, mitigating factors such asthree past robberies. (I believe that you could also read similarily into the Fisher and Hamdan cases.) Well, what about someone who has been robbed twice? One time? Works in a bad neighborhood (also mentioned in the Vegas decision)?

At some point it becomes a question of unequal protection under the law. One may be able to use, say, the fact that off-duty peace officers are allowed to carry in cars, but not other citizens. Because one subset of the population is allowed exercise of rights, to deny that exercise to others would be unequal protection of rights under the law (14th amendment). It would really kill two birds with one stone if you could get standing, as it would also address incorporation of the 2nd amendment under the 14th. Now, one wouldn't really have to go that far, as the right to arms is already enumerated in our State Constitution, but it'd be an interesting thing to try.

I'm not exactly a constitutional law scholar, but it seems like an easy way to get a more liberal judge to go for the argument as well, as lefties love over-reaching federal authority. . .

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Well, let's just say that someone is told by the court that they are exempt from certain statutory requirements (such as Judge Noonan did in Vegas's case) and the court uses, in its decision, mitigating factors such asthree past robberies. (I believe that you could also read similarily into the Fisher and Hamdan cases.) Well, what about someone who has been robbed twice? One time? Works in a bad neighborhood (also mentioned in the Vegas decision)?

At some point it becomes a question of unequal protection under the law. One may be able to use, say, the fact that off-duty peace officers are allowed to carry in cars, but not other citizens. Because one subset of the population is allowed exercise of rights, to deny that exercise to others would be unequal protection of rights under the law (14th amendment). It would really kill two birds with one stone if you could get standing, as it would also address incorporation of the 2nd amendment under the 14th. Now, one wouldn't really have to go that far, as the right to arms is already enumerated in our State Constitution, but it'd be an interesting thing to try.

I'm not exactly a constitutional law scholar, but it seems like an easy way to get a more liberal judge to go for the argument as well, as lefties love over-reaching federal authority. . .

Click to expand...

"Exempt"? He used that/those words? If those words are in stare decisis then, indeed, unequal protection! And don't get me started on LEOSA and its illegitimate family.

Thanks.

As to incorporation, that's the key to it all under federal law. And I ANAL nor scholar.

imported post

Not the words "exempt." He said Vegas had reason to carry, and that carrying while simultaneously following the CCW and transport statutes was "unreasonable." I'd have to look at the decision again to see how exactly he used Vegas's past experience to justify "need." (Like we have to prove a "need" to exercise a right in the first place.) :?

imported post

Is any Wisc. case law on-line and publicly accessible?

imported post


[align=left]STATE OFWISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY[/align]
[align=left]BR{NCH 3I[/align]
[align=left]STA'I'E OF WISCONSIN.[/align]
[align=left]Plain ti ff,[/align]
[align=left]ANDRES VEGAS,[/align]
[align=left]Case No.: 07 CM 687[/align]
[align=left]DECISION AND ORDER[/align]
[align=left]INTRODUCTION[/align]
[align=left]In this criminal mattcr, Defendant Andres Vegas (Vegas) has moved to dismiss[/align]
[align=left]the concealed weapon charge against him. Defendant Vegas has proffered two[/align]
[align=left]arsuments: first, that the Carrying a Concealed Weapon statute (CCW) Wis. Stat. $[/align]
[align=left]941.23 is unconstitutional in light of the recent firearm Amendmento the Wisconsin[/align]
[align=left]State Constitution, and second, that applying the standards of Handan and Fisher, the[/align]
[align=left]CCW statute is unconstitutional as applied to Vegas. The State countered by noting that[/align]
[align=left]the I{amdan court already upheld the constitutionality ofthe CCW statute in light of the[/align]
[align=left]new amendment and that the application ofthe CCW statute is not unconstitutional as[/align]
[align=left]applied to this defendant. ln'light of Hamdan and Fisher and in consideration oflhe facts[/align]
[align=left]of tliis case, this Court holds that the CCW statute is unconstitutional as applied to[/align]
[align=left]Defendant Vegas.[/align]
[align=left]Defendant.[/align]
[align=left]BACKGROUND[/align]
[align=left]On January 4,200'7, Mr. Vegas was attempting to deliver a pizza at 2840 North[/align]
[align=left]22ni St., Mih.vaukee, Wisconsin. As a precaution, Vegas called the customer twice to ask[/align]
[align=left]the customer to come outside. After no response. he called his boss who thcn called the[/align]
[align=left]cuslomer. The customer then called Vegas to assure him that the customervas there and[/align]
[align=left]was on his way out to get the pizza. After Vegas got out of his vehicle, two men[/align]
[align=left]approached him. One of the men had a handgun and pointed it directly at Vegas' face.[/align]
[align=left]Vegas pushed the assailant's gun aside and retrieved his gun. In the melee, Vegas shot[/align]
[align=left]one of the robbers in the hip. After the incident, Vegas took the assailant's gun and his[/align]
[align=left]gun. placed them on top ofhis car and dialed 911. He waited for and cooperated with the[/align]
[align=left]responding Milwaukee police officers. The Milwaukee County District Attomey has[/align]
[align=left]deternrined that Vegas actions were taken in self-defense. However, the State has[/align]
[align=left]brought a CCW charge against Vegas for the moments before he was assaulted and[/align]
[align=left]defended himself.[/align]
[align=left]This is not the first time tliat Mr. Vegas has been a victim of an armed robbery.[/align]
[align=left]Before this incident, Vegas has been the victirn of an armed robbery while delivering[/align]
[align=left]pizzas on three separate occasions. In March 2005, Vegas was robbed while attempting[/align]
[align=left]to deliver a pizza. On luly 14,2Q06, two individuals attempted to rob him. One of the[/align]
[align=left]men, who was masked, pointed a gun at Vegas and demanded money. Vegas, who was[/align]
[align=left]armed, defcnded himself and shot one of [.ris assailants. The Milwaukee District Attomcy[/align]
[align=left]determined that Vegas acted in self defense and declined to prosecute for CCW.[/align]
[align=left]However, the District Attomey's office did send Vegas a letler rvaming hinr about[/align]
[align=left]canyrng a concealed weapon.[/align]
[align=left]On September 13,2006, rhree men robbed and physically beat Vegas while he[/align]
[align=left]was delivering pizzas. rt is unclear whether he was armed at the time, but Vegas did not[/align]
[align=left]use a fireamr to defend him.self The assailants beat Vegas and pepper sprayed his eyes.[/align]
[align=left]Vegas attenlpted to run away, but one of the assailants grabbed him, punched him in the[/align]
[align=left]face and then kicked him. In that case, vegas is a key rvitness for the Mirwaukee District[/align]
[align=left]Attomey.[/align]
[align=left]It is undisputed that Vegas delivers pizzas in areas of Milwaukee that are[/align]
[align=left]dangerous and that have very high rates ofviolent crime. (Tr. p. g; Ex. A.) Furrhemlore,[/align]
[align=left]the pa(ies agree that Derendant Vegas has been a victim oramed robbery numerous[/align]
[align=left]trmes while working as a pizza delivery person. (Tr. p. 35.) As we , the state concedes[/align]
[align=left]that Defendant Vegas was not concealing his rveapon for an unlawful purpose. (Tr. p.[/align]
[align=left]s7.)[/align]
[align=left]Defendant Vegas has moved this court to dismiss the concealed weapon charge[/align]
[align=left]against him, because, in light of Handan ad Fisher, he argues that the charge against[/align]
[align=left]him is unconstitutional as applied to him. Vegas contends thar his right to carry a[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapon for security and protection is substantiar and outweighs the State,s[/align]
[align=left]lnterest to police concealed weapons. vegas asserts that he has no other reasonable[/align]
[align=left]altemative but to conceal and has extraordinary circumstances that justify his[/align]
[align=left]concealment of a weapon in his car. Vegas also argues that the ccw rarv shoukl be[/align]
[align=left]declared unconstitutionar. The state contends tl.( the Handatt exception is iinrited to[/align]
[align=left]only the apex of a person's interest in canying a conceared weapon, to wlt: a home or a[/align]
[align=left]pnvately-owned business. As well, the State argues that Vegas does nol have[/align]
[align=left]extraordinary circumstances tojustify concealing it in his car nor does he have a[/align]
[align=left]substantial inlerest to have it concealed.[/align]
[align=left]WISCONSIN'S CCW CASELAW[/align]
[align=left]ln State v. Handan, the Suprerne Court examined the constitutionatity of the[/align]
[align=left]CCW statute in light of the recent passing of a new amendment to the Wisconsin[/align]
[align=left]Constitution. 264 Wis. 2d,433,2003 WI 113. The new amendment, Article I , Sec.25,[/align]
[align=left]provides that:[/align]
[align=left]The people have the right to keep and bear anns for security, defense, hunting,[/align]
[align=left]recreation or any other lawful purpose.[/align]
[align=left]The Hamdam court ruled that the new amendment did not ovemrle the CCW statute in its[/align]
[align=left]entirety. Id. at\5. The Supreme Court explained that the state retains the authority to[/align]
[align=left]police the manner, time and place a person may possess a firearm. Id. atl146. The Court[/align]
[align=left]found that the CCW statute was a reasonable exercise ofthat power lo regulate the[/align]
[align=left]rnarmer in which a person may possess a fircarm. Id. But the Court did fincl that there[/align]
[align=left]are times that the CCW would conflict with a citizen's individual right to possess a[/align]
[align=left]firearm for the lawful purpose ofsecurity and protection. Itl. at\ 5. Because of this[/align]
[align=left]conflict in certain situations, the Hamdan Court held that the CCW statute may be[/align]
[align=left]unconstitutional as applied. 1d. The Court then ruled that the CCW statute was[/align]
[align=left]unconstl tutional as applied to Defendant Hanidan. 1u1.[/align]
[align=left]The Court outlincd horv a defendant couid bnng a constitutional challenge to a[/align]
[align=left]CCW prosecution. Id.atl86. In order to challenge a prosecution underthe CCW statute[/align]
[align=left]on constitutional grounds, the Court established that a defendant must secure affirmative[/align]
[align=left]answers to both of the following quesrions:[/align]
[align=left]First, the defendant must show that "the defendant's interest in concealing trre[/align]
[align=left]weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantialry[/align]
[align=left]out'eigh the state's interest in enforcing the conceared weapons statute." 1rl. The[/align]
[align=left]Handan court explained that the state "generally has a significant interest in prohibiting[/align]
[align=left]the carryrng ofconcealed weapons." 1d. so to satisfythe first question,..the defendant[/align]
[align=left]must have been exercising the right to keep and bear amrs under circumstances in which[/align]
[align=left]the need to do so was substantial." _Id.[/align]
[align=left]Seco'd, the court stated that a defendant must estabrish that "conceal[ing] was[/align]
[align=left]the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms " Id. In other words, the second question asks whether the defendant had a[/align]
[align=left]reasonable altemative to concealment to exercise his or her constitutional right to bcar[/align]
[align=left]arms. 1d.[/align]
[align=left]Setting forth the procedure for bringing this molion, the court stated that ,,the[/align]
[align=left]invocation of this possible defense must be raised by motion ofthe defendant before trial,[/align]
[align=left]and resolution ofthese legal questions must be made by the cou( prior to trial." 1zJ.[/align]
[align=left]Affirmative answers to the previous two questions requires "a court to conclude that the[/align]
[align=left]State's enforcement of the CCW statute constituted an unreasonable and unconstitutional[/align]
[align=left]impairment of the right to keep and bear arms as granted in Article I. Section 25 of the[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin Constitution." /d.[/align]
[align=left]As to the issue of whether there was a. unlawfur purpose, the court exprained[/align]
[align=left]that the state can overcome a court-approved constitutional defense if it asserts and[/align]
[align=left]proves at trial tharthedefendanthadanunlawfulpurposeintheconcealment.Id.atlg7.[/align]
[align=left]Implicit in this line of reasoning is that the State must demonstrate that there was[/align]
[align=left]probable cause of the unlawful purpose.[/align]
[align=left]The Humdan Court, relying heavily on the facts surrounding the case, determined[/align]
[align=left]Ihat the CCW statute was unconstitutional as applied to Defendanl Hamdan. Id. atjJ82,[/align]
[align=left]Hamdan's store was located in a high-cnme neighborhood of Mihvaukee. 1d. The Court[/align]
[align=left]referenced that "between 1993 and 1999, Hanrdan's store had been a target offour armed[/align]
[align=left]robberies (three ofthem successful) and two fatal shootings." 1d. at fl 8. Hamdan[/align]
[align=left]described one assault where an assailant placed a gun to his head, pulled the trigger and[/align]
[align=left]the weapon misfired. 1rl. In another armed robbery attempt, Hamdan struggled with.[/align]
[align=left]fought, shot and killed an assailant. 1d. Hamdan purchased his gun to protect himself[/align]
[align=left]and his family whilc they worked at his business. Id. atl9. Applying the facts, the[/align]
[align=left]Corrrt in Hamdan came to the conclusion that Defendant Hamdan's interest in havins a[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapon was substantial in contrasto the weak interest of the state in[/align]
[align=left]regulating how Hamdan canied his weapon within his business. Id. at jJ84. The Court[/align]
[align=left]reversed Hamdan's CCW conviction. 1d.[/align]
[align=left]In State v. Fisher, Defend,ant Fisher altempted to extend the principles of Hamdan[/align]
[align=left]to carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. 290 Wis. 2d 121,2006 WI 44. The Frsler[/align]
[align=left]Court statcd that there were circumstances u'hen it would be appropriate to have a[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapon in a car, but found that the burden to establish the Defendant's[/align]
[align=left]individual right was greater than that tn Hamtlttn. Id. al|,l32. The Cor.rrt explained that to[/align]
[align=left]find that an individual's right to carry a wcapon within a vehicle is substantial and[/align]
[align=left]outweighs the State's interest, a Defendant must show extraordinary circumstances. 1d.[/align]
[align=left]The Fisher Court stated that extraordinary circumstances would be present "ifa defendant[/align]
[align=left]reasonably believes that he or she is actually conlronted with a threat of bodily harm or[/align]
[align=left]death and that carrying a concealed weapon is necessary for protection from the threat."[/align]
[align=left]1d. The Court elaborated:[/align]
[align=left]Because the individual's interest in carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle is[/align]
[align=left]generally comparatively weak and the state's interest in prohibiting such weapons[/align]
[align=left]in vehicles is relatively strong, it is only in extraordinary circumstances that an[/align]
[align=left]individual asserting a constitutional defense under llamdan wlll be able to secure[/align]
[align=left]an affirmative answer to the first question in the Hamdan test' Id.[/align]
[align=left]Though the Court opined that there is the possibility of applying the Hamdan[/align]
[align=left]exception lor a concealed weapon in a vehicle, the Fisher Court did not reverse the[/align]
[align=left]conviction against Defendant Fisher. 1d. at fl 49. The Court, like rn Hamdan, relied on[/align]
[align=left]the facts surrounding Fisher's defense. Id. atll34. The Court noted that Fisher's tavem,[/align]
[align=left]which was located in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, was not in a high crime area. 1d. at fl[/align]
[align=left]41. There was no evidence, in the five years that Fisher owned the tavern, that it was[/align]
[align=left]ever a site ofan armed robbery, a fatal shooting or any other violent crime. Id. atn 42.[/align]
[align=left]In addition, there was no evidence that Fisher was a victim ofany violent crime. 1d.atfl[/align]
[align=left]43. Fisher contended that he needed the firearm for safety when carrying cash from his[/align]
[align=left]bar, but the Court pointed out that Fisher inconsistently only kept the guns in his car and[/align]
[align=left]did not use them for security or protection when carrying cash back and forth between his[/align]
[align=left]bar and his vehicle. 1d. at U 45. The Court found that Fisher did not have extraordinary[/align]
[align=left]circumstances warranting carrying a concealed weapon within his vehicle. Id. atl 48.[/align]
[align=left]ANALYSIS[/align]
[align=left]Addressing the first question, Defendant Vegas has demonstrated the requisite[/align]
[align=left]extraordinary circumstances that warrant his concealed weapon. Like Hamdan, Vegas[/align]
[align=left]works in a dangerous, high crinre area in the city of Milwaukee. Like Hamdan's grocery,[/align]
[align=left]Vegas is engaged in a cash business activity that rrrakes him a target lor armed robbenes.[/align]
[align=left]Also like Hamdan, Vegas has been a victim of multiple violent crimes. Like Hamdan,[/align]
[align=left]Vegas legally purchased his firearm for the purpose ofsecurity and protection. There is a[/align]
[align=left]strong inference that Vegas'concealed weapon has saved his life during these violent[/align]
[align=left]assaults. In light ofthe totality ofthe circumstances, vegas has a substantial interest in[/align]
[align=left]being secure and protecting himself by canying a concealed \^,eapon.[/align]
[align=left]The State argues that Vegas has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances;[/align]
[align=left]that there was not a reasonable beliefthat he was actually "confronted with a threat of[/align]
[align=left]bodily hann or death and that carrying a conceaied weapon is necessary for protection[/align]
[align=left]lrom the threat." The State contends that there were no extraordinary circumstances[/align]
[align=left]en route to the pizza delivery. ln one sense, this is true. There was not a continued[/align]
[align=left]immediate threat during his cntire trip front pizza store to delivery locale. But the Fisher[/align]
[align=left]Court, when dctermining whether Fisher had a substantial interest in concealing a[/align]
[align=left]rveapon in his car, evaluated the totality ofthe cjrcumstances sunounding Fisher, not[/align]
[align=left]whether there was an acute immcdiate threat. For security purposes, the need to conceal[/align]
[align=left]a weapon in a car may be an intermittent, consistent threat, much like the one tn Hamdan.[/align]
[align=left]Furthcrmore, though there may not have been an acute immediate threat en route to the[/align]
[align=left]pizza delivery, there was such a threat when he got there. Without having an accessible[/align]
[align=left]\4'eapon, how does Vegas protecl himself then rvhen faced with an extraordinary[/align]
[align=left]circumstance ofan assailant's gun? Vegas needed his weapon when he got to the scene;[/align]
[align=left]this the State concedes. Vegas had a substantial need to conceal a weapon to protect[/align]
[align=left]hirlself and to provide securitl.[/align]
[align=left]As for the second question regarding the viability of altematives to concealment,[/align]
[align=left]the State argues that there were reasonable altematives to concealment. The State[/align]
[align=left]contends that Vegas could wear it on a holster to warn the public. Bul, Ihe Humclan courl[/align]
[align=left]cxplained thal an openly holstered weapon was a dangerous and counterproductive[/align]
[align=left]option. Id. at U 73. The Court stated that requiring gun owners "to carry a gun openly or[/align]
[align=left]in a holster is simply not reasonable. Such practices rvould alert criminals to the presence[/align]
[align=left]ofthe weapon and frighten fricnds and custorners." i/. As a pizza delivery person, this[/align]
[align=left]reasoning applies to Vegas' situation as well.[/align]
[align=left]In addition, the State alludes to Wis. Stat. $ 167.31, which requires those traveling[/align]
[align=left]with fireamrs in veliicles to keep thenr unloaded and secured in a case. Given Vegas'[/align]
[align=left]experience, he has a need for a sun at a moments notice. Enclosing and unloading the[/align]
[align=left]weapon is not a reasonable alterative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while[/align]
[align=left]delivering pizzas enters and cxits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him[/align]
[align=left]every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then[/align]
[align=left]reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose ofhaving the weapon[/align]
[align=left]for security and protection.[/align]
[align=left]In Vegas' situation, carrying a weapon for security requires having the weapon so[/align]
[align=left]that it is easify accessible. As in Handan, Vegas cannot predict the exact montent that[/align]
[align=left]the next attack will occur. All Vegas knows is that he has been attacked in the past and[/align]
[align=left]that it is highly probable that he will be attacked again.[/align]
[align=left]This Courl is not conl'inced that there are any reasonable altematives that lvould[/align]
[align=left]have secured Vegas' safety. Vegas'concealed weapon has most likely saved his life on[/align]
[align=left]several occasions; this the State cannot ignore. The State has conceded that Vegas did[/align]
[align=left]not have an unlawful purpose for concealing a weapon. Given the lotality of the[/align]
[align=left]circumslances, this Court is satisfied that the Defendanl has affirmatively answered the[/align]
[align=left]two-prong analysis as outlined in Hamdan and Fisher and thus grants the Defendant's[/align]
[align=left]motion to dismiss.[/align]
[align=left]CONCLUSION[/align]
[align=left]Based on review of the record, briefs and arguments ofthe parties, this Court[/align]
[align=left]finds that Defendant Vegas has demonstrated that Wis. Stat. $ 941.23 is unconstitutional[/align]
[align=left]as applied to him.[/align]
[align=left]Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Vegas' motion to dismiss is[/align]
[align=left]GRANTED.[/align]
[align=left]Datc this )rl[/align]
[align=left]t / . l[/align]
[align=left]' | , day ot - , i - l ' . 2007. in Milwatrkee. Wisconsin.[/align]
[align=left]BY THE COTJRT:[/align]
[align=left]l'he Honorable Daniel A. Noonan[/align]
[align=left]Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Branch 31[/align]
[align=left]l 0[/align]

imported post

Doug:

Let's look at the three examples closer:

Two guys drinking in a car, clear violation of the law. Guns and alcohol don't mix, cannot support ya there.

The four young ladies, first they are parked, then they drive away. Makes one wonder why they were there in the first place, questionable at best.

The family being robbed, now that is a valid case.

Just my personal opinion.

imported post

Lammie, that's a lot of hand work. Thank you.