Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Racine man not to be charged

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    Bicyclist pointing gun not charged
    By Associated Press


    Posted: May. 15, 2009

    Racine - A Racine bicyclist who pulled out his revolver to scare off a group of teens during an apparent robbery attempt won't be charged.

    The man, 42, told police he was riding his bicycle May 1 when four teens knocked him off and seemed to be trying to rob him, so he pulled out the revolver he was carrying in a side holster, pointed it up and yelled, "Gun."

    The teens fled, and he flagged down a police officer.

    The man, who asked not to be identified, was treated at the scene for a wrist injury. Police escorted him home and returned his gun to him.

    Racine County District Attorney Mike Nieskes sent him a letter Friday, saying he wouldn't be charged, even though he was violating a law by carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

    "I have decided it would not be in the greater interest of justice in the community to charge you with violation of Wisconsin Statute regarding gun free zones," Nieskes wrote.

    Nieskes noted that the man has no criminal record, and there was no showing of irresponsible use of the firearm.

    He also cited a recent memo issued by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that people have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms, as long as they aren't violating restrictions set in other laws. But Van Hollen also said police have the right to check anyone openly carrying a gun.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  2. #2
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    I'm none too familiar with WI law on GFS zones but here in VA that would not fly. I'm assuming our armed victim was traveling down a city conveyance. Otherwise known as a "public right of way" which infers right to free travel. Probably a house nearly with guns inside too. The prosecutor was right to avoid the legal quagmire that charge would have entailed.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  3. #3
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    I kinda wish he had tried to prosecute. Would have brought to light the stupidity of the 1000 foot rule and how difficult it is to simply walk down the street. However I'm sure that was the intention.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    I am happy to live in Utah ... concealed permit exempts you from the school territory AND the school itself. An you do not have to conceal So you can go visit the school while open carrying.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    paramedic70002 wrote:
    I'm none too familiar with WI law on GFS zones but here in VA that would not fly. I'm assuming our armed victim was traveling down a city conveyance. Otherwise known as a "public right of way" which infers right to free travel. Probably a house nearly with guns inside too. The prosecutor was right to avoid the legal quagmire that charge would have entailed.
    The wisconsin law factors in "knowledge".
    From Wisconsin State statute 948.605:

    (2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
    who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
    knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
    guilty of a Class I felony.
    I beleive someone here described it something like: "Usually ignorance is no excuse but in this case ignorance is factored into the law."

    In any case, my guess is either the DA actuallyhad justice in mind and decided not to prosecute, orhe didn't think they could prove that the guy knew he was in a school zone.


    EditTo Add:Anarticle from CATO: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...-zone-follies/







    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

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