• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open carry arrest in Milwaukee

dvnsyd

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

Hi everyone. Sorry its been so long since I posted. But now Im hoping I am through theworst of it. On June 6th, 2009, I had a open carry experience in Milwaukee that I hope no one would have to go through. I have done my research and do my best to follow the laws for oc. I was arrested at my house for oc in milwaukee. The police had gotten a phone call from a woman who seen me walk into a gas station while oc'ing. An hour later the police showed up at my house, disarmed me, and after a short interrogation, they decided to arrest me. Another problem, I had my daughter for the weekend and my wife was at work. But still, that didnt matter. They took me in and called my x-wife to get her. The police said they were going to charge me with disorderly conduct, oc'ing in a school zone, ccw, illegal transportation of firearm, and transport of a loaded firearm. Which I was in violation of none. After 20 hours of being detained, all charges were dropped and I was released. As far as getting my firearm back, thats a another story. So I file a petition for return of property. When Iwent downtown to serve the appropiate papers to the different departments required of me, the very next day the D.A. issues me a ticket through the Department of Natural Resources. And managed to set all court dates before the return of property date. So I put in a plea of not guilty, and fought the ticket. When I motioned for discovery, they had nothing and the ticket was dismissed. Now finally, after all the song and dance I figured I would get my gun back, seeing as I did not break any laws or use the gun in any unlawfull manner. Today was my court date and the petition was denied. I am very displeased with the outcome and cant believe how this happened in the first place. I plan on filing an appeal but have very little hope of getting my gun back.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I hate to say it but I think at least a consult with an attorney may be in order. I'm not sure what the procedures are. Jesus might know better. I don't know if you've spoken with him. From our conversation sounds like you 'drew' a bad luck draw on your judge.

You've done nothing wrong, every charge against you was either never filed or the one that was was dropped.

You deserve your gun back.

Perhaps contact the NRA also.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I would try talking to the State, as far as I can see, the Milw. PD. has once again broken the law. I am thinking that now that we know that the gun was not used or part of any crimes, and all charges are gone, that if the Milw. PD will not give it back, you should file charges against them. I am also thinking that you should fins a lawyer, fast. I am a bit shocked you did not talk to one before your court date.

Do not give up or the man will have won...
 

dvnsyd

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
9
Location
, ,
imported post

I didnt contact a lawyer before cause number 1, money is kinda tight. And 2, I was pretty confident I could beat the ticket. Which I did. After that, I kinda figured they would just give it back. I sat there most of the day and herd alot of other cases. and if the gun was used unlawfully the person didnt get it back. But the judge made it sound as if open carrying was illegal and disorderly. I'm just guessing that was the basis on not giving it back. And now after this, if I can sue, I will. As far as Im concerned the city just stole my gun.
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

GlocksRfun wrote:
Call the ATF and report it stolen.
He's not kidding. And, since it appears that you were unlawfully arrested, I would contact a good constitutional lawyer and look at a 4A civil rights case against the city.
 

hydrochloride

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Fife, Washington, USA
imported post

He is right, you have a strong case against the city. Make sure you have all your ducks in order though. They will most likely try to delay, delay, delay..this is the way they try to beat people. They could not prosecute you legally so, this is their way of winning. Good luck! And thank you for standing your ground.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

dvnsyd wrote:
Hi everyone. Sorry its been so long since I posted. But now Im hoping I am through theworst of it. On June 6th, 2009, I had a open carry experience in Milwaukee that I hope no one would have to go through. I have done my research and do my best to follow the laws for oc. I was arrested at my house for oc in milwaukee. The police had gotten a phone call from a woman who seen me walk into a gas station while oc'ing. An hour later the police showed up at my house, disarmed me, and after a short interrogation, they decided to arrest me. Another problem, I had my daughter for the weekend and my wife was at work. But still, that didnt matter. They took me in and called my x-wife to get her. The police said they were going to charge me with disorderly conduct, oc'ing in a school zone, ccw, illegal transportation of firearm, and transport of a loaded firearm. Which I was in violation of none. After 20 hours of being detained, all charges were dropped and I was released. As far as getting my firearm back, thats a another story. So I file a petition for return of property. When Iwent downtown to serve the appropiate papers to the different departments required of me, the very next day the D.A. issues me a ticket through the Department of Natural Resources. And managed to set all court dates before the return of property date. So I put in a plea of not guilty, and fought the ticket. When I motioned for discovery, they had nothing and the ticket was dismissed. Now finally, after all the song and dance I figured I would get my gun back, seeing as I did not break any laws or use the gun in any unlawfull manner. Today was my court date and the petition was denied. I am very displeased with the outcome and cant believe how this happened in the first place. I plan on filing an appeal but have very little hope of getting my gun back.
Sounds like gun confiscation and disarmament to me. File suit!
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

James is DEAD on. Your gun is clearly unlawfully confiscated.

This is de facto conviction.

You never committed a crime. No charges were filed. But they had your gun. A month later you filed a petition for return of property and a day and a half later, you receive a citation which you subsequently went to court and got dismissed.

But after all that, they keep a $500 gun. Perfect. No need for a conviction on anything when you can just keep your property. This is as wrong as wrong can be.

The police never need a conviction to stick if they can just arrest and confiscate guns from law abiding citizens because a shill at the circuit court doesn't recognize open-carry as our legal means to exercise our STATE constitutional rights.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I would definitely file an open records request for this case and include all information on the chain of evidence and property so you have proof as to the where abouts of your fire arm.

Act quickly before they dispose of it.
 

Mr.arker

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
53
Location
, ,
imported post

Contact the city atty. in Milwaukee. Tell them you want to file a claim against the city. It most likely will be denied. They should tell you that you can then appear before the JudLeg (Judiciary & Legislation) committee. They will most likely deny your claim. The good part about that is that you then can file a case in circuit court. The bad part is that will require an atty. but there may be someone who could take it on contingency.

Last year, in what can only be called a home invasion, MPD served a search warrant on a home on the northwest side. The homeowner sold antiques online and as they searched for drugs valuable items were broken. They also found a.22 rifle and a blast box(detonator) which was about 100yrs. old and inoperable. They seized those items and I know he went to JudLeg and was denied. I'm sorry I don't know his name or what happened after that.
The worst part of the whole situation is that they served the warrant on the wrong house and the suspect named in the warrant was black and the innocent homeowner was white. Yet they continued the search even after knowing the whole situation was f----d up.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

dvnsyd wrote:
Now finally, after all the song and dance I figured I would get my gun back, seeing as I did not break any laws or use the gun in any unlawfull manner. Today was my court date and the petition was denied. I am very displeased with the outcome and cant believe how this happened in the first place. I plan on filing an appeal but have very little hope of getting my gun back.

You need to find an attonrey.

in the future, for similar gun confiscation cases, I suggest asking WI barred attorney to consider filing a Section 1983 claim infederal court for failure to provide a post-deprivation due process hearing - I am pretty sure that state statutes that require you to sue to get uyour prooerty back violate Fifth Amendment dur process and so your atty may be able to win and get atty fees paid by the city
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

It sure is nice having Mike in Law School. If I stumbled on a boat load of money (meaning that I wouldn't have to work for a few years), I'd go and get my J.D. as well.
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

dvnsyd:

First I am not a lawyer, not even a law student, so none of the following is legal advice it is only my researched opinion.

Hire a lawyer then make sure the lawyer reads Judge Blacks disposition in Matthew A. St Jon case # 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM, also case US v, Hill, 199, f, 3d 1143(10th circuit,199). I believe both have application to your incident.

One lawyer that may offer assistance or advice may be Suzanne Hagopian. She is as far as I know a 13 year lawyer with the Wisconsin Public Defender office. She was the defense lawyer in the case of State v. Adam Gonzales. Gonzales was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon and disorderly conduct on Nov. 6 1998. Article I section 25, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, was ratified by the voters on November 3, 1998. Gonzales supposedly committed his crimes on November 6, 1998, three days after the voters approved the amendment. Hagopians argument was that Gonzales' arrest was unconstitutional because Article I section 25 voided the concealed carry prohibition. Unfortunately she was not allowed to present that argument because the state Supreme Court ruled in it's opinion, http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinions/01/pdf/01-0224.pdf , that Article I section 25 did not become law until it was confirmed by the state election board and that did not take place until November 30. 1998. Article I section 25 was not in effect at the time Gonzales was arrested on November 6 therefore the constitutionality question concerning ss941.23 was not allowed and the conviction of Gonzales carrying a concealed weapon was affirmed.

I acknowlege that Gonzales' case involved concealed carry and not the issue of open carry. I mention it as endorsement of Ms. Hagopian knowlege of Wisconson's firearm laws and the constitutional impact of Article I section 25 on them. I think she prepared a very well researched and impressive brief. One, unfortunately, she was not allowed to argue before the Court. Even though it is quite long for this forum I include a copy of her brief. Make your own judgement as to its value. It may well be that with the Gonzales defeat she would be willing to review your case and get involved or perhaps refer you to a lawyer she has confidence in.

The email address I was able to find for her is hagopians@odp.wi.gov

[align=left]STATE OF WISCONSIN[/align]
[align=left]C O U R T O F A P P E A L S[/align]
[align=left]DISTRICT II[/align]
[align=left]Case No. 01-0224-CR[/align]
[align=left]STATE OF WISCONSIN,[/align]
[align=left]Plaintiff-Respondent,[/align]
[align=left]v.[/align]
[align=left]ADAM S. GONZALES,[/align]
[align=left]Defendant-Appellant.[/align]
[align=left]ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION[/align]
[align=left]AND AN ORDER DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF[/align]
[align=left]ENTERED IN THE KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT[/align]
[align=left]COURT, THE HONORABLE[/align]
[align=left]MICHAEL S. FISHER, PRESIDING[/align]
[align=left]BRIEF AND APPENDIX[/align]
[align=left]OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT[/align]
[align=left]SUZANNE HAGOPIAN[/align]
[align=left]Assistant State Public Defender[/align]
[align=left]State Bar No. 1000179[/align]
[align=left]Office of the State Public Defender[/align]
[align=left]Post Office Box 7862[/align]
[align=left]Madison, WI 53707-7862[/align]
[align=left](608) 267-5177[/align]
[align=left]-2-[/align]
[align=left]Attorney for Defendant-Appellant[/align]
[align=left]-i-[/align]

[align=left]TABLE OF CONTENTS[/align]

[align=left]Page[/align]
[align=left]RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL[/align]
[align=left]AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS..................................1[/align]
[align=left]ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................2[/align]
[align=left]POSITION ON ORAL ARGUMENT[/align]
[align=left]AND PUBLICATION.......................................................4[/align]
[align=left]STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................4[/align]
[align=left]SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................5[/align]
[align=left]ARGUMENT...........................................................................7[/align]
[align=left]I. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE[/align]
[align=left]CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT[/align]
[align=left]CREATING A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS[/align]
[align=left]INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BROAD[/align]
[align=left]STATUTORY RESTRICTION ON[/align]
[align=left]CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS[/align]
[align=left]AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ART. I, § 25[/align]
[align=left]EFFECTIVELY REPEALED WIS. STAT. §[/align]
[align=left]941.23....................................................................7[/align]
[align=left]II. BECAUSE THE SWEEPING STATUTORY[/align]
[align=left]PROHIBITION ON CARRYING[/align]
[align=left]CONCEALED WEAPONS IS NOT[/align]
[align=left]NARROWLY TAILORED AND IMPINGES[/align]
[align=left]THE RIGHT GUARANTEED BY ART. I, §[/align]
[align=left]25, WIS. STAT. § 941.23 IS AN[/align]
[align=left]UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF[/align]
[align=left]POLICE POWER............................................... 16[/align]
[align=left]A. Constitutional limits on a state’s[/align]
[align=left]police power........................................... 16[/align]
[align=left]-ii-[/align]
[align=left]B. Because the constitutional right set[/align]
[align=left]forth in art. I, § 25 postdates §[/align]
[align=left]941.23, the presumption of[/align]
[align=left]constitutionality does not apply. .......... 18[/align]
[align=left]C. The CCW statute is subject to[/align]
[align=left]heightened scrutiny because it[/align]
[align=left]burdens a fundamental,[/align]
[align=left]constitutional right. ............................... 20[/align]
[align=left]1. At a minimum, the court must[/align]
[align=left]apply an intermediate level of[/align]
[align=left]scrutiny. ...................................... 20[/align]
[align=left]2. Article I, § 25 creates a[/align]
[align=left]fundamental, individual right[/align]
[align=left]to bear arms for self-defense,[/align]
[align=left]among other purposes. .............. 23[/align]
[align=left]D. The CCW statute is not narrowly[/align]
[align=left]tailored to achieve a significant,[/align]
[align=left]much less compelling, government[/align]
[align=left]purpose. ............................................... 26[/align]
[align=left]E. The legislature and voters were[/align]
[align=left]informed that the right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms amendment might render §[/align]
[align=left]941.23 unconstitutional..................... 29[/align]
[align=left]1. The legislature’s intent........... 31[/align]
[align=left]2. The voters’ intent.................... 34[/align]
[align=left]III. IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL[/align]
[align=left]RIGHT TO POSSESS AND CARRY[/align]
[align=left]WEAPONS, WIS. STAT. § 941.23 IS[/align]
[align=left]UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO[/align]
[align=left]MR. GONZALES WHERE, AT MOST, HE[/align]
[align=left]HAD CROSSED THE THRESHOLD OF[/align]
[align=left]HIS APARTMENT DOOR WITH AN[/align]
[align=left]UNLOADED GUN IN HIS JACKET. .............. 37[/align]
[align=left]-iii-[/align]
[align=left]CONCLUSION.................................................................... 41[/align]
[align=left]APPENDIX ........................................................................100[/align]

[align=left]CASES CITED[/align]
[align=left]Bd. of Educ. of Westside Community Schools[/align]
[align=left]v. Mergens
, 496 U.S. 225 (1990) ..................................14[/align]
[align=left]Brandmiller v. Arreola
,[/align]
[align=left]199 Wis. 2d 528, 544 N.W.2d 894 (1996) ......16 passim[/align]

[align=left]City of Lakewood v. Pillow
,[/align]
[align=left]180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744 (1972)...............................22[/align]

[align=left]In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind.
,[/align]
[align=left]96 F.3d 932 (7
th Cir. 1996).............................................14[/align]
[align=left]In re Baby Girl K.
,[/align]
[align=left]113 Wis. 2d 429, 335 N.W.2d 846 (1983) ...................29[/align]

[align=left]Kayden Industries, Inc. v. Murphy
,[/align]
[align=left]34 Wis. 2d 718, 150 N.W.2d 447 (1967) ............. 7, 9,23[/align]

[align=left]Lutz v. City of York, Pennsylvania
,[/align]
[align=left]899 F.2d 255 (3
rd Cir. 1990)...........................................17[/align]
[align=left]Matter of Contempt in State v. Simmon
,[/align]
[align=left]150 Wis. 2d 178, 441 N.W.2d 308 (Ct. App. 1989) ......8[/align]

[align=left]Professional Guardianships, Inc. v. Ruth E. J.
,[/align]
[align=left]196 Wis. 2d 794, 540 N.W.2d 213[/align]
[align=left](Ct. App. 1995)..........................................................16, 29[/align]
[align=left]-iv-[/align]

[align=left]Reginald D. v. State
,[/align]
[align=left]193 Wis. 2d 299, 533 N.W.2d 181 (1995) ...................13[/align]

[align=left]Schmeling v. Phelps
,[/align]
[align=left]212 Wis. 2d 898, 569 N.W.2d 784[/align]
[align=left](Ct. App. 1997)......................................................9, 10, 15[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. Carnation M.P. Co. v. Emery
,[/align]
[align=left]178 Wis. 147, 189 N.W. 564 (1922).............................15[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner
,[/align]
[align=left]180 W. Va. 457, 377 S.E.2d 139 (1988) ..........10 passim[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. Commissioners of Public Lands[/align]
[align=left]v. Anderson
,[/align]
[align=left]56 Wis. 2d 666, 203 N.W.2d 84 (1973)........................29[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. Ekern v. Zimmerman
,[/align]
[align=left]187 Wis. 180, 204 N.W. 803 (1925).............................23[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. La Follette[/align]
[align=left]v. Board of Supervisors of Milwaukee County
,[/align]
[align=left]109 Wis. 2d 621, 327 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App. 1982) ....10[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert
,[/align]
[align=left]90 Wis. 2d 528, 280 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1979).........5[/align]

[align=left]State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg
,[/align]
[align=left]114 Wis. 530, 90 N.W. 1098 (1902)......................14, 18[/align]

[align=left]State v. Bertrand
,[/align]
[align=left]162 Wis. 2d 411, 469 N.W.2d 873 (Ct. App. 1991) ......6[/align]

[align=left]State v. Briggs
,[/align]
[align=left]218 Wis. 2d 61, 68, 579 N.W.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1998) ..5[/align]

[align=left]State v. C&S Management
,[/align]
[align=left]198 Wis. 2d 844, 544 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1995) ....16[/align]
[align=left]-v-[/align]

[align=left]State v. Delgado
,[/align]
[align=left]298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984) ................................22[/align]

[align=left]State v. Dundon,[/align]

[align=left]226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d, 780 (1990) ....................7[/align]

[align=left]State v. Fry
,[/align]
[align=left]131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986) .............. 7, 21[/align]

[align=left]State v. Hall
,[/align]
[align=left]207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997) .......................8[/align]

[align=left]State v. Hanson
,[/align]
[align=left]182 Wis. 2d 481, 513 N.W.2d 700 (Ct. App. 1994) ....30[/align]

[align=left]State v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc.
,[/align]
[align=left]65 Wis. 2d 482, 222 N.W.2d 912 (1974) .....................13[/align]

[align=left]State v. Keith
,[/align]
[align=left]175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865[/align]
[align=left](Ct. App. 1993)......................................................7 passim[/align]

[align=left]State v. Kessler
,[/align]
[align=left]289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94 (1980)...................................22[/align]

[align=left]State v. Mata
,[/align]
[align=left]199 Wis. 2d 315, 544 N.W.2d 578[/align]
[align=left](Ct. App. 1996)............................................................ 7, 31[/align]

[align=left]State v. Ruesch
,[/align]
[align=left]214 Wis. 2d 548, 571 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1997) ....16[/align]

[align=left]State v. Walls
,[/align]
[align=left]190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).. 7, 21[/align]

[align=left]United States v. Miller
,[/align]
[align=left]307 U.S. 174 (1939)........................................................19[/align]
[align=left]-vi-[/align]

[align=left]CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS[/align]
[align=left]AND STATUTES CITED[/align]

[align=left]United States Constitution[/align]
[align=left]Second Amendment .........................................................18[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin Constitution[/align]
[align=left]Art. I, § 25 ..............................................................1 passim[/align]
[align=left]Art. I, § 9m..........................................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Art. XIV, § 13......................................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin Statutes[/align]
[align=left]66.092(2) & (5) (1997-98) ............................................24[/align]
[align=left]809.30(2)(h) .....................................................................29[/align]
[align=left]939.22(10)..........................................................................7[/align]
[align=left]939.51(3)(a) .....................................................................21[/align]
[align=left]941.23 ....................................................................1 passim[/align]
[align=left]941.237...............................................................................7[/align]
[align=left]947.01 ...............................................................................21[/align]
[align=left]Other State Constitutions[/align]
[align=left]Alaska Const. art. I, § 19..................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Ark. Const. art. II, § 5 .......................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Colo. Const. art. II, § 13 ....................................................8[/align]
[align=left]Fla. Const. art. I, § 8(a) ....................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Ga. Const. art. I, § 1..........................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Hawaii Const. art. I, § 15 .................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Idaho Const. art. I, § 11......................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Ill. Const. art. I, § 22 ........................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Ky. Bill of Rights § 1 .........................................................9[/align]
[align=left]La. Const. art. I, § 11..........................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Mass. Const. Part I, art. XVII ..........................................25[/align]
[align=left]Miss. Const. art. III, § 12 ...................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Mo. Const. art. I, § 23 ........................................................8[/align]
[align=left]Mont. Const. art. II, § 12....................................................8[/align]
[align=left]N.C. Const. art. I, § 30 .......................................................8[/align]
[align=left]N.M. Const. art. II, § 6 .......................................................9[/align]
[align=left]Okla. Const. art. II, § 26.....................................................9[/align]
[align=left]S.C. Const. art. I, § 20 ......................................................25[/align]
[align=left]-vii-[/align]
[align=left]Tenn. Const. art. I, § 26....................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Tex. Const. art. I, § 23......................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Va. Const. art. I, § 13........................................................25[/align]
[align=left]Utah Const. art. I, § 6 .......................................................25[/align]
[align=left]W. Va. Const. art. III, § 22 ...............................................10[/align]
[align=left]Other State Statutes[/align]
[align=left]W. Va. Code, 61-7-1 (1975)...........................................11[/align]
[align=left]OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED[/align]
[align=left]1995 Assembly Joint Resolution 53 .................................25[/align]
[align=left]1999 Senate Bill 293 ...........................................................22[/align]
[align=left]Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to[/align]
[align=left]1995 Assembly Joint Resolution 53 .......................18, 25[/align]
[align=left]Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 to 1997 Assembly[/align]
[align=left]Joint Resolution 11..........................................................18[/align]
[align=left]Annot., 86 A.L.R. 4
th 931 (1991)........................................15[/align]
[align=left]Barnet,
Gun “Control” Laws Violate the Second[/align]
[align=left]Amendment and may Lead to Higher Crime Rates
,[/align]
[align=left]63 Mo. L. Rev. 155, 180 (1998).....................................20[/align]

[align=left]Bill History for Assembly Joint Resolution 11
,[/align]
[align=left]drafting record to 1997 AJR 11......................................26[/align]
[align=left]Don Salm & Shaun Haas, Wisconsin Legislative Council[/align]
[align=left]Staff Memorandum,
Discussion of Possible Effects of[/align]
[align=left]1997 Senate Joint Resolution 5, Relating to the Right[/align]
[align=left]to Keep and Bear Arms (Second Consideration), on[/align]
[align=left]Selected Statutes Regulating "Arms," such as[/align]
[align=left]Firearms,
February 5, 1998...............................17, 24, 26[/align]
[align=left]-viii-[/align]
[align=left]Fred Risser,
Shoot Down Gun Amendment,[/align]
[align=left]Capital Times, Oct. 31, 1998 ..........................................28[/align]

[align=left]Gun Legislation Considered
,[/align]
[align=left]Wis. State J., Jan. 22, 1996 .............................................27[/align]

[align=left]Gun Lobby on the March
,[/align]
[align=left]Capital Times, Jan. 22, 1996 ...........................................27[/align]
[align=left]Jefren E. Olsen & Peter J. Dykman,
Drafter’s Note from[/align]
[align=left]the Legislative Reference Bureau
, drafting record to[/align]
[align=left]1995 Assembly Joint Resolution 53 .......................19, 20[/align]

[align=left]Keep Sense on Gun Limits
,[/align]
[align=left]Capital Times, Jan. 22, 1998 ...........................................27[/align]
[align=left]Kopel, Cramer & Hattrup,
A Tale of Three Cities: The[/align]
[align=left]Right to Bear Arms in State Supreme Courts
,[/align]
[align=left]68 Temp. L. Rev. 1177 (1995)........................................22[/align]
[align=left]Laws of 1872, ch. 7, § 1 .....................................................7-8[/align]
[align=left]Senate Amdt. 2 to 1997 AJR 11..........................................25[/align]

[align=left]Senate Clears Way for Gun Amendment Vote
,[/align]
[align=left]Capital Times, March 13, 1998.......................................28[/align]
[align=left]Shaun Haas, Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff[/align]
[align=left]Memorandum,
Analysis of 1995 Assembly Joint[/align]
[align=left]Resolution 53 and 1995 Senate Joint Resolution 7,[/align]
[align=left]Relating to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (First[/align]
[align=left]Consideration),
October 11, 1995....................18, 19, 25[/align]
[align=left]The End of Gun Control or the Protection Against[/align]
[align=left]Tyranny?: The Impact of the New Wisconsin[/align]
[align=left]Constitutional Right to Bear Arms on State Gun[/align]
[align=left]Control Laws
,[/align]
[align=left]2001 Wis. L. Rev. 249........................................23-24, 27[/align]
[align=left]-ix-[/align]

[align=left]The Wisconsin Bear Arms Amendment and the Case[/align]
[align=left]Against an Absolute Prohibition on Carrying[/align]
[align=left]Concealed Weapons
,[/align]
[align=left]19 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 709 (1999)......................................23[/align]

[align=left]To Preserve Reasonable Gun Curbs, Vote ‘No,’[/align]

[align=left]Milwaukee J. Sentinel, Nov. 1, 1998..............................27[/align]

[align=left]Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
(1976)...8[/align]
[align=left]Wis JI-
Criminal 1335 (1997) ....................................... 7, 31[/align]
[align=left]STATE OF WISCONSIN[/align]
[align=left]C O U R T O F A P P E A L S[/align]
[align=left]DISTRICT II[/align]
[align=left]Case No. 01-0224-CR[/align]
[align=left]STATE OF WISCONSIN,[/align]
[align=left]Plaintiff-Respondent,[/align]
[align=left]v.[/align]
[align=left]ADAM S. GONZALES,[/align]
[align=left]Defendant-Appellant.[/align]
[align=left]ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION[/align]
[align=left]AND AN ORDER DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF[/align]
[align=left]ENTERED IN THE KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT[/align]
[align=left]COURT, THE HONORABLE[/align]
[align=left]MICHAEL S. FISHER, PRESIDING[/align]
[align=left]BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT[/align]

[align=left]RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL[/align]
[align=left]AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS[/align]

[align=left]Wisconsin Constitution, Art. I, § 25:[/align]

[align=left]§ 25 Right to keep and bear arms[/align]

[align=left]The people have the right to keep and bear arms[/align]
[align=left]for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any[/align]
[align=left]other lawful purpose.[/align]

[align=left]Wisconsin Statute § 941.23:[/align]
[align=left]-2-[/align]

[align=left]941.23 Carrying concealed weapon.
Any[/align]
[align=left]person except a peace officer who goes armed with[/align]
[align=left]a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of a[/align]
[align=left]Class A misdemeanor.[/align]

[align=left]ISSUES PRESENTED[/align]

[align=left]1. DID THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AMENDMENT[/align]
[align=left]EFFECTIVELY REPEAL WIS. STAT. § 941.23[/align]
[align=left]BECAUSE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF ART. I, §[/align]
[align=left]25, WHICH GUARANTEES CITIZENS THE[/align]
[align=left]RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR SECURITY AND[/align]
[align=left]DEFENSE, AMONG OTHER PURPOSES, IS[/align]
[align=left]INCONSISTENT WITH THE SWEEPING[/align]
[align=left]LANGUAGE OF § 941.23, WHICH PROHIBITS[/align]
[align=left]CITIZENS FROM CARRYING CONCEALED[/align]
[align=left]WEAPONS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?[/align]
[align=left]The trial court answered: No.[/align]
[align=left]2. IS WIS. STAT. § 941.23 AN[/align]
[align=left]UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE[/align]
[align=left]STATE’S POLICE POWER BECAUSE IT IS NOT[/align]
[align=left]NARROWLY TAILORED AND, INSTEAD,[/align]
[align=left]SWEEPS SO BROADLY AS TO IMPINGE THE[/align]
[align=left]RIGHT GUARANTEED BY ART. I, § 25?[/align]
[align=left]The trial court answered: No.[/align]
[align=left]3. IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO[/align]
[align=left]POSSESS AND CARRY WEAPONS, IS WIS.[/align]
[align=left]STAT. § 941.23 UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS[/align]
[align=left]APPLIED IN THIS CASE WHERE, AT MOST, MR.[/align]
[align=left]GONZALES CROSSED THE THRESHOLD OF HIS[/align]
[align=left]APARTMENT DOOR WITH AN UNLOADED[/align]
[align=left]GUN IN HIS JACKET?[/align]
[align=left]The trial court answered: No.[/align]
[align=left]-3-[/align]

[align=left]POSITION ON ORAL ARGUMENT[/align]
[align=left]AND PUBLICATION[/align]

[align=left]The clash between the constitutional right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms and the statutory restriction on carrying concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons presents a significant constitutional question that[/align]
[align=left]is certain to recur. In fact, similar challenges have been[/align]
[align=left]raised in at least two other cases pending in this court.[/align]

[align=left]State v. Hamden
, No. 01-0056-CR (Dist. I); State v. Cole,[/align]
[align=left]No. 01-0350-CR (Dist. I). Moreover, this court[/align]
[align=left]recognized the likely precedential value of this case when[/align]
[align=left]it granted a three-judge panel. Both oral argument and[/align]
[align=left]publication are warranted.[/align]

[align=left]STATEMENT OF THE CASE[/align]

[align=left]The state charged the defendant-appellant, Adam S.[/align]
[align=left]Gonzales, with disorderly conduct, carrying a concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapon and felon in possession of a firearm, all as a repeat[/align]
[align=left]offender (1). At trial, the jury convicted Mr. Gonzales of[/align]
[align=left]the first two charges and acquitted him of the third (55-[/align]
[align=left]57). The trial court imposed consecutive prison sentences[/align]
[align=left]of 30 months on the disorderly conduct and 24 months on[/align]
[align=left]the carrying a concealed weapon (65; App. 101).[/align]
[align=left]The charges stemmed from a disturbance at the[/align]
[align=left]apartment building where Mr. Gonzales resided. A[/align]
[align=left]neighbor testified that at 3 a.m. Mr. Gonzales knocked on[/align]
[align=left]her door, made threats and tried to enter her apartment[/align]
[align=left](46:29-32). She said Mr. Gonzales, who was wearing a[/align]
[align=left]black leather coat, had a dark object in his hand and was[/align]
[align=left]“whirling” it around (46:30, 32). She could not identify the[/align]
[align=left]object (46:32).[/align]
[align=left]The charge of carrying a concealed weapon was[/align]
[align=left]premised on what occurred later, after the police arrived.[/align]
[align=left]Officer Arnold Pederson testified that as he approached[/align]
[align=left]the woman’s apartment, he watched as a man, later[/align]
[align=left]identified as Mr. Gonzales, exited another apartment and[/align]
[align=left]-4-[/align]
[align=left]“came out into the hallway.” (46:36). Mr. Gonzales was[/align]
[align=left]wearing a leather jacket (46:37). The officer approached[/align]
[align=left]Mr. Gonzales and asked for identification. Officer[/align]
[align=left]Pederson testified that as he ran a check on the[/align]
[align=left]identification, Mr. Gonzales “took off his coat, put it on[/align]
[align=left]the back of the kitchen table that was inside and came back[/align]
[align=left]standing right in front of me in front of the threshold.”[/align]
[align=left](46:37-38). In the course of a patdown, the officer found a[/align]
[align=left]gun magazine in Mr. Gonzales’ pants pocket (46:39).[/align]
[align=left]Subsequently, another officer obtained consent to search[/align]
[align=left]the Gonzales apartment (46:49). In the search, the officer[/align]
[align=left]found a black leather jacket draped over a kitchen chair[/align]
[align=left](46:50). There was a gun in the pocket of the jacket (
id.).[/align]
[align=left]In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the[/align]
[align=left]crime of carrying a concealed weapon occurred when Mr.[/align]
[align=left]Gonzales “had it in his pocket when he came out [into] the[/align]
[align=left]hallway and encountered the police officer.” (50:22).[/align]
[align=left]In a postconviction motion, Mr. Gonzales sought to[/align]
[align=left]vacate his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon[/align]
[align=left]because Wis. Stat. § 941.23 is unconstitutional on its face[/align]
[align=left]and as applied to him, in light of the constitutional right to[/align]
[align=left]bear arms (73). In a brief oral decision, the trial court[/align]
[align=left]rejected Mr. Gonzales’ claims but commented that it is a[/align]
[align=left]matter “that obviously the appellate courts are going to[/align]
[align=left]have to wrestle with ….” (82:11-12; App. 102-03). Mr.[/align]
[align=left]Gonzales filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of[/align]
[align=left]conviction and the order denying postconviction relief[/align]
[align=left](84).[/align]

[align=left]SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT[/align]

[align=left]In November of 1998 the people of Wisconsin[/align]
[align=left]expanded the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights, for[/align]
[align=left]only the fourth time in the state’s history, to create the[/align]
[align=left]right to keep and bear arms. Seventy-four percent of the[/align]
[align=left]voters approved the amendment, which had passed both[/align]
[align=left]houses of the legislature in successive sessions. The[/align]
[align=left]-5-[/align]
[align=left]amendment, art. I, § 25, guarantees that “[t]he people have[/align]
[align=left]the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense,[/align]
[align=left]hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.” As shown[/align]
[align=left]below, that broad constitutional right is incompatible with[/align]
[align=left]the broad statutory restriction on carrying concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons. Under Wis. Stat. § 941.23 (“the CCW statute”),[/align]
[align=left]it is a crime for any person, other than a peace officer, to[/align]
[align=left]carry a concealed weapon in any place, at any time or for[/align]
[align=left]any purpose. Such a sweeping prohibition is incompatible[/align]
[align=left]with the constitutional right to carry weapons for security[/align]
[align=left]and defense.[/align]
[align=left]Mr. Gonzales raises two facial challenges to Wis.[/align]
[align=left]Stat. § 941.23. First, because the plain language of the[/align]
[align=left]constitutional amendment is inconsistent with the statutory[/align]
[align=left]restriction, art. I, § 25 superceded and effectively repealed[/align]
[align=left]§ 941.23. Second, the CCW is an unconstitutional[/align]
[align=left]exercise of the state’s police power because it is not[/align]
[align=left]narrowly tailored to serve its purpose but, instead, sweeps[/align]
[align=left]so broadly so as to severely impinge the fundamental right[/align]
[align=left]to bear arms as guaranteed by art. I, § 25. Although these[/align]
[align=left]claims were not raised before trial, they are not waived[/align]
[align=left]because a challenge to the facial constitutionality of a[/align]
[align=left]statute is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction and,[/align]
[align=left]therefore, cannot be waived.
State ex rel. Skinkis v.[/align]
[align=left]Treffert
, 90 Wis. 2d 528, 536-39, 280 N.W.2d 316 (Ct.[/align]
[align=left]App. 1979);
see also State v. Briggs, 218 Wis. 2d 61, 68,[/align]
[align=left]579 N.W.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1998)(conviction for[/align]
[align=left]nonexistent crime, attempted felony murder, vacated even[/align]
[align=left]though the conviction was pursuant to a plea agreement).[/align]
[align=left]Mr. Gonzales will also demonstrate that the CCW[/align]
[align=left]statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this[/align]
[align=left]case, where he was arrested for carrying a concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapon after the police found an unloaded gun in a jacket[/align]
[align=left]that was tossed over a chair in Mr. Gonzales’ own kitchen.[/align]
[align=left]This court should exercise its authority to decide this[/align]
[align=left]claim.
State v. Bertrand, 162 Wis. 2d 411, 415, 469[/align]
[align=left]N.W.2d 873 (Ct. App. 1991)(court in its discretion may[/align]
[align=left]consider constitutional claim that was not raised before[/align]
[align=left]-6-[/align]
[align=left]trial). It should reverse Mr. Gonzales’ conviction for[/align]
[align=left]carrying a concealed weapon where, at most, he had[/align]
[align=left]crossed the threshold of the door to his apartment with an[/align]
[align=left]unloaded gun in his jacket before re-entering the apartment[/align]
[align=left]and leaving the gun and his jacket in the kitchen of his[/align]
[align=left]home.[/align]

[align=left]ARGUMENT[/align]
[align=left]I. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE[/align]
[align=left]CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CREATING[/align]
[align=left]A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS INCOMPATIBLE[/align]
[align=left]WITH THE BROAD STATUTORY[/align]
[align=left]RESTRICTION ON CARRYING CONCEALED[/align]
[align=left]WEAPONS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ART. I, §[/align]
[align=left]25 EFFECTIVELY REPEALED WIS. STAT. §[/align]
[align=left]941.23.[/align]

[align=left]On November 3, 1998, three days before Mr.[/align]
[align=left]Gonzales’ arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, the[/align]
[align=left]voters of this state ratified a constitutional amendment[/align]
[align=left]creating a right to keep and bear arms, as follows:[/align]

[align=left]The people have the right to keep and bear arms for[/align]
[align=left]security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other[/align]
[align=left]lawful purpose.[/align]

[align=left]The statute under which Mr. Gonzales was convicted, Wis.[/align]
[align=left]Stat. § 941.23, is a sweeping prohibition on carrying[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapons. It provides:[/align]

[align=left]Any person except a peace officer who goes armed[/align]
[align=left]with a concealed and dangerous weapon is guilty of[/align]
[align=left]a Class A misdemeanor.[/align]

[align=left]The statute is an absolute prohibition against any[/align]
[align=left]person, other than a peace officer, carrying a concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapon. It applies even if a firearm is unloaded. Wis. Stat.[/align]
[align=left]§ 939.22(10). And a firearm is deemed “concealed” even[/align]
[align=left]when it is lying on the front seat of a car.
State v. Walls,[/align]
[align=left]190 Wis. 2d 65, 73, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994). An[/align]
[align=left]-7-[/align]
[align=left]individual need not have the weapon on his or her person to[/align]
[align=left]violate § 941.23. The statute merely requires that the[/align]
[align=left]weapon be within the defendant’s reach. Wis JI-
Criminal[/align]
[align=left]1335 (1997);
see State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 182, 388[/align]
[align=left]N.W.2d 565 (1986)(conviction affirmed where gun was in[/align]
[align=left]the glove compartment of a vehicle driven by the[/align]
[align=left]defendant). Moreover, a person “goes armed” within the[/align]
[align=left]meaning of § 941.23 even when she goes nowhere. In[/align]

[align=left]State v. Keith
, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 79, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct.[/align]
[align=left]App. 1993), this court held that a woman who had a gun in[/align]
[align=left]her purse while she was on the porch of her own home was[/align]
[align=left]properly convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.
See[/align]
[align=left]also State v. Mata
, 199 Wis. 2d 315, 321, 544 N.W.2d[/align]
[align=left]578 (Ct. App. 1996)(Wis. Stat. § 941.237, which permits[/align]
[align=left]tavern owner to go armed with a handgun in the owner’s[/align]
[align=left]tavern, did not preclude prosecution of tavern owner for[/align]
[align=left]carrying a concealed weapon in the owner’s tavern).[/align]
[align=left]Finally, the defense of privilege is unavailable to a person[/align]
[align=left]accused of violating the CCW statute.
State v. Dundon,[/align]
[align=left]226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1990). The statute’s[/align]
[align=left]broad proscription against carrying a concealed weapon in[/align]
[align=left]any place, at any time or for any purpose is incompatible[/align]
[align=left]with the constitutional right to bear arms for any lawful[/align]
[align=left]purpose, including security and defense, and, consequently,[/align]
[align=left]the statute has been effectively repealed.[/align]
[align=left]Obviously, “a constitutional amendment is of the[/align]
[align=left]highest dignity and prevails over legislative acts and court[/align]
[align=left]rule to the contrary.”
Kayden Industries, Inc. v. Murphy,[/align]
[align=left]34 Wis. 2d 718, 733, 150 N.W.2d 447 (1967).[/align]
[align=left]Constitutional amendments that deal with the substantive[/align]
[align=left]law of the state are presumed self-executing in nature and[/align]
[align=left]prospective in effect.
Id. at 731. In addition, it is well[/align]
[align=left]established that “such amendments repeal inconsistent[/align]
[align=left]statutes and common law which arose under the[/align]
[align=left]constitution before the amendment.”
Id. The CCW statute[/align]
[align=left]predates art. I, § 25 by more than 100 years. Laws of 1872,[/align]
[align=left]ch. 7, § 1. The right to bear arms amendment became[/align]
[align=left]effective upon its ratification by the voters on November 3,[/align]
[align=left]-8-[/align]
[align=left]1998. At that moment, it repealed § 941.23 because that[/align]
[align=left]statute is inconsistent with the plain language of the[/align]
[align=left]constitutional amendment.[/align]
[align=left]When interpreting a statute or constitutional[/align]
[align=left]provision, the court first looks to the words of the[/align]
[align=left]provision. If the language is unambiguous, the court need[/align]
[align=left]not look beyond the words of the provision to ascertain its[/align]
[align=left]meaning.
State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 84, 557 N.W.2d[/align]
[align=left]778 (1997). Whether a provision is clear or ambiguous is[/align]
[align=left]a question of law.
Matter of Contempt in State v.[/align]
[align=left]Simmon
, 150 Wis. 2d 178, 181, 441 N.W.2d 308 (Ct. App.[/align]
[align=left]1989).[/align]
[align=left]Article I, § 25 is unambiguous. It guarantees the[/align]
[align=left]right to keep and
bear arms for security and defense,[/align]
[align=left]among other purposes. The word “bear” means: “to move[/align]
[align=left]while holding up or supporting often with effort or special[/align]
[align=left]care: CARRY” or “to be accoutered or fitted out with:[/align]
[align=left]carry as equipment”.
Webster’s Third New International[/align]
[align=left]Dictionary
, p. 191 (1976). Accordingly, the constitutional[/align]
[align=left]amendment guarantees that the people of this state have the[/align]
[align=left]right to possess and
carry weapons for security and[/align]
[align=left]defense.[/align]
[align=left]The amendment contains no exception for[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapons, even though at least five states[/align]
[align=left]included an exception for concealed weapons in their right[/align]
[align=left]to bear arms amendments. Colo. Const. art. II, § 13[/align]
[align=left](“nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the[/align]
[align=left]practice of carrying concealed weapons”); Mo. Const. art.[/align]
[align=left]I, § 23 (“this shall not justify the wearing of concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons”); Mont. Const. art. II, § 12 (“nothing herein[/align]
[align=left]contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons”); N.C. Const. art. I, § 30 (“Nothing herein shall[/align]
[align=left]justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or[/align]
[align=left]prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes[/align]
[align=left]against that practice.”); N.M. Const. art. II, § 6 (“nothing[/align]
[align=left]herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed[/align]
[align=left]weapons”). The amendment also contains no language[/align]
[align=left]-9-[/align]
[align=left]authorizing the legislature to prohibit the carrying of[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapons, even though at least ten states[/align]
[align=left]expressly reserve to the legislature, in their right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms amendment, the power to restrict the carrying of[/align]
[align=left]concealed weapons. Idaho Const. art. I, § 11 (“this[/align]
[align=left]provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of weapons concealed on the person”); Ky.[/align]
[align=left]Bill of Rights § 1, par. 7 (“subject to the power of the[/align]
[align=left]general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from[/align]
[align=left]carrying concealed weapons”); La. Const. art. I, § 11 (“this[/align]
[align=left]provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit[/align]
[align=left]the carrying of weapons concealed on the person”); Miss.[/align]
[align=left]Const. art. III, § 12 (“the legislature may regulate or forbid[/align]
[align=left]carrying concealed weapons”); Okla. Const. art. II, § 26[/align]
[align=left](“nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature[/align]
[align=left]from regulating the carrying of weapons”).[/align]
[align=left]In other contexts, the Wisconsin Legislature has[/align]
[align=left]included language expressly preserving pre-existing[/align]
[align=left]statutes or common law.
See, e.g., art. XIV, § 13[/align]
[align=left](preserving the common law of the territory). In fact, the[/align]
[align=left]victims’ rights amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution,[/align]
[align=left]which was ratified in 1993, expressly provides that the[/align]
[align=left]amendment does not “limit any right of the accused which[/align]
[align=left]may be provided by law.” Art. I, § 9m. The right to bear[/align]
[align=left]arms amendment contains no language preserving the CCW[/align]
[align=left]statute. The plain language of art. I, § 25 is inconsistent[/align]
[align=left]with, and therefore supercedes, § 941.23.[/align]
[align=left]Where, as here, there is no ambiguity in the literal[/align]
[align=left]terms of a constitutional amendment, there is no room for[/align]
[align=left]judicial construction.
Kayden Industries, Inc., 34 Wis. 2d[/align]
[align=left]at 732. The court “may not venture outside the plain[/align]
[align=left]meaning of a provision in order to create an ambiguity ….”[/align]

[align=left]Id
. Rather, when the plain language of a constitutional[/align]
[align=left]amendment conflicts with a pre-existing statute, “[t]he[/align]
[align=left]question thus becomes: “Which provision takes[/align]
[align=left]precedence?’”
Schmeling v. Phelps, 212 Wis. 2d 898,[/align]
[align=left]908, 569 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1997). The answer, of[/align]
[align=left]course, is the constitutional amendment.
Id., citing State[/align]
[align=left]-10-[/align]

[align=left]ex rel. La Follette v. Board of Supervisors of Milwaukee[/align]
[align=left]County
, 109 Wis. 2d 621, 327 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App.[/align]
[align=left]1982).[/align]
[align=left]In
Schmeling, this court was faced with a conflict[/align]
[align=left]between a constitutional amendment giving county[/align]
[align=left]executives veto authority over ordinances and a preexisting[/align]
[align=left]statute providing that county zoning ordinances[/align]
[align=left]become effective upon passage by the county board.[/align]

[align=left]Schmeling
, 212 Wis. 2d at 907-08. The plaintiff argued[/align]
[align=left]that the court must presume that the constitutional[/align]
[align=left]amendment did not amend the statute by implication. This[/align]
[align=left]court rejected that claim and relied instead on the plain[/align]
[align=left]language of the constitutional provision. Because its plain[/align]
[align=left]language was inconsistent with the pre-existing statute, the[/align]
[align=left]court held that the statute “must yield to the constitutional[/align]
[align=left]grant of executive veto authority.”
Id. at 908. This court[/align]
[align=left]should apply the same analysis here. Because the plain[/align]
[align=left]language of the right to bear arms amendment conflicts[/align]
[align=left]with the plain language of the CCW statute, this court may[/align]
[align=left]not “construe” the constitutional amendment but, rather,[/align]
[align=left]must apply it. The constitutional amendment takes[/align]
[align=left]precedence over § 941.23. In other words, § 941.23 was[/align]
[align=left]effectively repealed by art. I, § 25.[/align]
[align=left]The West Virginia Supreme Court applied precisely[/align]
[align=left]that reasoning when it declared unconstitutional a state[/align]
[align=left]statute prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon[/align]
[align=left]without a license.
State ex rel. City of Princeton v.[/align]
[align=left]Buckner
, 180 W. Va. 457, 377 S.E.2d 139 (1988). In[/align]
[align=left]1986, the people of West Virginia amended their state[/align]
[align=left]constitution to create a right to bear arms that is virtually[/align]
[align=left]identical to the amendment subsequently adopted in[/align]
[align=left]Wisconsin. It reads:[/align]

[align=left]A person has the right to keep and bear arms for[/align]
[align=left]defense of self, family, home and state, and for[/align]
[align=left]lawful hunting and recreational use.[/align]

[align=left]-11-[/align]
[align=left]W. Va. Const. art. III, § 22. A few months after the[/align]
[align=left]amendment was ratified, the state sought to charge the[/align]
[align=left]defendant with carrying a dangerous weapon without a[/align]
[align=left]license in violation of a state statute.
1 After being stopped[/align]
[align=left]for drunk driving, police found a pistol in the jacket pocket[/align]
[align=left]of the driver, who did not have a license to carry the gun.[/align]

[align=left]Buckner
, 180 W. Va. at 459. The state could not pursue[/align]
[align=left]the charge because the supreme court declared the statute[/align]
[align=left]unconstitutional.[/align]
[align=left]The supreme court held that the plain language of[/align]
[align=left]the constitutional right to bear arms was inconsistent with[/align]
[align=left]the statutory prohibition on carrying dangerous weapons[/align]
[align=left]without a license.
[/font
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The opinion of the SSC on the Gonzales case goes to prove the extent Shirley Abrahamson and her troops will go toin order to affirm a convictionof concealed weapons. In my opinion the certification of the state election board should only come into play if the certification overides the initial raw tally of votes. In the case of the Right to Carry amendment the voter approval vote was more than 70%.
 
Top