Got it back, FINALLY!!!!!

imported post

nope. it won't come up as there was no conviction or trial for that matter. My wife and I are going to be moving to Missouri this summer so it's not going to be a big deal at all.

imported post

948.605 says Class I felony, if that was the conviction.

imported post

the fact that I was facing a felony and the promise of my property being returned was a big factor in my taking the deferred prosecution arrangement. Would have been nice to go to court and come out victorious but I wasn't going to roll the dice. It's easy to talk big on the web about going to court and being exonerated but it's a whole 'nother beast to stare down the barrel of a 3 year federal sentence yourself.

imported post

ConfederateSoul wrote:

It's easy to talk big on the web about going to court and being exonerated but it's a whole 'nother beast to stare down the barrel of a 3 year federal sentence yourself.

Click to expand...

So you had federal charges and state charges or only federal?

One difference that I learned is that the fed's speedy trial requirement is burdensome and has teeth while the states are generally less so. In SC the fed's did all the pre-trial stuff and then unloaded the cases that they didn't want to hurry onto the local jurisdiction.

imported post

I think it was just state charges but I equate all prisons with the federal government for some reason. Not sure why.

imported post

ConfederateSoul wrote:

I think it was just state charges but I equate all prisons with the federal government for some reason. Not sure why.

Click to expand...

I was going to say, wasn't the Federal GFSZ law struck down?

imported post

paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:

I was going to say, wasn't the Federal GFSZ law struck down?

Click to expand...

Unless I've missed something...I don't have the exact wording/details handy to cut and paste..but the meat of the matter is...

The original federal GFSZ was struck down as there was no demonstrated applicable federal jurisdiction.

It was replaced with a near copy that included the caveat that the gun must have been involved in interstate commerce, thus meeting requirements for fed jurisdiction. I don't believe this law has ever been tested/challenged.

Given that I'm quite sure Kimbers aren't mined, smelted, cast, bored, finished, etc. entirely within the borders of Wisconsin...it has passed through interstate commerce.

imported post

And that is why we are challenging the law. Back in '95, the 2nd amendment wasn't an individual right. Back in '95, Wisconsin didn't have Article 1, Section 25 either.

SCOTUS finding for McDonald, can only help our case.

We will continue the fight....

imported post

I don't believe this law has ever been tested/challenged.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been challenged to my knowledge, but people have been convicted under it. I have conviction records that have been emailed to me to cite. (they will make your skin crawl) (they are on my downtown office computer, I will post them Monday)

I've been working closely with a guy nationally who has been up on this statute (fed statute) long before WCI came along. He sought us out after we filed the federal lawsuit challenging Wisconsin GFSZ. He has phenomenal documentation. He's also very connected with a US Senator from another state (withholding that name for now) who is willing to pick up this fight, but he (senator needs mega support behind him first.)

I've been vetting this information for a few weeks. I'll post what I can monday.