If she is a member of WCI, I would assume there is legal assistance available.
Whether she uses her own attorney or not. Maybe BNH or Nik could shed some light on this as I am not sure of WCI's policy.
Let me share WCI's policy. I am speaking in GENERAL, not about this or any specific case.
First, we suggest that people who wish to carry follow the law. Regardless of the fact that we believe many laws to be unconstitutional, what we believe to be unconstitutional and what courts will find to be unconstitutional are 2 different things. People have to be responsible for the consequences of their own behavior. WCI believes people have a right to carry in the manner of their choosing. Our mission is to preserve the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry that exist today (OC), restore the right to carry which is being denied (CC) and get rid of meaningless restrictions on where people can carry (restaurants, parks, cars, etc) that make no sense and only enable criminals. We urge people to comply with the laws that exist today. As an example, though we believe the CC ban is unconstitutional, the legal system may not support that and we don't want people (especially members) to expose themselves to legal peril (though as free persons, they have the right to make decisions for themselves). Though we believe the GFSZ's to be unconstitutional, we do not advocate for people to knowingly violate GFSZ and expose themselves to legal peril.
WCI advocates that people follow the law because we could not possibly provide legal assistance to every individual who chose to ignore laws that we (and they) felt were unconstitutional. Despite believing GFSZ's are unconstitutional, if our members began knowingly violating them and getting arrested/charged, we could not possibly provide resources to all those people.
I know its a pain in the @ss to unload and encase every time you enter a vehicle, but for all of our members who do so to comply with the law, it wouldn't be equitable for WCI to use the funds from their membership for personal legal defense of those who chose to ignore that law. That is not to say we won't help in other ways if we can, but even in that regard, we have limited resources. Because we have limited resources WCI looks to the most effective ways to advance the cause. Sometimes the most effective use of those resources will be civil cases, sometimes it will be legislative action, sometimes it will be public awareness and public promotion of our cause. Individuals ignoring the law (despite our and their belief that it is unconstitutional) is not (we believe) a good method to advance rights. We do believe people should exercise every right they have within the law.
Furthermore:
When it comes to misdemeanors and crimes it is a very tricky situation. Defendants of these violations/charges face loss of their money/rights/freedom. These persons need to make the decisions that are best for themselves. Sometimes that may involve taking a plea deal, sometimes it may involve fighting a violation/charge in court. Each scenario presents risks. The individual who's money/rights/freedom is at stake must personally decide what risks they are willing to take. It would be inappropriate for WCI to influence defendants to (for example) turn down a plea deal that would avoid harsh penalties and instead go to trial just so "we" could have a precedent setting opportunity IF we win at trial. However, we do believe that if WCI uses general funds for legal fee's in civil or criminal cases, or misdemeanor violations, we MUST have the opportunity for precedent setting outcomes that benefit the cause as a whole (not just one individual)in order to justify the use of our members resources.
As an example, if WCI gives $1000 to a defendant for retainer of an attorney and the attorney can get all charges dropped, that benefits the individual greatly, but only the individual. In fairness, we would then have to offer the same $ resources to every member who finds themselves in legal peril and obviously, we don't have the resources for that, NOR would we want to write people a "blank-check" to violate the law (even laws we believe to be unconstitutional) and they don't have to worry about it because WCi will pay for your attorney. Also, imagine if we gave someone money to fight a violation/charge and they were offered a plea deal that THEY wanted to take, but WCI wanted them to turn down and fight in court. Just one example why getting involved in these violations/misdemeanor/criminal cases is usually not the place for WCI.
Because of these examples, and issues I've listed above that defendants of violations/misdemeanors/charges face, misdemeanor/criminal defense USUALLY DOES NOT present the most effective use of WCI resources. There MAY be circumstances where we believe a patently unconstitutional law is being enforced that we CAN win on appeal and establish precedent, and in those cases, we may use our discretion, assess a specific case, and use $ resources for criminal cases/appeals if we believe that to be the most effective way to advance the cause for all. Once a case reaches an appeal, the defendant's "risk" assessment changes as well as the venue becoming precedent setting and it changes the opportunity and effectiveness of WCI allocating resources to that.
Keep in mind that just because "we" believe a law to be unconstitutional doesn't mean that our attorneys who look at the other decisions of the state courts including the Wisconsin Supreme court will believe we can win an appeal. For laws we believe to be unconstitutional but don't think the courts will agree, legislative changes will be the most effective method, not people breaking the law (even an unconstitutional law).
Civil litigation typically presents MUCH better use of resources for many reasons. First, we can carefully examine the situation and assess the probability of success and decide to file or not to file a lawsuit. If we do, when filing civil action, "we" and the former defendant are now the plaintiff's and the municipality is the defendant. Now our members life/liberty/property is NOT at risk. Second, successful civil actions cause detriment to the new defendant (paying out monetary damages etc) Civil actions thus tend to 'pay for themselves' if you are successful and present a strong practical deterrent to other municipalities who might harass or violate the rights of law-abiding citizens. In addition, successful civil actions establish precedent. Sometimes persuasive and sometimes binding precedent depending on the venue. These practical deterrents and legal precedents benefit all, not just one individual.
Hopefully in a general sense, that clarifies how we approach these situations and where/when we get involved in a way that is most effective for the cause as a whole.
My advice to a WCI member is to make the choices that are best for you, but be prepared to deal with the consequences of your decisions. We advocate to follow the laws until WCI (or someone else) can get them changed or deemed unconstitutional. It is an individuals personal responsibility to know the law, educate themselves on the law, gun carry, gun safety, etc. No organization can replace the obligation of a person to be accountable for their actions. We very carefully review situations and the resources we have to decide how to best advance freedom and carry rights in Wisconsin. How we can help an individual will vary depending on each situation. In some cases we may not feel it is appropriate to get involved at all. In some cases it may be to refer a person to a criminal defense attorney, in some cases it may be to share our knowledge of the law, in some cases it may be to help them $ on appeal, in some cases it may be to file a civil suit on their and WCI's behalf and obtain damages for the person and establish precedent.
This is just the beginning of these challenges and the only way we will see Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin is to win these challenges
Here I will disagree. Its unlikely that the court system and legal challenges will provide ALL the rights we want to see. We will HAVE to assert our influence (individually and collectively) with legislators and use the legislative route if we want to see 'true' constitutional carry in Wisconsin
Specifically with THIS case, WCI has been taking a very close look and assessing where we can get involved to advance rights in Wisconsin. It wouldn't be prudent to share our analysis on a public forum that I know personally is watched by the Milwaukee Journal staff daily not to mention LE. There are a NUMBER of things about the incident that appear to be troubling from what we know about the
Police actions. Perhaps
"very troubling" is a better description. We continue to gather information and assess where the opportunity to advance rights may exist.
I will say that if it happens that WCI doesn't get involved until a civil lawsuit, or doesn't take any action at all it will be with careful consultation with our attorneys and careful assessment of the most effective use of our resources to advance carry rights for all in Wisconsin.