Good News From Wisconsin

Dave Hardy tells us:

Reading the opinion (linked to that page): He defended himself against an armed robbery, and was then charged with CCW for it. It wasn’t the first time. The court applies the new state constitutional amendment on arms, the Wisconsin caselaw construing it, which essentially requires for concealed carry that the individual’s need to carry outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing CCW bans, and that the situation be such that open carry wasn’t a feasible way to exercise the right to arms. The trial court concluded both were true and dismissed the prosecution.

The Wisconsin high court told the legislature several years ago it needed to fix the concealed carry issue when it ruled that a firearm carried concealed at a person’s place of business was within their constitutional rights.  The legislature acted, but was unable to overcome Governor Jim Doyle’s veto.

Here’s to hoping the courts in Wisconsin are open to the idea of revisiting this issue, since Jim Doyle didn’t listen.  Perhaps Wisconsin will become a Vermont carry state.  Oh, the irony that could create, we’d have to oppose any concealed carry law there because it would be gun control :)

6 thoughts on “Good News From Wisconsin”

  1. The prosecutor chose not to appeal, thus the ruling will not become generally applicable. I haven’t read the ruling, but I’ve heard that Hamden (the previous State Supreme Court ruling) was applied narrowly via the odd notion that the street is a pizza driver’s place of business.

  2. The DA basically chickened out. Not appealing is inconsistent – either what the pizza guy did was illegal (and therefore the decision is wrong) or the law is wrong. But the DA doesn’t want to lose the law, so he’s letting the pizza guy go.

    OTOH, it saves the pizza guy a whack of money

  3. I’d say that’s disappointing, but the fact is that at least one person will not have his constitutional rights crapped on by being charged with a crime that shouldn’t be.

  4. I read the actual decision – very odd; the law is unconstitutional, but only as applied to the defendant.

    No wonder the DA didn’t appeal

  5. If he had appealed and was rejected the decision of the appellate court would have negated the law in the whole state and all such cases. The DA wants the illegal law and is willing to drop this case to keep the ability to abuse his power.

Comments are closed.