WI: Judge finds concealed carry prosecution unconstitutional

[Trip20]

We were hoping this would make it to the Supreme Court. This is not a major victory as it does not establish precedent, but it is in the right direction.

Source.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal
JSOnline.com
By DERRICK NUNNALLY
dnunnally@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 24, 2007

A Milwaukee County judge found the concealed-weapon prosecution of a pizza driver who shot two would-be robbers in seven months unconstitutional Monday.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan means Andres Vegas won't face criminal charges in the non-fatal shootings. Prosecutors had filed a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon after the second shooting, in January, and said Vegas had been warned after a July 2006 shooting not to carry a concealed gun while driving for his job.

However, Noonan agreed with defense attorneys' contention that Vegas needed the gun to protect himself in his chosen work, citing state Supreme Court decisions that found justified exceptions to the state's concealed-carry ban.

"Given Vegas's experience, he has a need for a gun at a moment's notice," Noonan writes in his decision. "Enclosing and unloading the weapon is not a reasonable alternative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while delivering pizzas enters and exits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose of having the gun for security and protection."

Craig Mastantuono, one of two attorneys who represented Vegas, said the weapons ban had presented Vegas, 46, with two untenable choices: either carry a gun illegally or else go unarmed on delivery runs in the same central-city neighborhoods where he has been robbed four times.

"Mr. Vegas's situation may seem unique," Mastantuono said, "but given the gap between the rights that are afforded Wisconsin citizens in the right to bear arms amendment and the prohibitions that restrict Wisconsin residents in the concealed-carry general ban that was never updated by the Legislature, I think it's going to be a recurring situation, quite frankly."

Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said the office has no plans to appeal the decision. An appeal could give a higher court an opportunity to hand down a precedent-setting decision on whether the concealed-carry prohibition is constitutional, whereas Noonan's decision applies only to Vegas's case.

Mastantuono said Vegas has moved on, career-wise. After the charge was filed, Vegas became a delivery driver in a Milwaukee suburb. He is now a cook.

"Mr. Vegas felt required by circumstances - not only of threats to his safety but being prosecuted for defending himself - he felt required to change careers," Mastantuono said.

 

[Wildalaska]

Trip I would love to see a copy of the decision!

WildhasathoughtAlaska TM

 

[SteelJM1]

He'll still probably get screwed in the civil trial. Unless people start tipping him REAL big.

 

[Trip20]

As soon as the decision turns up I'll be sure to link to it in this thread.

 

[Trip20]

Here is a link to Milwaukee Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan's decision.

 

[Wildalaska]

Very cool. I assume that WI has no means for a person to get a permit to carry?

WildwhereareournycityitesAlaska TM

 

[Trip20]

Correct, Ken. There is no permit system.

There is no law on the books prohibiting open carry. However it is believed that one will be accosted by law enforcement for disturbing the peace, and/or other similar charges (think 911 call for "man with a gun").

 

[Trip20]

I became a little aggravated reading the entire decision, mostly because there were a few certain key points that I felt apply to everyone, not just Vegas, or someone in his circumstances.

In addition, I also saw what I felt was inconsistent logic in certain portions of the Analysis. The logic seemed so selectively applied that it was as if there was purposeful ignorance to avoid a more broad implication of the opinion/analysis.

I then told myself that Noonan was deciding for this case, and only with in the parameters of Vegas' circumstances. I can't expect Noonan to say everything I want to hear about the constitutionality of statute 941.23.

But I do wonder if the logic discussed in the decision would have to reasonably apply to someone with no prior history of being attacked or to someone with out these often noted "extraordinary circumstances" that will undoubtedly be the thorn in any future defendant's side.

Overall, I think the narrow-minded decisions in Hamdan and Fisher will continue to loom over any future defendant, and over anyone considering the decision to exercise their Right to bear arms. Equal protection under the law and all that jazz.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wonderful! Although limited to the facts at bar, great lesson for guys in unfriendly states.


WilddocumentyourtroublesAlaska TM