WI circuit court sides with gun owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the ruling and I don’t see this as a victory for gun owners. It was a victory for one gun owner in particular and that’s about it. There is considerable emphasis on the fact that he had been robbed a number of times before. How is this ruling helpful to Wisconsinites who haven’t been robbed at gunpoint yet? What if you don’t want to have a gun pointed at your head, or believe that such an act is unsafe? It sounds to me like that if you want a CCW in Wisconsin; you need to get someone to rob you a few times first. Maybe some entrepreneur can benefit from this.
 
Please someone correct me if im wrong...

I think that if there is one more instance where a judge rules in favor of concealed carry ("not charged" would be in favor) that the law saying there is no concealed carry for anyone is done away with.

I live in Wisconsin and I have been hearing a lot. Just wondering if it is true. Dont take my words to heart. Ive tried searching for another instance of this, but have come up short.
 
Looks to me as though Wisconsin courts are saying that you can carry a gun only if there's a good reason to do so. Doesn't strike me as a good thing overall, although it's nice to see reason-- of a sort-- prevail every once in a while. Anybody know what all this foolishness cost the pizza guy?
 
Assuming future prosecutions against people who CC fail due to similar rulings, the ban is close to dead. But it will take more people being charged and then having charges dropped to have that effect...eventually, either one case will be appealed to the WI Supreme Court and a favorable (hopefully) ruling results in overturning the ban entirely, or most prosecutors will give up trying to enforce the law when it becomes a lost cause trying to enforce it. The battle is won, the war is not...
 
Monkeyleg

I see what you are saying, but this is a win for us regardless. What I am surprised by, is that charges got Brought against Mr. Vegas. Do you know where the charges brought before the Supreme Court elections. If so perhaps the DA thought that one of Doyals patsies where to be elected. If so then this case just made my evening.
 
Glad to see someone has some common sense up there. Also glad that Vegas wasn't intimidated by the law and did what he needed to. Also glad to see him refusing to live a life of fear and running away from the situation when he should not have to do this.

If our community was made up of more of these types of people, I believe we would be in a much better situation. Too many of us jump when told to. And I'm not saying I'm any better then anyone else...

And, for some real talk, how long until Vegas gets fired from his job? ;)
 
"And, for some real talk, how long until Vegas gets fired from his job?"

Vegas has already taken a job on the south side of Milwaukee, where his chances of getting robbed are much less.

Nice, huh? What will his replacement do when delivering on the north side?

If this case had gone to the state SC, I think we would have won big-time. Instead, it looks like the DA (and probably Doyle's people) saw that they would lose in an SC case, and so let one guy go free.
 
I'm suprised his employer keeps him on the job. Most likely, the employer has no insurance to cover the actions of employees who exercise self-help in the form of the use of firearms in the course of their employment.

Andres is very much NOT GUILTY of any crime. But, you can rest assured somebody is going to sue his employer - if not this time then certainly when Andres gives the next robber a permanent dirt nap. Then, a lawyer is going to see deep pockets.

WI needs a "make my day" law in the worst way.

Without a make-my-day law, an employer has no choice but to dismiss an employee who attracts uninsured liability. The pizza joint probably DOES have insurance to pay for Andres' loss (including loss of his life) if it happens in the performance of his duty (although not including getting in force-on-force shootouts with robbers).

Carjackings were rampant in Louisiana just prior to enactment of Louisiana's make-my-day law. Now, carjackings are at an all-time low. Not sure about robberies of pizza deliverys - but probably those are way down too.
 
-----quote--------
the requisite extraordinary circumstances
------------------

This is the clincher, and I don't like it.
According to this court, only people with "extraordinary circumstances" are justified in carrying a gun.
 
Originally posted by W.E.G.: Carjackings were rampant in Louisiana just prior to enactment of Louisiana's make-my-day law. Now, carjackings are at an all-time low. Not sure about robberies of pizza deliverys - but probably those are way down too.
Click to expand...

Do you have statistics to support this claim?
 
Court sides with gun owner

Whatever they are paying him, it isn't enough. He must be delivering the BIG sausage pizza!
 
I wonder if this can be applied to real estate agents and insurance agents who regularly have to go to abandoned homes and to places some consider questionable or dangerous.

re: pizza delivery:
A few years ago some people complained about a pizza shop not delivering to their address because of a shop policy of no longer delivering pizzas beyond a certain street. Didn't matter that the people lived in a nice corner, according the the pizza shop they were about 9 blocks too far east for safe delivery.

I'm now printing this out to throw into the briefcase just in case.
 
I talked to Vegas' attorney an hour ago, and he had some interesting things to say, but asked that they not be made public.
Click to expand...

I suppose a PM about what he said would be considered making it "public" in this case, so I won't ask.

-----
Edit:
Nevermind, the Simple Case Search the state has makes for some interesting reading.
 
This is an interesting and heartening post. I'm very happy the court judged as they did, and I doubt the DA appeals to the WI Supreme Court (the DA would probably not get the judgement he would want to hear).

I'm just curious if Mr.Vegas had been killed by his assailants, could the DA be sued for wrongful death....interesting concept.
 
Tallpine said:
One never knows when "extraordinary circumstances" will suddenly occur :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's what urks me.

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... blah blah blah.

I'm not sure what this case means for us other than it shows us of one reasonable Judge in one District of this entire state. Beyond that... we're still at square one.
 
Monkeyleg

I see what you are saying, but this is a win for us regardless. What I am surprised by, is that charges got Brought against Mr. Vegas. Do you know where the charges brought before the Supreme Court elections. If so perhaps the DA thought that one of Doyals patsies where to be elected. If so then this case just made my evening.
Click to expand...

Monkeyleg, correct me if I'm wrong…

My understanding was that the Assistant DA who declined to charge Mr. Vegas during the first defensive shooting also instructed him to stop carrying a firearm.

She was also the ADA prosecuting the Vegas case this time around as well. So I'd guess there was an issue of some personal animus between the DA's office and the "disobedient" Mr. Vegas, above and beyond any other greater WI CCW/RKBA issues. Now the DA's office is making noises about not returning Mrs. Vegas' firearm, or is at least dragging their heels. Ostensibly it's the only way they have to punish the poor man for not being properly cowed.

Honestly, this is the outcome I expected. The DA's office would have been fools to appeal, even if they had grounds to do so, which they don't. Since Vegas' lawyers requested a ruling based on the constitutionality, and that Mr. Vegas' status so perfectly fit under the prior Supreme Court Hadman and Fisher rulings guidelines on weighing the state's regulatory power against the individual's need for security, there's nothing to take to a higher court since the highest one has already ruled.

So in my mind it was likely we'd get the same ruling whether the judge was pro RKBA/CCW and couldn't in good concience rule against Mr. Vegas to make him a potential test case, or a shrewd anti-gunner out to minimize the damage that Mr. Vegas' case represented.

I don't know exactly how the WCCA should capitalize on the Vegas decision, but I'm certain that DA's state-wide who were already advised to treat WI-941.23/CCW cases with otherwise law-abiding defendants as Plutonium by former AG Peg Lautenschlager, will now be even more wary.

I'm no lawyer, but the only legal strategy that comes to mind would be to slowly collect victims of arrest for CCW or open carry and form a class-action against the state. Kind of a variant of the "Is there anything we can do with the "Disturbing the Peace" or "disorderly conduct" charges for OC?" strategy that's been bandied about. However, collecting enough plantiffs to make a credible class action after the state started sniping off people for "lack of standing" would probably take as long as waiting on a legislative solution.
 
A couple of questions re this case.

1. Is this DA an elected or appointed offical?. If elected, one wonders as to the outcome of the next election. If appointed, by an "elected thing", what might the voters have to say to that individual. If the DA is appointed, can his firing by pushed?

2. Mr. Doyle, an avowed anti gunner, as governor has vetoed a couple of concealed carry laws passed by the legislature. Has he stood for re-election recently?
 
Alan, the District Attorney position is an elected one. Assistant DA's are appointed.

AJ, the DA's office can appeal the decision, but they're not going to.
 
AJ, very funny. I talked to a couple of staffers today (you know who) and they think that Doyle pressured the DA to not take this case any further.

Strings, we never changed the name of the group to "Citizens for a Safer Wisconsin." You were at the meeting. Or were you just half there because your damned legs were frozen from wearing that leather skirt? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ilbob
  • Locked
interesting WI article
Replies
5
Views
660
cracked butt
C
D
  • Locked
Milwaukee Shooting is justified but carrying concealed is not!
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Monkeyleg
M
M
  • Locked
WI: Vegas CCW case update
Replies
4
Views
430
Monkeyleg
M
D
  • Locked
WI:Pizza Delivery Guy: 1, Anti-gun Politicians: 0 (Duplicate threads merged)
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Monkeyleg
M
H
  • Locked
Jerry Lewis gets off ... Could you ?
Replies
16
Views
1K
ants
A
Back
Top