Wisconsin Circuit Court Sides With Gun Owners!

[paramedic70002]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3242

Wisconsin Circuit Court Sides With Gun Owners!

Monday, September 24, 2007


Today, Monday, September 24, the 31st Circuit Court of Milwaukee County ruled that the Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) statute was unconstitutional as applied to a particular defendant -- in this case, a pizza delivery driver who carried a gun for self-defense on the job, after being robbed repeatedly in a high crime area.

Andres Vegas is a pizza delivery driver and has been robbed and mugged while attempting to deliver a pizza on four different occasions. The first time was in March of 2005. The second time was July 14, 2006, when Vegas was attacked and threatened at gunpoint. Vegas, armed with a firearm, exercised his constitutional right of self-defense and shot one of the assailants. Vegas was not charged with the crime of carrying concealed and was ruled as acting in self defense. Not only was his firearm confiscated at the time of arrest, but it was never returned. He was subsequently told by the prosecuting District Attorney that if he were to use a firearm in self-defense again he would be prosecuted.

On September 13, 2006, an unarmed Vegas -- acting under the orders of the District Attorney to avoid prosecution -- was robbed, beaten, and sprayed with pepper spray by three assailants. Consequently Vegas went out and purchased another firearm. On January 4, 2007, Vegas was again attempting to deliver a pizza when two men approached him and pointed a gun in his face. This time, he responded by again exercising his right to self-defense and shot his assailant in the hip. Vegas then secured his assailant' s firearm along with his, placed them both on the roof of his car, dialed 911, and waited for the police to arrive. The DA determined that he acted in self defense, but he was subsequently charged with CCW for the moments before he was assaulted and defended.

Even though this charge was brought forward by the DA’s office, the court has ruled in favor of Vegas, saying:

“Defendant Vegas has demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances that warrant his concealed weapon…Vegas legally purchased his firearm for the purpose of security and protection. There is a strong inference that Vegas’ concealed firearm has saved his life during these violent assaults…Vegas has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon.”

“This Court is not convinced that there are any reasonable alternatives that would have secured Vegas’ safety. Vegas' concealed weapon has most likely saved his life on several occasions; this the State cannot ignore. The State has conceded that Vegas did not have an unlawful purpose for concealing a weapon. Given the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant has affirmatively answered the two-prong analysis as outlined in Hamdan and Fisher and thus grants the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”

This is a giant step forward in the battle for Right-to-Carry in Wisconsin. This court ruling will likely lead to future citizens exercising their right to self-defense by carrying concealed firearms. Unfortunately this will likely lead to subsequent prosecutions, but this circuit court ruling will become a perfect example of law-abiding citizens' need for concealed firearms for protection against crime, especially in high crime areas such as Milwaukee.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[P7fanatic]

While it is refreshing to see sanity, logic and common sense being exibited by the members of 'the court' in defending Vegas' right to carry, it is quite disturbing to see the 'anti-gun' antics of the District Attorney. People like this DA should not be in public office as they do not have the interests of the 'law abiding innocent public' in mind but rather the interests of 'special interest anti-gun groups'.
I am curious to know if the court ordered the DA to return the weapon that was illegally siezed from Vegas in the original incident or if Vegas ever sued the city/county for the return of the weapon.l
Good on him. I guess he's still delivering pizza's.

[limatunes]

I feel like screaming, "NO WAY! Are you telling me that someone... a civilian... ACTUALLY 'has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon'? Why, that just can't be!! And it can't be true that they couldn't find 'any reasonable alternatives that would have secured Vegas’ safety'. He should have called 911 and waited for the police. What was he thinking?"

OK. Sarcasm off.

Ahh.. Wisconsin drives me nuts.

Yes it's a HUGE step in the right direction for them, if only other courts would see this.

How many times to people have to be beaten, raped, murdered, assaulted before they are ALLOWED to exercise their right to defense.

This poor guy weighed his pros and cons. Go to jail for concealing a weapon, or survive. His choice was clear, even after he tried to abide "by the law."

I'm glad he came out on top of this.

Maybe Wisconsin will wake up and finally allow concealed carry.

[GrizzlyAdams]

I think I would find another job...

[alphadeziac]

If he bags another BG I don't think he will have to. They will probably start hiding in bushes and under cars when they see any triangular pizza sign on a car coming down the street. Much like they do now when they see the red and blues of a patrol car.

[limatunes]

I think I would find another job...

I think there is going to be a lot of people who share your views on this.

In fact, it was one of the first things that popped into my head as well.

If I had been assaulted four times, twice where I needed to use a weapon in my own defense, I'd probably start looking for another career.

However, following that thought was another... Why to the bad guys always get to win? Why does their evil make someone leave something they enjoy and force them to look elsewhere.

Obviously this guy likes his job or he wouldn't have stayed so long. And it's pretty clear to me that he has an understanding employer as they have not fired him for carrying concealed and using that weapon on the job. So many employers these days are so quick to fire someone who even owns a gun much less carries one against the law. Perhaps no one else will hire him because of his run-ins with these problems and his reputation for being a firearms carrier.

I don't know. I think, sometimes, when we are going about the course of our daily lives, evil crosses our path and we do what's necessary to ensure we come through that situation alive, well, and in one piece. We are careful, we are vigilant, but even still, sometimes we are required, most often for work, to go places we wouldn't normally go. Should he have to change jobs if he was a plumber and he was assaulted four times? Should he change jobs if he was a salesman and he was assaulted? Or maybe a painter or an electrician? At what point does someone say, "enough is enough." I'm not going to back down and I'm not going to let the bad guys intimidate me out of doing what I want and love to do.

This guy isn't out there looking for trouble. And I know Milwaukee. I grew up an hour north of there. That place is a disaster (and that's putting it nicely). He could be a UPS delivery man in Milwaukee and still get mugged as many times.

I don't know. This is all just Lima theory, but I don't think this guy should have to change his job if he doesn't want to. If he decided he'd had enough and wanted to get out of it, then fine, but if not, it's his job, he must like it enough to want to stay with it. The bad guys be darned.. the pizza delivery man is doing his job.

[joffe]

Milwaukee sounds like a war zone. What are the odds of one person getting into all those situations? Did he just get damn unlucky or is it that bad?

In any case, I doubt this will do anything for the right to carry. It will probably let people who have been shot at least three times be approved for CCW permits. Or, of course, if you're related to anyone in the police department or the justice system. Or if you're a celebrity. That's how it goes...

[peacefuljeffrey]

This is a giant step forward in the battle for Right-to-Carry in Wisconsin. This court ruling will likely lead to future citizens exercising their right to self-defense by carrying concealed firearms. Unfortunately this will likely lead to subsequent prosecutions, but this circuit court ruling will become a perfect example of law-abiding citizens' need for concealed firearms for protection against crime, especially in high crime areas such as Milwaukee.

Yes, but unfortunately, if more and more people do this and then seek protection under the legal tenets that Vegas did, the court will at some point put a stop to it, even if it has to ignore its own precedent or reverse itself. They'll say that it's fine if one guy does it, but not if everyone does it.

I'm confused, though, isn't Wisconsin a non-shall-issue state? He did not have a CCW license, and could not have gotten one, right?

I would apply a lesson that my dad learned in traffic court: After cross-examining the officer who had given him a speeding ticket very well, the judge asked my dad if he was a lawyer! My dad said no, but the judge said that he had made the best, most erudite and eloquent defense he had seen in his court -- and then proceeded to find him guilty. (I saw it in a transcript, actually, because my dad appealed. He also lost the appeal.)

Why did my dad lose his case even though he had made the "best defense" the judge had seen? Because the judge couldn't afford to have everyone else in the courtroom that day walk up, mimic what Dad had said, and walk away with a dropped charge!

Let's not go thinking that Wisconsin is just going to lie back and allow anyone who carries a gun without legal permission to just walk away if he has to shoot someone with it. And that's saying nothing about those who might get caught with the gun before it has to be used to save their lives.

It's logically inconsistent that the state could argue that it's wrong to have the gun if you're caught with it before it saves your life, but if you did use it to save your life, that retroactively proves your need to have had it, and that makes it okay.

What they need is a statutory recognition that it's OK to carry a gun because it could save your life!

[SIGguy229]

Jeffrey...I hear what you are saying and somewhat agree. However, I disagree with your statement:

Let's not go thinking that Wisconsin is just going to lie back and allow anyone who carries a gun without legal permission...

Isn't the 2A enough?

[Bob The Great]

I hope this acts as the catalyst for legal CC there. Sounds like it's needed.

[Captain Crunch]

Isn't the 2A enough?

No, actually it isn't. The States are not bound by the Second Amendment.

The USSC has never incorporated the 2A to the States, via the 14th Amendment.

[Janq]

“This Court is not convinced that there are any reasonable alternatives that would have secured Vegas’ safety."

This statement is key, universally not just for Vegas but all persons in WI.
Alternatives include carrying a cell phone to dial 9-1-1 as well as carrying a Bible/Torah/Koran toward prayer that they don't brain you too hard or stab you too deeply as they rob you.

Yeah for Vegas!

- Janq

[Daddy Warcrimes]

Let me see if I have this right:
It's OK to CCW so long as it's not discovered by the authorities until after defending yourself from a deadly attack?

[ccw9mm]

“... has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon.”

To my way of thinking, it's called the RIGHT to life and liberty, which both were attempted to be taken by felons. Apparently, the politicos holding office in Wisconsin will be dragged kicking and screaming down the path. But, it does appear to be the right path.

[paramedic70002]

Whoda ever thought that a lowly pizza delivery guy would be carrying the banner? Too bad (or maybe not) that the court didn't attempt to define what the threshold was to need a gun.