Judge finds Milwaukee’s Concealed Carry ban unconstitutional?

September 24th, 2007

A Milwaukee court has found that the Concealed Carry ban is unconstitutional in the particular case of a pizza delivery man accused of violating it.

The problem is that the Concealed Carry ban is just unconstitutional, viagra click period. And it makes me crazy that the State Supreme Court has managed to twist their interpretation of the State’s Constitution enough that this isn’t clearly the case for everyone.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Dale Lamminen  |  September 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Judge Noonan did get it right concerning his decision in the Andres Vegas case. Unfortunately as with other court decisions regarding Wisconsin firearm laws his decision seems to create more questions than answers. Also, unfortunately, his decision to toss the case prevents the case from being elevated to a higher court and eventually put the State Supreme Court in a position to finally have to define the state firearm laws in clear and unambiguous terms. With their convoluted decisions on State v Fry, State v Kieth, State v Cole, State v Hamdan and State v Fisher the Court itself has been responsible for creating much of the mess the state gun laws are in. This may have been an opportunity to “get it right”. On the other hand it may have been just another opportunity for it to make a bigger mess of things. One example of where the SSC has created a mess is:

    Judge Noonan makes reference in his decision about it being unworkable to expect Vegas to unload and encase his firearm whenever he entered his vehicle and then uncase it and reload it every time he exited the vehicle. This is obvious in reference to statute 167.31(2)(b) which requires that a weapon carried in any motor vehicle be unloaded and concealed in a carrying case. This very statute in itself requires a firearm to be concealed when carried in a motor vehicle, in obvious conflict with the concealed weapon statute 941.23.

    In State v Kieth and State v Hamdan the SSC set down the conditions needed to allow the State to prosecute the carry of a
    concealed weapon be it that the weapon be on a person or in a motor vehicle. The weapon must be hidden from view. The person must know the weapon is there. The weapon must be within reach.

    I believe it was in State v Cole where the SSC reviewed the apparent conflict between the two statues in regards to carry in a motor vehicle. The Court comments were that it didn’t see that there is a conflict between the statutes because to avoid conflict a person need only carry the weapon out of reach in a vehicle. By doing so the person removes one of the conditions that define concealment. The error of this decision is that the SSC presumed that firearms would be carried in a vehicle that was physically constructed so that it would be possible to carry the firearm out of reach. The Court didn’t take into consideration single passenger motor vehicles that are built so that it is impossible to carry a firearm out of reach. Such vehicles as ATV’s, Snowmobiles, Rubber rafts with electric trolling motors, motorized wheelchairs and others. All on which it is impossible to avoid all three conditions of concealment. Therefore, cause a situation that if a person complies with statute 167.31(2)(b) he violates statute 941.23.
    This is but one instance where the very court to which we put or confidence to be the protector of our constitutional rights can’t seem to tell the right foot from it’s left foot.

    In retrospect it probably is a good thing that the Vegas case won’t get escalated to the supreme court. It would just give the court the opportunity to further muddy the waters concerning our constitutional firearm rights. It is unfortunate that, because the SSC has so muddied the waters, concerning our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that the only solution lies with the legislature. A legislature controlled by Doyle.

    I am surprised that Judge Noonan did not take note of the conditional conflict between statutes 941.23 1and 167.31(2)(b) and declare the whole of one or the other statutes unconstitutional. Unconstitutional because under use of certain motorized vehicles it is impossible to comply with one statute without violating the other.
    It upsets me that the state supreme court and the state legislature can so blatantly ignore the voice of the people. On November 4, 1998 Wisconsin voters went to the polls and ratified the addition of amendment Article I chapter 25 to the state constitution. Only the forth time in state history the constitution was amended. It was amended by 75% of the voters. The highest vote count ever. It reads:

    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    No conditions. No ambiguity. Just black and white.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.