Good that the felony charge goes away, but nauseating that the prosecutors office is going for the old BS move of extorting a disorderly conduct violation plea.
I'm curious where the prosecutor figures disorderly conduct fits in this scenario - probably under bullet 7. below - the presence of a firearm having theoretically created a hazardous situation, but the "no legitimate purpose" is pretty arguable.
At least its "just" a violation, with a maximum fine of $250 (if I recall right), and the record on violations can get sealed. Plus, he still loses his firearm, as expected.
S 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.