WI Supreme Court Reverses Disorderly Conduct CCW Revocation

[wiscoaster]

The liberal left story:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...estic-abusers-can-get-ccw-permits/9854701002/

The 2A friendly stories:
http://www.wisconsincarry.org/news/unanimous-victory-at-wisconsin-supreme-court.aspx

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...rikes-down-concealed-carry-restriction-n58531

 

[lemaymiami]

Thanks for this posting (and the even handed manner, allowing our opponents views so that anyone reading about this situation can clearly see how differently the ruling was received - depending on your point of view).

Must say that I don't live in Wisconsin - and don't plan to... but this sort of info is one of my main reasons for frequenting this site... Thanks again...

 

[JeffG]

I'm glad the decision went that way.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

That is kind of a mixed bag in my book. The specific case is highly sympathetic, and I think was decided rightly, but it does kind of point out an ongoing issue where people who are arrested for violent crimes can plea down or have their charge reduced to less-specific misdemeanors under circumstances other than reasonable doubt about the crime itself.

 

[fastbolt]

That is kind of a mixed bag in my book. The specific case is highly sympathetic, and I think was decided rightly, but it does kind of point out an ongoing issue where people who are arrested for violent crimes can plea down or have their charge reduced to less-specific misdemeanors under circumstances other than reasonable doubt about the crime itself.

Yeah, but this isn't going to disappear because it allows a number of cases to be quickly adjudicated without taking up the court calendar with people wanting to go to jury trials for the greater offenses.

The cases that make me scratch my head are those where a prosecutor decides to drop a really righteous enhancement (gun charge enhancement during commission of violent crime), and where the defendant isn't always exactly a virgin in the system for violent crimes. How does it benefit the Public to have those criminals skip doing more time? Sigh.

 

[KyJim]

I'll just point out that, according to the Milwaukee newspaper story, it is not clear there was ever any violence or threat of violence of any kind. The original record from 1993 no longer exists and the court opinion merely reflects allegations in the prosecutor's file.

In addition, I think the concurring justice in the state court was wrong in opining on one way to take care of the "loophole" in state law:

Third, the legislature could pass a statute authorizing a court to make a civil determination as to whether the facts underlying a conviction constitute an act of domestic violence.

(as quoted in the BearingArms.com story)

The U.S. Supreme Court held you have to look at whether the state criminal statute included the elements necessary to meet the definition of "domestic violence," regardless of what the underlying facts of the case were. Perhaps the concurring justice was suggesting civil courts could issue restraining orders based on a finding of domestic violence, but I would be surprised if Wisconsin did not already have such a process.

 

[wiscoaster]

As a Wisconsin resident, what I find notable in this decision is the unanimity of the Court. Wisconsin judges are elected officials and therefore political animals, and Justice Karofsky, noted above as the "concurring" justice (ie which I take to read "disagreed with on some level, but went along with anyway") is well known as a liberal leftist and was supported and elected as such. Conservative justices have a majority on the Wisconsin Court, but it has a distinct purplish hue to it.

 

[bwalker36]

I chuckle at how much more sensationalist the first article is. Even the bearing arms article is a little but no where near that bad. I'm surprised that Karofsky didn't vote against but I'm glad that they didn't. It was the correct call in my opinion and making a clear domestic violence statute seems like a logical thing to do.