Yesterday evening we posted a brief on the victory of Mr. Vegas.
A Milwaukee Circuit judge ruled that the Milwaukee DA's attempt to charge Mr. Vegas with unlawful carrying of a weapon was unconstitutional given 1) the 25th Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution and 2) The SCOWI's Hamdan ruling.
However, if you follow the "Hamdan" link above, you'll find that Screechin'Shirley Abrahamson was able to FUBAR the 25th Amendment with yappaflappa that is a clumsy and irrational rewrite of Kafka (at best.)
In Hamdan, SCOWI grudgingly acknowledged that a shopkeeper had a (WI) Constitutional right to have a concealed weapon on his premises because his place of business was in a very dangerous location. (Shirley also graciously conceded the common-law's ancient grant of the right to keep a concealed weapon in one's home. Nice of her, no?)
BUT if that 'imminent danger' could not be proven, then Screech would not allow concealed carry. Period.
The practical effect was that someone who carries in their car had to demonstrate that it was necessary to protect his life or limb--which demonstration Vegas was able to present, convincingly. At the time of Hamdan, I argued that Shirley's Court was setting up a situation in which each and every "in-car" carrying incident could or would be litigated all the way to SCOWI--and potentially "advance-abrogating" any CCW legislation.
Well, I was partly wrong, because Vegas came around. But it's only a pre-trial decision in one Circuit Court. Thus, Vegas will not set another evolutionary precedent.
IMHO, there was no good reason for Chisholm to bring charges against Vegas in the first place--other than to punish Vegas for disobeying Chisholm's asinine "order" not to carry in the future. This was an open and shut case, even in the LaLaLand of Shirley Abrahamson, and Chisholm wasted resources in bringing the charge.
Were this to advance to trial and appeal, the Court of Appeals would find exactly the same as did the Circuit Court. However, there's no guarantee that Shirley's Gang would rule consistently with their Hamdan decision--because Shirley has demonstrated that the Constitution as written means nothing---nothing---to her and her compliant majority. Thus, 'consistency' is not required--Shirley makes up the rules as she goes along. It's entirely possible that she would have found FOR the Milwaukee County DA on some cockamamie premise.
In the meantime, the "training" and "licensing" requirements of CCW proposals is now endangered. If (under Hamdan) one can carry in a place of business without "training," and Hamdan's provisions apply to "in-car" concealed carry, why should anyone get "training"? Why spend money to obtain a "license" if Vegas and Hamdan did not?
Over time, as more case-law builds, the Wisconsin courts will be forced to allow more and more instances of concealed-carry. So long as a CCW law is not in effect, each of them will abrogate more and more CCW "training" and "licensing" provisions...
Given the outcome of Vegas, for example, what's to prevent carrying in your car on the way to work if you work in a "dangerous" place? And what's to prevent carrying in your car if you are driving to (or habitually drive through) a "dangerous" place?
Nothing. No training required--and no "fees" payable to the Sheriff, either.
Shirley's Will-to-Power is truly awesome--and has (potentially) resulted in a ridiculous patchwork of "yea/nay" carry permissibilities.
Perhaps she's proud of her "jurisprudence." But she shouldn't be.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have this exactly right.
What a strnge world we live in. In danger? Prove it. But, be damn sure you are really in danger.
Post a Comment