Wisconsin Judge Lets Delivery Man Carry Concealed Handgun for Job
A permit process would obviously be a lot less costly way of letting those who are able to carry a concealed handgun be able to do so.
A Milwaukee County judge found the concealed-weapon prosecution of a pizza driver who shot two would-be robbers in seven months unconstitutional Monday.
The ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan means Andres Vegas won't face criminal charges in the non-fatal shootings. Prosecutors had filed a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon after the second shooting, in January, and said Vegas had been warned after a July 2006 shooting not to carry a concealed gun while driving for his job.
However, Noonan agreed with defense attorneys' contention that Vegas needed the gun to protect himself in his chosen work, citing state Supreme Court decisions that found justified exceptions to the state's concealed-carry ban.
"Given Vegas's experience, he has a need for a gun at a moment's notice," Noonan writes in his decision. "Enclosing and unloading the weapon is not a reasonable alternative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while delivering pizzas enters and exits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose of having the gun for security and protection. . . . .
Thanks to L A Stich for sending me this link.
The ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel A. Noonan means Andres Vegas won't face criminal charges in the non-fatal shootings. Prosecutors had filed a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon after the second shooting, in January, and said Vegas had been warned after a July 2006 shooting not to carry a concealed gun while driving for his job.
However, Noonan agreed with defense attorneys' contention that Vegas needed the gun to protect himself in his chosen work, citing state Supreme Court decisions that found justified exceptions to the state's concealed-carry ban.
"Given Vegas's experience, he has a need for a gun at a moment's notice," Noonan writes in his decision. "Enclosing and unloading the weapon is not a reasonable alternative to secure and protect his safety. Plus, Vegas while delivering pizzas enters and exits his car constantly; it would be unreasonable for him every time that he enters his car to require him to unload it and place it in a case and then reverse the process every time he exits. This defeats the purpose of having the gun for security and protection. . . . .
Thanks to L A Stich for sending me this link.
Labels: ConcealedCarry, DefensiveGunUse, GunControl
posted by John Lott at 11:05 AM
4 Comments:
do you find it a little unsettling that a county judge settled a constitutional dispute? i also will argue that a pizza man might carry $50 in his pocket if he's smart. how can shooting someone (a benefit) be greater than the cost (risks, health care, and more)? it's too bad people can't pay for their delievered goods by using a debit card...
The Lefty WI. Supreme Court is bound and determined to keep Concealed Carry illegal, despite the 25th Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution (in relevant part '[may possess] firearms...for ANY legal purpose.'
Ironically, the SCOWI decisions on the topic will lead to a pre-emptive abrogation of ANY CCW legislation in Wisconsin.
See: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2007/09/take-it-to-wi-supremes-youre-nuts.html
Heh.
dad29
WISC did say that the WI Constitution demands CC, but dems in the the legislature and Doyle have ignored the ruling.
This ruling is 2-3 YO, so you are right the court has gone left since then. I merely disagree with who is the real problem.
I would like to know the opinion of legal scholars on this case. We here in WI suffer as one of the two states with no CCW. If Noonan, citing WI Supreme Court cases, offers Vegas constitutional protection in his specific case because he had been previously robbed, and also because of where he travels for work, does that equate to unequal protection under the law for someone like me? I drive through the same neighborhoods, but have never been robbed. What if I didn't drive through those neighborhoods?
I disagree with your assessment of the WI SC, Dad29. They have made a few limited decisions against the current statutes to date, but have not ruled on anything other than what is directly being challenged in front of them. (Which I would take as a sign of majority conservatism in this issue - I do not review most WI SC cases, and may well be wrong.)
What sort of legal action can be taken to challenge the law if unequal protection exists as presidence?
I'm tossing around the idea of acting as a test case for this, but I certainly don't have all the financial backing I would need for a long court battle. My father is an attorney, but does not practice constitutional law.
Thanks,
Mike Gallo
Saukville, WI
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home