Vegas didn't listen. And it's a good thing, since in January of this year he again was the victim of an attempted assault by gun point from two men and was able to use his handgun to shoot one of the perpetrators and detain both of them until police arrived. As promised, the DA prosecuted Vegas for Carrying a Concealed Weapon -- a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and 9 months in prison.

The court threw out the case. "Defendant Vegas has demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances that warrant his concealed weapon...Vegas legally purchased his firearm for the purpose of security and protection. There is strong inference that Vegas' concealed firearm has saved his life during these violent assaults...Vegas has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon."

VICTORY FOR GUN RIGHTS?

While many activists were quick to hail the ruling as a gun rights victory -- it certainly was a victory for Vegas' particular case -- WGO points out that Vegas found legal justice only after and as a result of his being assaulted in similar circumstances previously -- and survived.  

The court said:

- "There is strong inference that Vegas' concealed firearm has saved his life during these violent assaults..." [Emphasis added]

- "Vegas has a substantial interest in being secure and protecting himself by carrying a concealed weapon..." [Emphasis added]

In other words, unless you've been assaulted on multiple occasions and have been fortunate enough to survive to break the CCW law another day, then -- and only then and after a lengthy and costly legal battle -- will the court uphold case law pertaining to your CCW case as "unconstitutional."

Many people don't survive their first attack. The court has not found that state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in cases where an individual believes they are in danger are "unconstitutional." So far, the only litmus test the court has used to determine whether the prohibition on CCW applies to a given case is whether or not the individual has been assaulted in his or her past. "Given the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant has affirmatively answered the two-prong analysis as outlined in Hamdan and Fisher and thus grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss."

An NRA-ILA news story, however, suggests that, "This is a giant step forward in the battle for Right-To-Carry in Wisconsin. This court ruling will likely lead to future citizens exercising their right to self-defense by carrying concealed firearms."

But NRA-ILA's claim that it supports "Right-to-Carry" is misleading. A "right" to carry bill would imply Vermont-style carry in which no government permission slip is needed to carry -- it would restore our rights. Instead, watered down permit-to-carry -- more accurately "Privilege-to-Carry" -- bills are pushed by NRA always with the empty promise that these bureaucratic "Shall Issue" bills are a "step in the right direction." For the truth about the NRA and Vermont Concealed Carry, see http://www.nrawol.net

A PROPER PERSPECTIVE

Gun owners are urged to set their sights on repealing bad law in the legislative arena, rather relying upon the courts to rule favorably based on bad, unconstitutional anti-gun law. Rulings can -- and often do -- go both ways, usually against gun owners. While good case law such as this can be helpful in individual cases, gun owners need to ask NRA why they won't fight for true concealed carry legislation -- an outright repeal of Wisconsin's CCW prohibition.

NRA leadership often brags about its large membership in Wisconsin; but why won't NRA stand united with Wisconsin Gun Owners to support a true application of the constitution by supporting Vermont style concealed carry?

---------------------------------------------------------- 

REMINDER TO CHECK WGO'S POSITION ON BILLS

Gun rights supporters are urged to track WGO's efforts in the legislature by logging onto the Wisconsin Ethics Board website here:

The site gives legislators, media and the public access to our organization's position on pending gun-related bills in our state legislature. Unlike some state-level shadow organizations, Wisconsin Gun Owners openly reports our views on legislation and remains committed to a 100% pro-gun stance on all bills.

Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association is SUPPORTING State Senate Bill 104, the ban on private handgun sales introduced by ardent anti-gun Milwaukee Democrat Spencer Coggs. See for yourself here: