Woman Carrying Gun Not Charged
In a letter to police released to the public Tuesday, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel explained that while Sutterfield did violate the letter of the firearm transport law, he was not going to formally issue the ticket, for several reasons.
For one, he said, Sutterfield had no bad intent. She had worn the gun to church services peacefully and was never asked to remove it or leave. She told investigators that a salesperson where she had purchased the 9mm handgun had explained to her that it only needed to be in a case when she was driving.
Further, Schimel wrote, the statute in question, which is a non-criminal infraction that carries a maximum forfeiture of $100, was passed before the Wisconsin Constitution was amended to clearly specify residents’ rights to keep guns for various purposes. He said he did not think the facts of Sutterfield’s case made it the right one to prosecute in an effort to set the limits of gun restrictions.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the state’s ban on concealed weapons did not apply to a shop owner in Milwaukee who had a gun to protect his business, which had been robbed at gunpoint numerous times. But it also upheld the concealed-carry conviction of a passenger who had two loaded guns in a car.
Schimel noted that the latter case, however, did not address whether the constitutional amendment might protect someone carrying a loaded gun in his or her own car for protection.
“Given all the circumstances in this case, I do not believe this is the case to test the outer reaches of the application of the CCW statute in light of the constitutional amendment,” Schimel wrote.
Lastly, Schimel noted, Sutterfield might well be able to challenge the legality of her stop by police because she had done nothing illegal at the church and police had no separate reason to suspect that she was transporting the gun while loaded in violation of the state statute. If the stop was not legal, the evidence of the loaded gun would not be admissible.
I’ve heard a number of rumors that Wisconsin DAs have been avoiding charging anyone when all that they have is a weapon’s charge. The reasoning being that they don’t want another case before the Supreme Court to result in the ban on CCW being declared unconstitutional…
Posted by Strings on July 20, 2010 at 2224 hrs
The DA in black river falls has stated that he wont prosecute gun laws because of the recent supreme court ruling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2329 hrs
While the lady had the legal right to carry the gun, I think it was stupid for her to do it a church. She wanted to do it for effect.
But if you are going carry a gun in a church for effect, do it in a Quaker Church.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2355 hrs
Obviously the woman was trying to prove a point and I’m of the opinion the DA was wise to avoid getting in a pissing match with a skunk. If I wore a loaded gun to church my friends would ask me if I had a screw loose.
That said, in Sheboygan we have the case of a guy last year who open-carried a loaded pistol while fishing on a pier in the city. The cops arrested him for disorderly conduct. When he asked why they were doing that the cop explained that disorderly conduct is an appropriate charge when a person’s conduct is upsetting to others. He asked who he was upsetting, since no one had complained to him about his conduct. The cop said, “Your conduct is upsetting to me.”
I’m not sure about the outcome of the disorderly charge, but I question the precedence of city ordinances over the U.S. Constitution, and the ability of the police to interject their personal feelings into charging someone with a violation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 0743 hrs
Good to see a respectable DA make a proper decision. Hope you guys can get a CPL passed it will make these uncomfortable moments, for others, not happen as much. Plus it will help with the situation that Duke describes too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 0811 hrs
to result in the ban on CCW being declared unconstitutional…
Actually, SCOWI already declared that the ban is un-Constitutional. But then Shirley Abrahamson also indicated that she, personally, would “judge” whether any given CCW instance was “good” or “bad.”
Schimel simply took Shirley off the table, which was a good thing.
Posted by dad29 on July 21, 2010 at 0859 hrs
Below are the two elements which must both be present to prosecute a person for disorderly conduct as determined in State v. Douglas:
Section 947.01 provides: “Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.” To prosecute a defendant for a violation of this statute, the State has the burden to prove two elements. First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similar disorderly conduct. See State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis. 2d 497, 514, 164 N.W.2d 512 (1969). Second, it must prove that the defendant’s conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. Id. Under both elements, “it is the combination of conduct and circumstances that is crucial in applying the statute to a particular situation.” State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 616, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).
Note that “upsetting a cop” is not listed as a reason to be prosecuted for disorderly conduct.
As far as Sutterfield is concerned, she does not need to justify her decision to anyone to carry a gun anywhere that she may legally go, such as a church.
The DA very well knows the cops who stopped her broke the law by violating her Fourth Amendment rights. He also knows the illegally obtained evidence of a loaded gun in her car would have been inadmisable in court so charging her would have been a waste of time and resources.
Not too long ago, the threat of charges would have been used to negotiate a fine maybe the loss of the firearm and submission of the subject to comply to the will of the police. The rug would then be lifted and this matter would be swept under it. I am pleased that this is not the SOP today.
All excuses aside, we should not condone her breaking the law any more than we should condone the police breaking the law (as they were allowed to do for years). Everyone is expected to know and follow the laws today.
The legislature may need to revisit and revise or even repeal some laws, but until they do, they are on the books as written. DA’s do have the descretion not to enforce certain laws in the meantime.
Courts should not make law, that is the legislatures responsibility. Who would want judges such as Terry Sherman making law from the bench? The outcome of court cases in any Wisconsin court to test the enforcability of current firearms laws are risky at best, time consuming and are very expensive.
Just like the cops who still refuse to follow the laws, we can not call ourselves law abiding citizens and be law breakers too.
Posted by Gene German on July 21, 2010 at 0926 hrs
While the lady had the legal right to carry the gun, I think it was stupid for her to do it a church. She wanted to do it for effect.
Dan, lets assume Wisconsin allowed conceal carry like… oh… say EVERY other state except Illinois (where there is no crime so a law-abiding person would never need to arm themselves)[/sarcasm]
Had someone in the church in Brookfield where the massacre occurred in 2005 been carrying a concealed weapon and been able to stop the shooter and saved 6 of the 7 lives that were taken that day. Would their carrying of a gun have been “stupid”?
Is saving lives “stupid”? Is a law-abiding person taking accountability for their self-defense “stupid”?
Keeping in mind that Wisconsin forbids conceal carry, so a law-abiding person who carries for self-defense has NO CHOICE BUT to carry openly… Who is really stupid?
Don’t tell me a person is safe in church. 7 people in brookfield in 2005 would beg to differ except for the fact they cannot speak their story from the grave.
Who’s stupid here Dan? The lady or Wisconsin Law?
Stupid is forbidding law-abiding citizens from carrying in the manner of their choosing. Stupid is the fact that law-abiding carriers in Wisconsin sometimes have to skip wearing a jacket in cold weather when they carry because Wisconsin prohibits conceal carry.
Stupid is Texas where its hot and humid and law-abiding people aren’t allowed to open-carry and are forced to leave their gun at home when they are only wearing shorts and a t-shirt.
Yeah, there’s plenty of stupid to go around. A law-abiding person choosing to carry in the only manner their state allows in a place where history and common sense demonstrates you could find yourself in need of self-defense isn’t stupid in my book. YMMV
Law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry in the manner of their choosing. PERIOD. Thats freedom. Thats our mission.
Nik Clark
Chairman/President Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
www.wisconsincarry.orgPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 0950 hrs
Obviously the woman was trying to prove a point
“obviously”?
Really?
Our members carry daily. They carry for self-defense. 1000’s of law-abiding Wisconsinites who carry not to prove a point (though sometimes a point is proven) but for self-defense.
Our members carry everywhere they go where its legal to do so. Why not church?
The fact is that I estimate half of our membership would prefer to conceal carry most of the time. Though they believe there is merit to open-carry because its not the governments job to decide what method of carry works best for law-abiding citizens AND open-carry breaks down the media-perpetuated myths of the past 50 years that only bad-guys carry guns.
A good portion of our membership who have taken accountability for their own self-defense, but also have to follow the law, open-carry on a daily basis, but would much prefer to conceal carry.
So please don’t assume people open-carry to make a point. Most do not. Its just the only way Wisconsin allows the law-abiding to carry. Wisconsin law doesn’t give them the option of carrying discreetly. Many would choose to carry discreetly.
I personally carry for both reasons. I open-carry daily for self-defense/deterrence but I also carry to condition the general public to see that law-abiding people carry guns, and “nothing happens”. Guns don’t jump out of the holster and shoot people. Guns don’t “just go off”. Law-abiding citizens who carry guns don’t ‘snap’ and start shooting. There is nothing to fear from law-abiding persons carrying guns. Wouldn’t you agree after 50 years of guns=bad media portrayal these myths do exist?
Ask anyone who open-carries and they’ll tell you that its uneventful. Contrary to the few isolated incidents that hit the mass-media ticker, thousands of people open-carry daily in Wisconsin to the grocery story, to the bank, walking their dog, mowing the lawn, around the house, and just about every other place they go where its legal to carry and its non-eventful.
The expectation of open-carriers given the hundreds of places they go and open-carry with no incident of people reacting at all is that the next place they go there will be no reaction there either.
“Obviously” not out to prove a point…
Nik Clark
Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
www.wisconsincarry.orgPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1006 hrs
As one of those people who open carry every day in Wisconsin I agree with Nik when he says that the act of open carry has a dual purpose. Number one is to provide for my personal defense (and my family’s) in the event of unexpected lethal attack. But the other reason is to educate the public and demonstrate that they have nothing to fear from lawfully armed good guys and gals. Since starting to open carry everywhere it is lawful since Van Hollen’s memo came out in April of 2009 I have been engaged in conversation by numerous people in many retail stores. Not once has anyone accused me of trying to “prove a point”. In fact, I have never had anyone tell me they even disagree with it. Most people thank me for helping everyone to recognize our Constitutional rights.
It is important to remember that open carry of a sidearm is lawful in 41 other states. We are by no means breaking new ground on this crucial civil rights issue. Wisconsin is very far behind the rest of the country in firearm carry rights and many of us are working hard to change that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1042 hrs
I don’t know who to reply to, xx pilot or Nik Clark. First, I said it was legal for her to do so. Second, this was done for effect, you can’t argue that.
I do have a problem with people who do things to bring attention to themselves and make other people feel uncomfortable just for the hell of it.
To 45acp, I don’t need you to educate me about guns. If I want someone to educate me, I will seek out a person to educate me. I don’t need you to"educate” me by wearing a gun. Get over yourself. If people want to be educated about guns they will seek it out, they don’t need you to educate them without their permission. get over yourself.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1609 hrs
Well Dan, I think I will choose to continue your education. When you go the polls to vote what do you think of your fellow voters? Are they at the polls just for “effect” Dan or are they exercising a Constitutional Right? Carrying a firearm in public (open or concealed) is also simply exercising a Constitutional Right. You must have missed it but the U.S. Supreme Court just reaffirmed that right in a huge decision. The case was McDonald v City of Chicago. Your assignment Dan is to read this epic decision so you know what you are talking about, then report back with your new found knowledge. There will be a test.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdfPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1647 hrs
Dan’s right. The number of “lethal” attacks in Wisconsin is…....what…...near zero…....unless you’re into a drug-related activity.
Your “missionary” activity is not helpful to anyone.
Posted by dad29 on July 21, 2010 at 1939 hrs
The decision not to charge was the right choice.
The penalty for what happened was minimal, and it is clear that the woman didn’t understand that the gun had to be cased unloaded.
That simple.
Now, as for the implications that a woman was open carrying without a genuine understanding of state law other than what the moron at the counter at Gander Mountain (or whatever) told her…. That is something to talk about, and I think it points out the necessity for training with a concealed carry law, which is obviously going to be passed within the first year or so of Governor Walker or Neumann’s term. It will take longer if they do the right thing and amend the constitution….
We have a constitutional right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns), but as we all know there can be reasonable restrictions on all of the rights granted by the God, and enumerated in the constitution, for the safety and protection of others and their rights. In that light, I think it is an abomination that we are forced to have such a stupid carry law in Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1947 hrs
2 good things:
1. The woman carrying the gun because it’s her right. YES!
2. I have missed xxpilot. All I can say is “Copy that.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2012 hrs
Dan’s right. The number of “lethal” attacks in Wisconsin is…....what…...near zero…....unless you’re into a drug-related activity.
Your “missionary” activity is not helpful to anyone.
Unsubstantiated conjecture. Devoid of factual basis.
We began to compile a list over at opencarry.org of instances IN Wisconsin in the past year where law-abiding people were victims of violent crimes where they would have had an opportunity to defend themselves. The thread grew to hundreds of instances across the state. Perhaps to you, thats inconsequential. To those who have been victims its not.
I’d never advocate that everyone should carry a gun. But its inhumane to deny those who would like to have the opportunity to defend themselves from an attacker the means and right to. YMMV
Carry on,
Nik Clark
Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
www.wisconsincarry.orgPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2316 hrs
>Second, this was done for effect, you can’t argue that.<
I certainly CAN argue that.
Unless your psychic powers have let you see into this woman’s mind, or you’re a close personal friend of hers, you have no real idea what her motive in carrying to church was.
1: to be prepared for the possibility of needing to protect herself
2: to exercise a Constitutional right
3: to have an extra fashionable accessory
I’m sure I could think of several other possible reasons.Is it POSSIBLE she was just “trying to prove a point”? Sure… and just as possible that she was simply exercising her Constitutional right to be prepared to defend herself.
When I OC, it’s because that’s the only legal way I can carry a weapon which I may need to defend myself. No other reason. Sorry we don’t all fit into your cookie-cutter worldview.
Posted by Strings on July 21, 2010 at 2330 hrs
Sure would be nice if your link actually went to those “hundreds of stories” Nik.
Posted by dad29 on July 22, 2010 at 0734 hrs
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?58938-quot-No-need-for-a-gun-quot
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1220 hrs
She’s an activist who did something illegal to prove a point. That shouldn’t be a get out of jail (or fine) free card. She can feign ignorance of the law (and maybe she really is dumb) but that’s also not a defense.
I’m going to assume that the probable cause to stop issue was the big one and the rest of this is just political window dressing to appeal to gun enthusiasts. At least I really hope that’s what’s going on there, because if not, it smells really bad, especially in light of all the other weirdo political decisions by prosecutors in Wisconsin lately.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1413 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 102
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:54 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).