For anyone who has forgotten that effective self-defense is illegal in Wisconsin and Illinois, it might be instructive to look into the case of Andres Vegas, a pizza delivery driver in Wisconsin, who is facing charges after shooting a would-be robber (the second one this year)--not for the shootings (both of which have been found to have been completely justified), but for carrying the gun "concealed" (more on that in a minute). In other words, the shootings were OK, but having the ability to shoot in the first place is illegal.
Maybe it's just me, but I think I see a logic problem there. What is the point in recognizing a person's right to self-defense, while at the same time denying him the means? That combination of rulings--shooting justified/carrying gun not--illustrates the fundamental flaw inherent to acknowledging the right to self-defense while simultaneously mandating disarmament. Actually, it seems to me that a justified shooting (or two) with a gun that the shooter was not permitted to carry constitutes a pretty powerful argument for an end to the denial of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms (if yet another such argument were needed).
About that reference to the gun being "concealed"--let's have a look.
The complaint says the suspect admitted trying to rob Vegas, who prosecutors then determined was justified in the shooting. But because Vegas' gun had been on "the front passenger seat beside the pizzas," it met the definition of a concealed weapon.So, something on the passenger seat is concealed? From whom--blind people? Does that mean that a person sitting in the passenger seat is hidden? Or maybe it's a function, not of being on the passenger seat, but of being next to pizzas. Maybe there's some previously unexplored property of pizzas that bestows invisibility on things near them. Boy, would that revolutionize stealth technology! Tell the Airforce to forget about expensive B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters--just cover cheaper, more conventional warplanes with pizza, and voila! Instant stealth.
If lawmakers presume to outlaw the carrying of defensive firearms, they should have the moral courage and intellectual honesty to explicitly outlaw self-defense, because that is what civilian disarmament laws "accomplish."
Stumble it!
4 comments:
I can really relate to your article and myself I think it is wrong. That is why my business deals with very efective non-Lethal means of self-defense against the crim.
Everyone should have a plan for the unpredictable, and with the crime rate climbing everyday you must be ready to protect yourself. We have all the tools required to put your plan into action and they are non-lethal and legal.
Really appreciate your article because it shows there is a way without the GUN.
I think you have probably stated the problem as well as anyone could, and exposed the hypocrisy of the "aristocracy" very well. I wish you had left me something to add, because I have a whole stock of obscenities and profanities I haven't even used yet.
Way to go.
Thanks, SA--anything you have to add will always be appreciated.
Wisconsin is one of only two remaining states that have NO opportunity for concealed carry. Our constitution DOES give us the right to bear arms for security and defense, but we have a statute that expressly forbids concealed carry. We have some Supreme Court judges up for election in April, which might change the view on the court, but as it stands now, the court will not declare the "NO CARRY" law unconstitutional. Further, we have a VERY liberal Governor who will NEVER sign a concealed carry bill. He is an EXTREME anti gun Democrat. In the fall election, the balance of power shifted in one of our state houses to Democrat control, so there will be NO concealed carry in Wisconsin any time soon (4 years at least).
My view of this particular case is that if this guy can get the backing of the gun lobby attorneys, this should go ALL the way to the State Supreme Court. Another delivery guy (young promising college student) was killed early last year. This fella was robbed once before and shot that perp, and he DID have a reasonable expectation of being in danger, so this needs to be argued to the fullest.
The court has ruled several times now URGING the legislature to take action to rectify the discrepancy between the statute and the constitution. It is obvious to everyone in the state that the legislature cannot take any action because of the governor. So as more of these cases come before the court hopefully the court will rule that ten (10) years has been enough time for the legislature to act and that the court now needs to act and declare the current NO CARRY statute unconstitutional.
Post a Comment