"If the police arrive and you are one of the reasons they were called, you could be arrested and charged with DC."
If you are ever charged with criminal Disorderly Conduct under circumstances that are considered "domestic", you could lose your right to possess or purchase a firearm for life. Robert W. Evans Jr. found that out. He is appealing the Wisconsin DOJ's denial of his application for a concealed carry permit. His application was denied because he was convicted in 2002 of criminal Disorderly Conduct relative to an incident involving his adult stepdaughter, whom he reportedly admitted he had "pushed."
Disorderly Conduct, or "DC", is prohibited by Wis. Stat. 947.01, which outlaws "engag[ing] 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." (emphasis added.) This is unbelievably broad language, and unbelievably, it has survived a constitutional challenge on the grounds of overbreadth. When it comes to disturbances, I tell people, "If the police arrive and you were one of the reasons they are called, you could be arrested and charged with DC."
Many, many people pleaded guilty or no contest to Disorderly Conduct believing it was just a minor offense. Like Mr. Evans, they later got a rude awakening. Not only can their applications for concealed carry be denied, but they could be charged criminally for possessing a firearm, under the Federal Firearms Act. Attempts to undwind the conviction on the grounds that they were unaware of the ban when they pleaded were rejected, on the grounds that the ban is a "collateral" consequence of the conviction and not, therefore, grounds for a "do over."
Since 1996, the so-called Lautenberg Amendment to the Federal Firearms Act has prohibited gun possession by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim." 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), (g)(9) (emphasis added.).
A recent 2nd Amendment challenge to the federal ban did not end well in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for Steven Skoien, a man convicted of DC and, subsequently, the federal act. The challenge to the Wisconsin DOJ's application denial is not 2nd Amendment based. It hinges on interpretations of the language of the federal statute and Wisconsin Disorderly Conduct statute. The arguments by the appellant and DOJ are quite complicated, but can be accessed here (Appellant, Respondent, Reply) if you want to try to follow them.
My thoughts? Don't get convicted in the first place. I have kept many people charged with Disorderly Conduct in La Crosse County and surrounding counties from losing their 2nd Amendment rights.
Disorderly Conduct, or "DC", is prohibited by Wis. Stat. 947.01, which outlaws "engag[ing] 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." (emphasis added.) This is unbelievably broad language, and unbelievably, it has survived a constitutional challenge on the grounds of overbreadth. When it comes to disturbances, I tell people, "If the police arrive and you were one of the reasons they are called, you could be arrested and charged with DC."
Many, many people pleaded guilty or no contest to Disorderly Conduct believing it was just a minor offense. Like Mr. Evans, they later got a rude awakening. Not only can their applications for concealed carry be denied, but they could be charged criminally for possessing a firearm, under the Federal Firearms Act. Attempts to undwind the conviction on the grounds that they were unaware of the ban when they pleaded were rejected, on the grounds that the ban is a "collateral" consequence of the conviction and not, therefore, grounds for a "do over."
Since 1996, the so-called Lautenberg Amendment to the Federal Firearms Act has prohibited gun possession by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim." 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), (g)(9) (emphasis added.).
A recent 2nd Amendment challenge to the federal ban did not end well in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for Steven Skoien, a man convicted of DC and, subsequently, the federal act. The challenge to the Wisconsin DOJ's application denial is not 2nd Amendment based. It hinges on interpretations of the language of the federal statute and Wisconsin Disorderly Conduct statute. The arguments by the appellant and DOJ are quite complicated, but can be accessed here (Appellant, Respondent, Reply) if you want to try to follow them.
My thoughts? Don't get convicted in the first place. I have kept many people charged with Disorderly Conduct in La Crosse County and surrounding counties from losing their 2nd Amendment rights.
RSS Feed