In the case of Lafferty v. Amundson, foster parents Brian and Katie Lafferty contested the Department of Children and Families Rule, which imposed firearm storage requirements and prohibited foster parents from carrying weapons in the presence of foster children. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, rejected the means-end scrutiny framework and emphasized the need for consistency with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Notably, Wisconsin Carry, Inc. funded the appeal, and the court vacated the circuit court's order, remanding the case for reevaluation in light of Bruen, allowing parties to address the Department's rule under the new standard, and considering the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The court also directed an examination of whether the form the Laffertys signed, prohibiting weapon carry in the presence of foster children, constitutes an administrative rule not promulgated through the rulemaking process.
Wisconsin Carry, responding to a surge in concealed carry license revocations under Attorney General Josh Kaul, successfully challenged the unlawful revocation of Daniel Doubek's license. Doubek, convicted of disorderly conduct in 1993, had obtained a concealed carry license in Wisconsin but faced revocation in 2019 during a DOJ "audit" of CCL holders. Funded by Wisconsin Carry, Doubek appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled the revocation was unlawful. The court determined that Wisconsin's Disorderly Conduct statute was overly broad, not meeting the federal "Lautenberg Amendment" standard for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This victory marks Wisconsin Carry's second success at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The organization acknowledges its dues-paying members for their crucial financial support in undertaking such litigation.
*Reference: https://www.wisconsincarry.org/wi-gun-news/wi-supreme-court-victory
In this case, Matthew R. Derzay, supported by Wisconsin Carry, appealed the circuit court's order denying his petition for the return of firearms seized by the police. The court erred by imposing an evidentiary standard not found in the statute, requiring Derzay to prove ownership by clear and convincing evidence and submit a bill of sale or receipt. With assistance from Wisconsin Carry, the appellate court concluded that this was a mistake and reversed the circuit court's order. The case, with the support of Wisconsin Carry, was remanded for a hearing where the correct standard under WIS. STAT. § 968.20(1g) could be applied to Derzay's petition for the return of the firearms. The court clarified that the burden of proof in such cases is proof by the greater weight of the credible evidence, not the clear and convincing evidence standard applied by the circuit court.
*Reference: https://casetext.com/case/vill-of-greendale-v-derzay
A federal appeals court has sided with Wisconsin students, supported by Wisconsin Carry, who took legal action against their schools for barring them from wearing shirts adorned with gun logos. The students, from Shattuck Middle School in Neenah and Kettle Moraine High School, faced bans from wearing shirts featuring firearm-related images. The appeals court highlighted that neither school's dress code explicitly forbade clothing with firearms. The students argued that the school administrators violated their First Amendment rights, emphasizing that the government, including public schools, cannot restrict speech based on its preference. The court rejected the schools' justifications, stating that restrictions on student speech must meet the Tinker standard, which requires a reasonable forecast of material disruption. The panel ruled in favor of the Kettle Moraine student, remanding the case for further proceedings and awarding costs to the plaintiff.
*Reference: https://www.wbay.com/2022/06/22/appeals-court-rules-favor-students-banned-wearing-gun-shirts-school/
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman granted a preliminary injunction ordering Markesan High School to allow sophomore Matthew Schoenecker to wear gun-themed T-shirts to class, ruling in favor of Schoenecker's First Amendment case against Principal John Koopman. The judge deemed Schoenecker likely to prevail on the merits of his claim that the school's ban on shirts depicting guns infringes on his free speech rights. The lawsuit, filed in April, contends that Koopman's personal determination of shirt appropriateness violates Schoenecker's due process rights. Adelman emphasized that even short deprivations of First Amendment rights constitute irreparable harm. The school district has amended its dress code to ban clothing depicting weapons explicitly. Schoenecker, represented by John Monroe and supported by Wisconsin Carry, wears shirts to express support for the Second Amendment. The judge rejected the school's arguments, stating that the shirts are open to interpretation and are protected expression under the First Amendment.
Guy Smith, a 52-year-old commercial truck driver from Merrill, found himself in a legal battle over the right to drive with a loaded handgun within reach, even without a concealed carry permit. Inspectors cited him for carrying a concealed weapon when they spotted his revolver on the floor of his cab at a weigh station in Pleasant Prairie in June 2016. Smith, backed by Wisconsin Carry Inc., argued that the charge should never have been filed, citing a change in the law in 2011 that allowed handguns in cars to be unencased and loaded. Represented by attorney John Monroe, known for defending gun rights advocates, Smith contended that Wisconsin's castle doctrine applied to his situation as well. Despite prosecutors suggesting he could have obtained a concealed carry permit, Smith, emphasizing his need for self-defense as a trucker, maintained his stance: "I'm just a trucker trying to stay alive." The case was unexpectedly dismissed on the scheduled trial day, with Monroe expressing satisfaction that the state reconsidered before wasting taxpayers' money on a trial.
In July of 2013, Mark Hoffman went for a walk while open-carrying. He was stopped by the Village of Somerset police. Mark politely declined to answer questions and wished to continue on his walk. The police told him he was "under arrest for being heavily armed". Mark was issued a citation for loitering and obstruction of a police officer. Wisconsin Carry funded an attorney for Mr. Hoffman. At the municipal court, he was found not guilty of obstruction but guilty of loitering. Wisconsin Carry funded an appeal of the guilty conviction on the loitering charge.
A circuit court affirmed the municipal court ruling finding Mark guilty of loitering. Wisconsin Carry appealed to the District III Court of Appeals. Wisconsin Carry is pleased to announce that today the appeals court has overturned Mark's conviction for loitering. The appellate court found the only reason Mark was cited was because he was engaged in the LAWFUL activity of open carrying a firearm and that Wisconsin's preemption statute 66.0409(6) prohibits one from being convicted of loitering if the sole cause of alarm is carrying a firearm without evidence of criminal or malicious intent.
*Reference: https://www.wisconsincarry.org/wi-gun-news/case-wins-on-appeal
Jarrod Kuehn, a Neenah teacher, faced charges for having an unloaded gun in his car at Menominee Indian High School. The incident led to a "possess a firearm on grounds of a school" charge. Supported by Wisconsin Carry, Kuehn's attorney argued for dismissal, citing the unloaded, securely stored gun. Despite the judge denying the motion, the charges against Kuehn were later dropped and dismissed. Kuehn, who admitted keeping the gun in his car's center console for target practice, also disclosed having a valid concealed carry permit.
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. (WCI) has secured a landmark victory as the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, ruled against Madison Metro Transit's ban on concealed or open carry on city buses. WCI had challenged the ban, arguing that it violated the state's preemption statute designed to maintain uniform gun laws across municipalities. The court's decision extends beyond Madison, impacting other cities and counties with similar bans on mass transit buses. WCI emphasizes the importance of municipalities adhering to state laws, even those they may disagree with politically. The ruling is crucial for low-income individuals in high-crime areas who rely on mass transit, ensuring their constitutional right to self-defense. While not part of the ruling, WCI urges Madison Metro Transit to reconsider its ban on carry-in bus shelters. Attorney John Monroe and WCI's members played a vital role in making this lawsuit possible.
*Reference: https://www.wisconsincarry.org/wi-gun-news/wi-supreme-court-victory
Krysta Sutterfield, with support from Wisconsin Carry, sued the City of Milwaukee and its police officers for forcibly entering her home during an emergency detention for a mental health evaluation, seizing her gun and concealed-carry licenses. While acknowledging a potential violation of Sutterfield's Fourth Amendment rights in searching a closed container for the gun, the court found the warrantless entry justified under exigent circumstances. Despite admitting a constitutional boundary was exceeded, the court granted qualified immunity to the officers, affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
*Reference: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1666133.html
This case was filed to prevent employers from discriminating against employees who own and have guns lawfully carried in their personal vehicle. State law does not allow employers to prohibit employees from having guns in their personal vehicles even if parked on company property. This case was the first of its kind and set a persuasive precedent that employers statewide would face legal action for violating the gun rights of employees. Wisconsin Carry funded a lawsuit on behalf of a Wausau man, alleging he was unlawfully fired for having a firearm in his personal vehicle on his employer's property. A settlement has been reached in this lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are confidential, however, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our dues-paying members for their support which allows us to utilize civil litigation as one of our "all of the above" methods which we embrace along with grass-roots legislative activism, public relations, and education, to restore, preserve, and advance the right of law-abiding citizens in Wisconsin to keep and bear arms. - On behalf of the Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Board of Directors.
*Reference: https://www.wisconsincarry.org/wi-gun-news/wausau-lawsuit-settlement
In a pivotal case with implications for Wisconsin's firearm regulations, an appeals court panel is set to examine Aaron Ols' quest to reclaim his confiscated gun, allegedly used in a non-conviction-related crime. Charged initially with disorderly conduct while armed, Ols later faced a municipal ticket and sought the return of his firearm, denied by a judge under state law. Represented by gun rights specialist John Monroe, Ols contends that the park altercation and subsequent property trespass were separate incidents, challenging their combined consideration. He argues for the city's burden to prove criminal gun use, emphasizing that open carry alone is not disorderly conduct. With the support of Wisconsin Carry, Ools case won at The Court of Appeals.
*Reference: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/2014/2013ap001882.html
Wisconsin Carry Inc., led by Chairman Nik Clark, took legal action against Wisconsin's attorney general, challenging concealed carry permit rules. In his argument, Clark asserted that the Department of Justice had exceeded its authority in implementing these rules, particularly objecting to a 50-to-1 student-to-instructor ratio in classes. He claimed that this restriction, influenced by instructor and NRA interests, hampered their ability to provide free firearms safety instruction effectively. Clark raised broader concerns about the potential for excessive rule-making around concealed carry, suggesting that the then-current limits might be exceeded in the future, impacting applicants. The lawsuit emphasized inconsistencies in applying the ratio and questioned the need for such regulations. By that point, over 190,000 concealed carry permits had been issued since 2011, according to DOJ spokeswoman Dana Brueck.
*Reference: https://archive.jsonline.com/newswatch/211431651.html
“Return of property” case. Many cases Wisconsin Carry has file are “return of property” cases. WCI became aware of the practice of many police departments of confiscating firearms from citizens. Some of these citizens committed no crime. Some were arrested but never charged with a crime. Some used their gun in self defense and others were simply in car accidents while legally transporting firearms. In all of these situations police seized firearms and refused to return them. Many citizens just gave up on ever receiving their property back. Wisconsin Carry began to take legal action to get these firearms returned. After filing several lawsuits against police we forced a change in police policy that made it easier for citizens to get seized firearms returned to them. This is a “return of property” case. In 2011 the legislature passed and governor signed 2011 Act 35 into law creating Wisconsin’s “concealed carry” license system. Nazir was at the checkout line of an Aldi grocery store in Milwaukee when an armed robber with a sawed off shotgun entered the store and pointed the gun at the cashier demanding money from the register. Nazir drew his legally concealed handgun and shot and wounded the robber who fled and was later arrested. This was the first instance since the passage of ‘concealed carry’ of a license holder using their firearm in self-defense/defense of others. In spite of the DA clearing Nazir of any wrongdoing, Milwaukee police refused to return his firearm to him. Wisconsin Carry filed suit and forced the police to return Nazir’s handgun to him.
*Reference: https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=80626
Madison announced the settlement of a lawsuit filed by five members of Wisconsin Carry, who openly carried handguns in a Culver's restaurant last September. The men gathered for a social event, prompting a call from a concerned woman who noticed their weapons. When police arrived, they asked for identification, and two individuals were initially charged with obstructing justice. The city later dropped those charges but replaced them with disorderly conduct charges, which were eventually dismissed in April. Wisconsin Carry filed a lawsuit against the city for its actions, and in a letter to Madison Common Council members, city attorney Michael May stated that the city settled for $10,000, citing the cost of defense and potential costs of an adverse verdict.
*Reference: https://isthmus.com/news/news/madison-settles-lawsuit-brought-by-the-culvers-five-in-open-carry-incident/
Wisconsin Carry began under the premise that there were already too many gun rights organizations that were merely there to ‘fear-monger and fundraise’. Many gun rights orgs would spread information about bills introduced by anti-gun politicians, most of which would never even make it out of a committee hearing, claim that they would “fight” against these bills, and ask for donations to do so. Wisconsin Carry believed that we should take action first before asking for donations.
Frank Hannan-Rock, Racine (2009)
In a significant victory for gun rights and open-carry advocates, Frank Hannan-Rock, a Wisconsin Carry member from Racine, was unlawfully arrested while openly carrying on his porch in 2009. Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin, City of Racine, and police officers challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. The lawsuit, which also included two Wisconsin Carry members as co-plaintiffs, highlighted the unlawful actions taken by Racine Police during Frank's open-carrying incident. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has now entered a judgment in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannan-Rock, awarding $10,000 against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers. This judgment is seen as a crucial precedent, signaling consequences for municipalities where law enforcement exceeds their legal authority by unlawfully detaining, arresting, and seizing property from law-abiding open carriers.
Dave Bernson, Milwaukee (2009)
David Bernson accepted a $6,500 settlement in a federal lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee concerning a 2009 arrest and the subsequent confiscation of his firearm. Although Bernson was never formally charged, he was unable to retrieve his gun. The lawsuit, brought in collaboration with Wisconsin Carry Inc., argued that Wisconsin's Gun Free School Zone law, which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, is unconstitutional. The lawsuit detailed an arrest without a warrant, a search of Bernson's home and car, and subsequent denial of his gun retrieval because he was seen with it near a school. The City's Common Council recently agreed to the $6,500 settlement in favor of Dave Bernson.
*Reference: https://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/news/131178783.html
Wisconsin Carry filed a lawsuit on behalf of Krysta Sutterfield, who carried a holstered pistol to the Unitarian Universalist Church in Brookfield on July 4. Police responded to a complaint, confronting Sutterfield as she was leaving the church. The lawsuit alleges that two officers pointed guns at her, ordered her out, and conducted a warrantless search of her car, discovering a loaded, holstered gun in a case. Despite the illegality of transporting a loaded gun in a car, Waukesha County prosecutors did not charge her, citing questionable legal grounds for the car search. The lawsuit argues that Sutterfield's Fourteenth Amendment rights related to search and seizure were violated, as police lacked probable cause and acted without a warrant.
