For the past many, many months, there has been no news on concealed carry for Wisconsin. The bill is still in the drafting stage, and we’re told that there won’t be any activity on it until September or so.

However, a case heard by the Fourth District Court of Appeals is creating some news.

The defendant in the case, Scott Fisher, is a tavern owner who has to take the day’s cash receipts to the bank after closing time. After several tavern owners in the area had been robbed, Fisher decided to keep a loaded handgun in the glove compartment of his vehicle.

His car was stolen, and he warned the police that there was a loaded gun in the vehicle. A week later, after the car had been recovered, DNR officials asked him if there was still a loaded gun in the vehicle. He answered yes, and was arrested under Wisconsin’s concealed carry statute.

The Appeals Court has asked the Supreme Court to clarify the case.

The Appeals Court’s request for Certification presents some very interesting points. (The full Certification can be found at http://www.wicourts.gov……)

The court notes that in the case of state vs. Phillip Cole, the Supreme Court said, among other things, that the argument that Cole had been severely beaten before in the neighborhood he was travelling through was
insufficiently specific to warrant carrying a loaded gun.

In state vs. Hamdan, on the other hand, the Supreme Court effectively said that Hamdan had a reasonable expectation for the need for security, since he operated a convenience store in a high-crime area, had been the subject of violence before, and could expect to be the victim of violence again.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan made it clear that carrying concealed in one’s home or business was not illegal.

The Fisher case now questions whether someone who carries large amounts of cash away from his or her business can be prohibited from carrying concealed under state law.

While it will likely take a long time for the state Supreme Court to issue a decision in the Fisher case, a decision in Fisher’s favor would open the door for any number of people to claim that they, too, carry large amounts of cash.

Further, a favorable decision in the Fisher case would beg other questions. If the criteria for being able to carry concealed rests on an expectation of the need for security, as the Court of Appeal’s certification seems to suggest, then what about a woman going through a divorce whose husband has been abusive in the past, and has threatened her? Would she not have the same need?

The Hamdan case made it necessary for courts to review concealed carry cases on an “as-applied” basis.

We need to remind our legislators that, while Governor Doyle tries to stonewall our efforts to get a shall-issue bill passed, the courts are creating whole new classes of people who can legally carry. Without training, without a permit, without a background check, and without paying a fee.

And not paying a fee flies in the face of Wisconsin’s tradition of taxing everything that walks or crawls.