Saturday, May 16, 2009

Van Hollen: Aiding and Abetting Criminals

The Racine County District Attorney caved in to the special interests and chose not to uphold the law by deciding not to press charges against a guy who was illegally transporting a gun within the prohibited range of a school. Why did the DA chose not to do his job? Because of Van Hollen:

Racine County District Attorney Mike Nieskes sent him a letter Friday, saying he wouldn't be charged, even though he was violating a law by carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

"I have decided it would not be in the greater interest of justice in the community to charge you with violation of Wisconsin Statute regarding gun free zones," Nieskes wrote.

Nieskes noted that the man has no criminal record, and there was no showing of irresponsible use of the firearm.

He also cited a recent memo issued by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that people have a constitutional right to openly carry firearms, as long as they aren't violating restrictions set in other laws. But Van Hollen also said police have the right to check anyone openly carrying a gun.

This highlights the necessity of an ordinance that is being considered in St. Francis, in which the police will be able to enforce the law, even if the DA chickens out of doing his job.

It also highlights the necessity to have a rational Attorney General. Has anyone heard of who might run to replace the dysfunctional one we currently have?

This story was also noted on Badger Blogger. At the risk of getting the limp-wristed ones upset with me again, I would advise the reader to check out the comments that are already appearing, keeping in mind, who is the rational people in this debate.

2 comments:

  1. What part of Van Hollen's memo preempted the Racine DA from charging the man in the story? Even the passage you decided to quote notes that Van Hollen clearly stated that his advisory ruling on open carry did not supercede other laws restricting firearms possession.

    The decision to not charge the Racine man rested solely on the DA. It is reminiscent of some Milwaukee concealed carry cases where pizza delivery or convenience store workers defended themselves against armed attackers and the DA chose not to charge the intended robbery victims.

    Luckily, clarity of thought prevailed in the DAs' decisions in all of these cases...rather than an illogical, emotional cognitive disconnect...or dishonest political smear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The guy was breaking the law. He was illegally transporting the weapon. He was within a school zone.

    To top it off, he was acting suspiciously before and after the alleged incident.

    No, it was due to the pressure of Van Hollen's irresponsible opinion piece.

    ReplyDelete