'Open carry' and 'castle doctrine' at issue in gun owner's appeal

Milwaukee J-S ^ | 27 may 2014 | Bruce Vielmetti

[rellimpank]

In a case that may continue to refine Wisconsin gun law, an appeals court panel on Tuesday is set to hear a Milwaukee man's claim for the return of his gun, which police say was used in a crime, though no one was convicted.

Judges may consider both the limits of so-called open carry and the court procedures by which hundreds of gun owners each year seek return of weapons confiscated under a variety of scenarios.

Briefs filed in the case explain the situation:

Aaron Ols, 37, was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct while armed, but prosecutors amended the charge to a municipal ticket. Ols pleaded guilty, wrote an apology and took an anger management class.

But a judge refused to return Ols' gun. State law allows police to keep a gun even if the person was not convicted of a crime as long as they meet a lower civil court burden of showing the gun was used in a crime.

In March 2012, Ols went to a park across the street from his house near S. 16th St. and Edgerton Ave. and told a man — who was there with his wife, two small children and dog — that animals were not allowed in the park, and that they were there after the 8 p.m. closing time.

The man got belligerent. Ols used profanity. And Ols was openly carrying a gun in a holster on his hip, though he did not refer to it or touch it.

[rellimpank]

—ping—

[Slambat]

Armed civilian park boss out to enforce the law.
Keeping the fools gun may not be a bad idea. Hate to say it
though.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Wisconsin court to hear gun confiscation case

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[afraidfortherepublic]

BTW, thank you, Onyx, for the flag gif!

[marktwain]

Maybe. I know of an exactly opposite situation. The man with the dog had the gun, and the police were called on him.