Wisconsin Supreme Court: Disorderly Conduct is not Domestic Violence

AmmoLand ^ | June 7, 2022 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In November of 1993, Daniel Doubek was convicted of disorderly conduct in Door County, Wisconsin. There are no existing records of the case, according to the initial brief, other than he was convicted.

It has been reported Doubek was issued a Wisconsin Concealed Carry permit in 2016. In 2019, Wisconsin revoked the permit, claiming Doubek was ineligible because of the 1993 disorderly conduct conviction, which the Wisconsin DOJ claimed met the federal standard for a domestic violence conviction.

The Wausau Pilot contends there are court records claiming Doubek broke into his estranged wife’s trailer in 1993, waiving a board and shouting threats. Those may have been claimed; however, Doubek was not charged with or convicted of domestic violence. He was convicted of disorderly conduct. In the brief by Doubek’s lawyer, it becomes clear the claims of violence come from a charging document, not from a conviction document. From the brief:

For example, DOJ draws most of its “brute facts” from the charging document. DOJ draws them, however, not from the description of the crime in terms of the elements, but from a narrative that follows, which essentially consists of a regurgitation of a police report from the Door County Sheriff. These facts simply cannot be used.

The Supreme Court of the United States has set a precedent for these sorts of cases. What matters is what the person is convicted of, not what they were charged with, or even what actually happened. Using that standard, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found the Wisconsin DOJ had improperly revoked Doubek’s Concealed Carry permit. From the court decision:

Wisconsin law provides that an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law may not hold a license to carry a concealed weapon

[marktwain]

The court said, what you are convicted of matters, not what you have been accused of.

[libertylover]

The court said, what you are convicted of matters, not what you have been accused of.

Good for them/us.

[Gay State Conservative]

If he *did* break into her trailer and threaten her that sounds like domestic violence to me.

[traderrob6]

Perhaps, but one legally cannot be sanctioned for what they are simply “accused” of.

[Gay State Conservative]

Yes,I understand that. But it would be very unfortunate indeed if anything bad were to happen to this woman. And it would be doubly unfortunate if a bad thing involving a firearm were to happen.

[pierrem15]

You can't give that kind of discretion to bureaucrats and judges to make up the law as they go along.

The Wisconsin legislature can simply address this by adding "disorderly conduct in a home conviction" as a disqualifying CCW factor if it chooses.

[Parley Baer]

How about changing the voting laws while in the midst of counting ballots?

[Rinnwald]

...if anything bad were to happen to this woman...

The conviction was in 1993. The guy had a CCW permit from 2016 to 2019. I don't think stripping this guy of his rights has any bearing on the woman's safety.

[joma89]

But a bee is a fish in california.

[Valpal1]

Then the government should have charged that, then proved it in a court of law and got a conviction.

If you allow the government to suspend 2A rights based on unproven claims in pre-charging and pre-trial documents then all those documents will magically start making those claims every single time.