WI trucker fights to carry

[Djfan]

This will be interesting.

http://cdllife.com/2016/top-truckin...wisconsin-court-for-his-right-to-drive-armed/

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Looks like a slam dunk for the trucker. The statue doesn't seem ambiguous at all.

First, they cited a Wisconsin statute that would seem to nullify Wisconsin’s conceal and carry law — Act 35 — when it comes to transporting a gun in a vehicle. The statute states “ … no person may place, possess, or transport a firearm, bow, or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless one of the following applies: 1. The firearm is unloaded or is a handgun.”

The prosecution seemed “ambushed” by this argument. Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said the that he declined to read the statute so broadly because it would mean that Act 35 had no meaning.

What kind of dumb *** DA gets "ambushed" by the actual law pertaining to the case?

 

[Troglodyte]

Looks like a slam dunk for the trucker. The statue doesn't seem ambiguous at all

Statue? Pretty sure that was in a Seinfeld episode.

 

[warriors42]

whats bullshit is that the judge postponed the case for a few months, where is his right to a speedy trial his attorney was ready. They will find a way to **** this poor *******

 

[Steelin]

I find it interesting that the overhead camera just happened to and was able to identify it on the floorboard so readily. I thought it was a weight station. The snooping, spying and downright control of our everyday lives is insane.

The DA was unprepared to prosecute the law and the judge delays it for months? Outrageous.

 

[Djfan]

I didn't think about the long delay scam. You all are right. His dumb attorney should be slapped.

Unless, this pro 2A legal team wants to nail it down. Here's hoping that they are doing the right thing.

 

[Steeltime]

The right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional guarantee but a delay of a couple of months will not trigger a violation of the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial unless Wisconsin has a statute guaranteeing a speedier hearing date. Most states have guarantees of a trial withing "x" days, but even that limitation can be continued where the continuance is necessitated by an issue that requires the delay. Imagine if the DA had a heart attack, for example. A delay under those circumstances is perfectly reasonable.

Further, a continuance is generally not an issue unless the delay prejudices the defendant by depriving him of a witness or other evidence, for example.

 

[warriors42]

The right to a speedy trial is a Constitutional guarantee but a delay of a couple of months will not trigger a violation of the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial unless Wisconsin has a statute guaranteeing a speedier hearing date. Most states have guarantees of a trial withing "x" days, but even that limitation can be continued where the continuance is necessitated by an issue that requires the delay. Imagine if the DA had a heart attack, for example. A delay under those circumstances is perfectly reasonable.

Further, a continuance is generally not an issue unless the delay prejudices the defendant by depriving him of a witness or other evidence, for example.

I understand what you're saying, but what zI don't understand is how the DA can push for trial but not be ready, if the defense was ready there is no excuse for the prosecutor not to be. Seems to me like they are going to try and end around this guy..