The Wisconsin Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to carry firearms in a vehicle for protection.

Byline: David Ziemer

The Wisconsin Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to carry a firearm in a vehicle for protection, the Wisconsin-sin Supreme Court held on May 17.

Scott K. Fisher was a tavern owner in Black River Falls who kept a loaded gun in the center console of his vehicle. He was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) at approximately 4 p.m., while he was on his way to McDonald's and was running personal errands.

Fisher moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against him, asserting that he kept the gun for security purposes because he routinely transported large amounts of cash generated by his business.

Jackson County Circuit Court Judge John A. Damon granted the motion, holding that the concealed carry statute, sec. 941.23, is unconstitutional as applied to Fisher, because Article I, Section 25, of the Wisconsin Constitution bars the prosecution.

The State appealed, and the Supreme Court accepted certification of the case from the court of appeals. In a decision by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the court reversed.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks wrote a dissent, joined in part by Justices Patience Drake Roggensack and Jon P. Wilcox.

Art. I, sec. 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted in November 1998, and reads as follows: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

The court has previously addressed the right to bear arms in two cases decided the same day - State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis.2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, and State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 N.W.2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785.In Cole, the court held that the CCW statute is not facially unconstitutional, notwithstanding the enactment of art. I, sec. 25., nor was it unconstitutional as applied to Cole, who possessed two pistols in a motor vehicle, and admitted that he did not possess the weapons in response to any "specific or imminent threat."

In Hamdan, the court held the CCW statute unconstitutional as applied to a store owner who kept a firearm for protection in his store, which was located in a high crime area. During the six years prior to Hamdan's offense, the store was the target of four armed robberies, three of which were successful, and two fatal shootings. In the unsuccessful armed robbery, Hamdan shot and killed the perpetrator.

Applying the two cases to Fisher's case, the Supreme Court held that the CCW statute was not unconstitutional as applied to him.

The court acknowledged...