U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– 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 (CCW license). Federal law, in turn, prohibits firearm possession for anyone who has been convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under state or federal law. In this case, we address whether a conviction for disorderly conduct under Wis. Stat. § 947.01(1) (2019-20)1 qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. We hold that disorderly conduct is not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law, and therefore does not disqualify a person from holding a CCW license.
This makes perfect sense if we are to be a nation ruled by law and not by men (or women).
The Lautenberg Amendment was passed in 1996, three years after Doubek’s conviction. Courts have ruled the Lautenberg Amendment is not an Ex Post Facto law, because the penalty is for actions that occur after the law was passed. Many have argued the restriction of Second Amendment rights is a punishment in itself.
The Lautenberg Amendment has not resulted in lower rates of intimate partner homicides.
From 1976 to 1996, the number of intimate partner homicides decreased significantly, particularly among black males and black females. From 1997 to 2019, the numbers have remained flat at about 1300 per year, which would result in a slight decline in rates, given an increasing population. During the same period, the overall homicide rates decreased dramatically until about 2014, then started rising.
- In 1976, the percentage of intimate partner homicides committed with firearms was 71%.
- In 1996, the percentage of intimate partner homicides committed with firearms was 61%.
- In 2013, the percentage of intimate partner homicides committed with firearms was 50%.
This correspondent has not found rates beyond 2013.
At the same time, the number of firearms in the United States more than doubled. 1976 140 million (218.4 mil population) .64 per capita to 2013 363 million (316 million) 1.15 per capita.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
domestic partner killings are personal and strangulation and knives are the norm the number committed with cars/trucks is surprising too
I disagree with being restricted from a firearms from domestic violence charge, for the reason that I know guys that have been charged with domestic violence. not because they hit their significant other, because it was said they had physical contact, and all it was was a loud argument, that the law had gotten called on them, then his ole lady said he hit her, and there was no such contact. the judicial system in my area cater to women. when you are in court against a woman in my area as a man, you are screwed. even in a… Read more »
Good report on a bad judicial situation.
Aren’t trial court judges elected in Texas. Can’t they get voted out.
men should apply try to beat the woman to the punch , when they call you to court sorry judge already have a protection order against her redundant is counter productive
Good to know!
Wild Bill, there are many that run for many Judgeships and who very few voters know anything about.
My take knowing 2 fools who married bad & lost rights: 1st sign she’ll be irrational-vindictive, calm it way down then get out when she’s not home & no recent blowup. Then stay out. Don’t try to fix it. After leaving, I’m thinking alibi, apps to keep location record etc. Probly a manual on this somewhere.
NRA rolled for this crap & gave phony As to pols who voted for it. Too many 2A attys think ‘adjudication’ = due process. BS. True due process is fair & speedy trial by jury of peers. Fair = fully informed jury
Dean, while this is good news much more important is the decision of the 4th Federal Circuit that upheld the Maryland gun ban. The decision stated that the 2A does NOT guarantee the right to military style weapons like the AR15.
That is the complete opposite of Miller. Thanks for letting us know!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Pew Research poll % are questionable at best slanted towards the anti gun agenda. Very worrisome
Organizations Like One World Education infalt the numbers exaggerate the facts leaving a disparage in the education of today’s children. The internet is full of facts that never match and a truth that is unjust. Hours of reading leave me to believe that anti gun movement is much like the democratic politician that will say anything to progress there agenda. The word game is very evident as you read from one web site to another, They seem to talk only about the object rather than the criminal who commits such horrible crimes. The narrative is the gun not the evil… Read more »
How did the Lautenberg Amendment not brought to national attention and not strongly contested? How has it not been declared unconstitutional for multiple reasons? Anyone can be easily charged and convicted of this misdemeanor with ex post facto punishments. An entire household can be so charged and arrested. It is frightening so many citizens accept such easy governmental denial of their rights.
I suspect that no one wants to spend the millions that it takes to work through the courts and that the perfect case has not come along yet.
An amendment passed in 1996 known as the Lautenberg Amendment prevents people who have been convicted of domestic abuse or are the subject of a protective order prohibiting contact from owning guns. However, abusers who are not a parent, guardian, or legal spouse to their victims face no such restrictions. This gap has become known as the “boyfriend loophole.
Please do not shoot the messenger It sparked a interest as I never heard of this Thank you
It doesn’t help that NRA rolled for it & gave phony As to pols who voted for it. Too many 2A attys are former prosecutors or family law types who think ‘adjudication’ by judge = due process. BS. True due process to remove rights requires fair & speedy trial by jury of peers. And fair implies fully informed jury and defendant’s right to fully defend himself, both of which rights have been significantly destroyed in the last century or so.
Texas law indicates that a disorderly conduct conviction in the past 5 years, I believe, disqualifies one from holding an License to Carry.