If you have had a beer or two.

The State Supreme Court ruled the other day that a man was rightfully charged and convicted of having a firearm while having drinks after he was assaulted, disarmed in his own apartment. He then goes into his room, grabs a shotgun and called the police. Police show up and arrest him rather than the people who assaulted him.

No branch of government cares about you or your natural rights. Even if they pretend to sometimes. Government at all levels is garbage.

Sounds like bs but we are not getting the complete story.

May 4, 2021, at 11:48 a.m. MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a man who was found guilty of arming himself with a gun while intoxicated, rejecting his arguments that his core Second Amendment rights outweighed a state law against brandishing firearms while drunk.


WS

While I would argue against carrying weapons while intoxicated, the second amendment doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless you're intoxicated. If a man is legitimately defending himself, does it matter whether or not he was drunk?

And that was the one lone dissenting vote's argument. It was interesting to read the lower courts' decisions before it got to the WI Supreme Court.

On my concealed carry permit it says "Permit is invalid when the permittee is intoxicated" right on it. Fun killers.

I'd like to think there was more to the story than we are getting on here

A big times 2

What is the world coming too?

We're not talking about concealed carry out in the community....

The way this is worded makes it seem like he was assaulted, and then decided to go home and get liquored up. Then he got angry, grabbed a gun, and decided for whatever reason to call the cops. One has to wonder why he didn't call the cops right away after he was assaulted instead of going home and having a few first.

Based on the little we know it sounds like this case needs to go to the SCOTUS. The ruling suggests a person cannot use a firearm to defend themself and family on their own property after consuming alcohol and could be precedent setting in that regard, whether or not that was actually what happened in the case ruled upon.

Trying to read between the lines it sounds like an armed individual got drunk and was then disarmed by someone in the apartment, armed himself with a shotgun and called the police. The police responded finding an armed beligerent drunk complaining of having been assaulted.

The account I read presented a bit more detail.

He was drinking at home with friends present. While drunk he pulled a gun on his friends.

Someone hit him in the chest and took the handgun away.

He went to his room and got a shotgun and confronted friends again while calling the cops.

The court determined that there was no self defense circumstance. He was the aggressor.

Good decision IMO

yes , the ruling was that he was properly charged not that you can't have a beer and carry.

had there been a real self defense event , like he is buzzed and sitting on the couch with his gun and his door gets kicked in and he shoots the home invader that would have been different.
they basically said he wasn't in danger , he caused the issue and that charging him with intoxicated use of a firearm was appropriate as he was in his home but had threatened other occupants of the apartment.

WI carry law is clear that you can not be the instigator of the issue and still claim your right to defense.