Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Drunken man’s right to bear arms at the core of case in front of state Supreme Court

By: Michaela Paukner, [email protected]//January 21, 2021//

Drunken man’s right to bear arms at the core of case in front of state Supreme Court

By: Michaela Paukner, [email protected]//January 21, 2021//

Listen to this article

An intoxicated man’s right to bear arms is at the core of a case in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday.

The justices heard oral arguments in State v. Mitchell L. Christen, which asks the high court to review whether a state statute prohibiting people who are intoxicated from going armed with a firearm is a violation of Second Amendment rights.

Christen got in a fight with his roommates and their friends after he had been drinking. Someone took his handgun, so he went back to his room, got another gun and called 911. The state then charged Christen with going armed with a firearm while intoxicated in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.20(1)(b), which deems such conduct a misdemeanor.

Christen asked the circuit court to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the statute violates his right to bear arms while in his own home. The circuit court ruled that his rights were not violated because the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognizes the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense in their own home.

On appeal, Christen asserted that he was presenting an as-applied constitutional challenge to the statute. The Court of Appeals held that the standard was fatal to his appeal because he relied on hypothetical facts, did not discuss the facts of his case and failed to explain why, according to the facts of his case, the statute violated his Second Amendment rights.

The state Supreme Court is now reviewing whether the consumption of a legal intoxicant voids the Second Amendment’s right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes.

During oral arguments on Thursday, counsel for both parties argued whether Christen was acting in self defense when he picked up the gun.

Steven Roy, attorney for Christen, said the jury found Christen wasn’t acting in lawful self defense because the question was posed in various stages of reasonableness. But Christen, he argued, hadn’t forcibly placed himself in a situation in which he needed to use the gun.

“When we’re asking a jury of 12 people these questions, we’re throwing the Constitution out the window,” Roy said.

Justice Rebecca Dallet asked how Christen could be deprived of his rights when he chose to drink, which is tied to what made his actions criminal. Roy argued that Christen was faced with the choice of either exercising his Second Amendment right or obeying the state statute.

Justice Rebecca Bradley grilled Nicholas DeSantis, attorney for the State, about that line of argument. She posed a hypothetical about Christen drinking at home with his weapon locked away and then falling victim to a home invasion. She asked DeSantis twice about Christen’s right to be ready for confrontation under the Second Amendment.

The meaning of going armed, which the court has ruled is having a gun within reach, is important in that situation, DeSantis said.

“He could have a loaded gun a couple of steps outside of his reach,” DeSantis said.

He argued that it’s reasonable for the State, in the interest of protecting public safety, to want to prevent a person who’s drunk from picking up a gun.

Bradley, however, thought that wasn’t realistic.

He’s basically being forced to choose between his lawful right to drink and lawful right to self defense,” Bradley said.

The court will issue its decision at a later date.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests