A judge dismissed a felony charge Wednesday against a Sheboygan Falls man charged with carrying a gun 954 feet from a school when state law requires a distance of 1,000 feet.
The 46-foot difference led to a count of possession of a firearm in a school zone, which is punishable by up to 18 months in prison. But Judge Timothy Van Akkeren ruled Wednesday there is not probable cause to pursue the case and refused to bind over 23-year-old Matthew N. Hubing for trial.
That sounds like a good ruling, but it left me wondering why the guy had been charged in the first place. It seems a little picky trying to determine exactly how many feet from the school he was. Later in the article it says he spent 18 days in jail and the prosecutors tried twice to charge him. What could he have done to make them so angry?
Hubing, of 85 Wisconsin St., was arrested May 17 after openly carrying a loaded handgun and unloaded assault-style rifle through Sheboygan Falls. Police — who questioned but did not arrest Hubing for doing the same thing the week before — contacted Hubing again after several residents saw him carrying the guns while riding a bike and wearing camouflage clothing.
I guess the police in Sheboygan Falls don't take kindly to that kind of brash demonstration of one's right to bear arms.
What is it with this civilian wearing of camouflage clothing while carrying guns? Is that normal? To me it sounds like the kind of fantasy acting out that might disqualify a person under the mental illness restrictions. I want my gun owners thoroughly grounded in reality, I don't know about you.
What's your opinion? Mine is that the police were overstepping their authority again. The worst the kid might have done was to stick it in their face the way open carry demonstrators like to do. The real problem here is that the law allows people to live out their silly fantasies and the society in Michigan encourages it.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
> The real problem here is that the law allows people to live out their silly fantasies and the society in Michigan encourages it.
ReplyDeleteYou just completely contradicted yourself there. If the society encouraged this then he wouldn't have been in front of the judge to begin with.
What is it with this civilian wearing of camouflage clothing while carrying guns? Is that normal?
ReplyDeleteWould it make a difference to you if he wore some other type clothing while carrying guns? Should we look into implementing some "commonsense" laws to regulate "assault clothing"?
I want my gun owners thoroughly grounded in reality . . .
I disagree. I think you want "your" gun owners utterly banished to the world of fantasy--nonexistent, in other words.
Of course that will never happen, any more than drinking one beer will disqualify anyone from gun ownership--speaking of someone whose thinking is, ahem . . . divorced from reality . . ..
"Should we look into implementing some "commonsense" laws to regulate "assault clothing"?"
ReplyDeleteDon't even joke about that. It's only a matter of time before some idiot bureaucrat tries to ban camouflage in public places because it might intimidate the peaceniks.
Well, how about if I ride a bicycle down the street, with a .45 on my hip, and SKS slung over my back, while wearing a dress. Does that make a difference? :)
ReplyDeleteBig Gay Al, Thanks so much for coming by. We've heard about the Pink Pistols and about gay gun owners but I think you're the first to grace our pages, at least openly.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating to notice how similar are the things on your blog to those of the other gun bloggers, yet one would expect most of them to have a problem with gay rights, which is usually associated with the liberal left.
Of course, the gun bloggers I know would never admit such a thing any more than they'd cop to racism. According to them, only gun control folks harbor these prejudices and biases.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr asks, "I'm not sure why you harbor such a stereotype against gun owners. Gun owners are generally for more freedoms and less restrictions. Most just want to live their lives and be left alone."
ReplyDeleteI know there are responsible and reasonable gun owners. But I think they're in the minority. Then there's a much larger group who are in the middle, not particularly dangerous but not entirely responsible either. That leaves the others who are the stereotypical ones. It's covered in my very conservative estimation in the Famous 10% post. It's probably higher than that.