Court: Wisconsin was right to deny man a handgun
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The state Justice Department properly denied a handgun permit to a man convicted of attacking his live-in girlfriend, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Joseph E. Koll, Jr., 50, of Princeton, was convicted of disorderly conduct in 1998. Some nine years later, in 2007, Koll tried to buy a handgun. The Justice Department denied his request, citing federal law that bars handgun sales to domestic abusers.
Koll argued the law doesn't apply in his case because he was convicted of disorderly conduct. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling a domestic relationship exists whenever an aggressor and victim live together or have lived together.
Koll's attorney, listed in online court records as Alexander Ullenberg, didn't immediately return a message left at his office Wednesday. Justice Department spokesman Kevin St. John had no immediate comment.
According to the ruling, Koll attacked his live-in girlfriend in June 1998, slapping her hand and twisting her arm. He snapped the side mirror off her vehicle as she tried to leave.
Koll pleaded no contest to two counts of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, specifically described in the court record as "non-domestic," as part of a plea deal.
Green Lake County Circuit Judge William M. McMonigal sentenced Koll to 180 days in jail, but stayed that order and gave Koll three years' probation and ordered him to domestic abuse counseling.
Koll tried to buy a handgun in December 2007. The Justice Department, which runs background checks on handgun purchasers, denied him twice.
The agency's Division of Law Enforcement Services administrator upheld the denials in January 2008. The administrator concluded Koll's 1998 convictions involved domestic violence, triggering a provision in the federal Gun Control Act that bars domestic abusers from owning firearms.
Koll went back to McMonigal. The judge ruled in Koll's favor in 2008, relying on the non-domestic designation on Koll's convictions.
The Justice Department appealed, but Koll fought back, saying a domestic relationship had no bearing on his disorderly conduct conviction.
But the appeals court noted the federal gun act defines misdemeanor domestic violence as a misdemeanor committed by a person similar to the victim's spouse, parent or guardian and Koll admitted he lived with the woman he attacked.
The U.S. Supreme Court, meanwhile, has found interpreting the gun act to apply to domestic abusers only if they're charged specifically with domestic abuse would negate Congress' intention to extend gun control laws to misdemeanor domestic abusers.
Presiding Judge Daniel P. Anderson indirectly chastised McMonigal in a concurring opinion, saying McMonigal didn't have the power to attach a "non-domestic" disclaimer to Koll's charges.
"Circuit courts are not empowered to label crimes in an attempt to help a party avoid collateral consequences," Anderson wrote. "The pervasive problem of domestic violence should be well known to every circuit judge who has a criminal calendar."
McMonigal didn't immediately return a message left with a Green Lake County judicial assistant Wednesday.
Apr 8, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
what happens to the people who pled guilty to disorderly conduct prior to the law taking effect. How would they know they are giving up there right to own a handgun
Apr 2, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
i am glad he was denied, i am not saying he is a horrible person but it does at least show that wisconsin is checking records instead of just handing out guns to anyone.
Apr 2, 2009 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Davvic: The point was that you could loose your second amendment right for using vulgar language ie: name calling if you were living together.
Apr 2, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rep_of_1--Well what was the point of your statement if not to suggest that at one point profanity was cause for domestic abuse so perhaps one day slapping and arm twisting will no longer be an offense. I mean what other reason would you have for even making that statement? And in answer to your last question, whether my chest sticks out or not has never been a big issue for me.
Apr 2, 2009 at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Davevic: Where in my words did I make the the comparison? I simply stated that the using vulgar or profane language used to be grounds for domestic abuse. Simple as that. Why did you have to twist my post to imply your thoughts and words?
Does this make your chest stick out further now?
Apr 2, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rep_of_1--Yes I read the article and nowhere was there mention of "vulgar language". You're not seriously comparing slapping and twisting someones arm to "profane language" are you? And certainly you wouldn't suggest that at some future date these acts will not be considered domestic abuse any longer? If so, I can only hope that you don't own any guns!
Apr 2, 2009 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gee Rocky I didnt know that we had to register handguns in wisconsin? Funny that I never had to fill out a registration form when I purchased my handguns, only a background check form and a wait of 48 hrs.
Apr 2, 2009 at 7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
That's true, the statute of limitations apply to time limits. We now have double jeopardy. Nine years later punished again, no felony conviction. My daughter was pulled over by city police for giving the bird. He advised her that could result in a disorderly conduct charge next time.
Apr 1, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wisconsin's statute of limitations prevents a person from being charged and prosecuted for a given crime after a specified amount of time has gone by. It doesn't affect a person's criminal record.
.
A person's record of criminal convictions stays with them for life unless it is erased by law (such as some juvenile criminal records automatically are) or expunged by lawsuit (in some states) or pardoned (the President can pardon Federal crimes, governors can pardon state crimes).
.
Koll would never get a pardon from anti-gun Doyle unless someone lets the Gimmenator know that handing out pardons in exchange for totally unrelated campaign contributions won't affect the state budget like continuing to hand out no-bid contracts to campaign contributors will.
Apr 1, 2009 at 9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Davvic the reason the man was with held a gun was due to the DOMESTIC ABUSE charges that were applied against the initial plea bargain. Did you read the article or just the blog comments?
Apr 1, 2009 at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
coyote - You said misconstruance
Apr 1, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a terrible misconstruance of the law, he should not have been denied the right to purchase.
Apr 1, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
rep_of_1--What are you talking about???
Apr 1, 2009 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nine years later on a misdemeanor? WI has a 3 year Statute of limitations on misdemeanors and adultery. (This is what it says, not my words)
Apr 1, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
...so he's denied the right to legally purchase a handgun in Wisconsin. I'll bet he can still get one if he wants one, and rather easily. The only thing this ruling prevents is his owning a registered, traceable handgun.
Apr 1, 2009 at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
At one point using vulgar language used to be grounds for domestic abuse. The laws have since been changed to protect the cry wolf syndrome. Personally the current laws on the books make sense and protect the innocent. The down side is the old ones still affect the ban. Profane language is something even a judge is capable of.
Apr 1, 2009 at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
We don't know all the circumstances of Koll's case, so just to be safe, I'm not taking any chances. Sorry ladies, I know this will break a few hearts, but don't plan on shacking up with me until this law is changed.
☺
Apr 1, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Koll pleaded no contest to two counts of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, specifically described in the court record as "non-domestic," as part of a plea deal." I think that explains right there why he wasn't charged with domestic abuse. A "plea deal". Thanks to the Justice Dept. this is one case that won't "slip through the cracks."
Apr 1, 2009 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seems the guy just can't get a gun over the counter; and he is NOT a felon,so what caliber do ya need? And to you that asked why he needs a gun,in these times,the question should've been what took you sooo long!!!
Apr 1, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glad the background check system seems to be working.
Apr 1, 2009 at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think that this is a great law. Anyone, male or female, with a previous domestic abuse background should not be able to own a handgun, given their violent nature, no matter the circumstances. They are the ones who chose to raise a fist, item, etc with the intent to cause bodily harm to another, so why give them a bigger "toy" to hurt someone with?!
The details are very limited in this case, so if he was not charged with domestic abuse and only disorderly, then there has to be something that has "slipped through the cracks" on this case. Who knows....as we never will.
Apr 1, 2009 at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
"slapped her hand" and "twisted her arm"...these sound a little more like defensive type moves to me, but we will never know given the extremely limited details provided. Sad to think that his previous actions will haunt him for the rest of his life. A good reason to THINK before acting. But can't help wonder why he needs to own a hand gun now????
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.