Opinion ID: 1581568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Purpose, Scope, and Context

Text: [11] ¶ 53. We next examine the purpose, scope, and context of Wis. Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b), and find that they also support a determination that the statute prohibits the return of seized dangerous weapons to those who have committed the crime of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon. The court of appeals has identified two purposes of § 968.20(1m)(b): First it operates before the fact to deter persons from using firearms in the commission of crimes. Second, and most important, it minimizes the likelihood that a firearm which has been used in the commission of crime will find its way back into the hands of the criminal or into the hands of his or her associates who may likewise be inclined to criminal activity. Williams, 148 Wis. 2d at 858. ¶ 54. The first purpose of the statute is deterrence, which is one of the principal objectives of the criminal law. The criminal code increases the penalty for an offender who commits a crime while possessing, using, or threatening to use a dangerous weapon. Wis. Stat. § 939.63. The increased penalty is intended to discourage the use of dangerous weapons in the commission of crimes by creating fear of additional punishment. Logically, the loss of dangerous weapons through forfeiture is also intended to deter the use of dangerous weapons in the commission of crimes. Conversely, the return of dangerous weapons to persons who have committed crimes with them undermines deterrence. If people understand the risk of forfeiture on top of criminal prosecution, they are more likely to comply with the law. ¶ 55. The second purpose is to minimize the likelihood that a dangerous weapon will find its way back into the hands of a criminal or the criminal's associates. The objective not to rearm persons who have abused dangerous weapons is sensible, because these persons may be inclined to abuse the dangerous weapons again. This premise certainly underlies the statute that prohibits a convicted felon from possessing any firearm. Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2)(a). When the State has seized a dangerous weapon because of the use of that weapon in a crime, the use of that weapon in a subsequent crime inflicts an injury and jeopardizes public confidence. ¶ 56. Perez's interpretation of the statute has the opposite effect. It would return dangerous weapons to offenders who have committed offenses with the dangerous weapons but have not actively employed them in the commission of the crimes. [12] ¶ 57. Our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b) in relation to Wis. Stat. § 941.23 will promote judicial efficiency. In concluding that § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits the return of a dangerous weapon to a person convicted of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon, we create a bright-line rule in the application of the law. Conscious possession of a concealed and dangerous weapon is an element of the offense. ¶ 58. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b) provides that the property shall not be returned to any person who committed a crime involving the use of the dangerous weapon or the ammunition. This statute has application to many crimes in addition to carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon. [13] ¶ 59. It arguably applies to crimes in which the use of the dangerous weapon may require more than conscious possession of the weapon to satisfy the forfeiture statute, especially if conscious possession of the weapon is not an element of the offense. This presents a question that is not before us. In this case, we decide only that going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon involves such conscious possession or other use of the dangerous weapon that the State will not be required to prove some additional factor to prevent the return of the dangerous weapon to the offender under Wis. Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b). Where the element of use has been established by conviction, we see no point in relitigating the issue. ¶ 60. Perez argues that he is not the type of person for whom Wis. Stat. § 968.20 was intended. We conclude, however, that § 968.20 was intended to prohibit the actions taken by Perez, inasmuch as a dangerous criminal could have undertaken these same actions. The forfeiture statute does not distinguish between good lawbreakers and bad ones. Perez pled no contest to a charge of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon. In doing so, he conceded that he had unlawfully gone armed with a dangerous weapon. He was driving a van with a loaded handgun on the floor next to the driver's seat, and a rifle and a loaded shotgun within reach. Returning these dangerous weapons to Perez is fundamentally at odds with a common sense interpretation of the forfeiture statute.