Posted on 12/12/2014 6:10:17 AM PST by rellimpank
One of two concealed gun permit holders involved in a rolling shootout down Milwaukee streets and freeways last year was turned down Thursday when he asked a judge to order the return of the gun seized after the incident.
Roy Anthony Scott told police he was merely trying to escape from Eric Adamany, 29, and fired in self-defense. Scott was never charged in the June 2013 shootout. Adamany was, and his case of recklessly endangering safety is pending.
Scott, also 29, was charged in September 2013 with being party to the crime of armed robbery at an auto-parts store three months earlier. But that case was dismissed last month because prosecutors failed repeatedly to provide discovery material requested by Scott's lawyer that he contended would show similar robberies by similarly described suspects have been occurring after Scott was arrested and put on house arrest and GPS monitoring.
Two days later, Scott again petitioned for the return of his black and chrome .40-caliber Ruger. On Thursday, appearing without a lawyer, he told Circuit Judge Dennis Moroney, "I was just hoping to get my gun back. I'm not a felon." He told the judge he didn't want to discuss the robbery case — "14 months of stress" — and that as to the July 2013 shootout, "I was completely defending myself."
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
So in such a case, why don’t a couple of thousand gun owners simply surround the judge’s house - not offering any threats or anything, but just simply being there - until the judge decides to see things the constitutional way?
/johnny
Effectively, pleading the Fifth.
But the robbery case was dismissed and therefore has no relevance.
NoNoNo- Stay away from private homes. That is the tactic of Leftists.
Gang tats?
and he was just driving along one day and happened to find himself in shootout? Happens all the time...
Interesting case. The DA has failed to pursue criminal action against this loser, and so he has not been convicted of, or even indicted for, any crime that would cause him to lose his CCP. This is in spite of a 5 mile shoot out along an interstate (obviously NOT an imminent danger situation) and a previous armed robbery charge that the DA had to drop because he screwed up.
However, since the guy hasn’t even been charged with anything for this shoot out, how can the judge keep his firearm? Must be the inherent racism of the judicial system, as they say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.