State Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Regarding Purchase of Weapon and Criminal History

Wednesday, June 25th, 2025 -- 12:00 PM

(Rich Kremer, Wisconsin Public Radio) A split Wisconsin Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit asking whether a man whose 1994 domestic violence conviction was expunged should be allowed to buy a gun.

According to Rich Kremer with Wisconsin Public Radio, Scot Van Oudenhoven was convicted of domestic abuse in 1994, but that conviction was expunged from his record in 2019 by a Calumet County judge.

After he attempted to buy a handgun in 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Justice blocked the sale, arguing federal law banned the purchase. Van Oudenhoven’s attorney argued federal law clearly states that people can purchase firearms if their misdemeanor domestic violence convictions are expunged, unless a judge specifically says they cannot.

Van Oudenhoven asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to weigh in after a Winnebago County Circuit Court and the District 3 Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled against him.

Supreme Court justices accepted legal briefs and heard oral arguments in February, but the court dismissed the case Tuesday with an unsigned order. “After reviewing the record and the briefs, and after hearing oral arguments, we conclude this matter should be dismissed as improvidently granted,” the decision stated.

While the outcome of the case was straightforward, how justices arrived at their decision was more complicated. Three of the court’s four liberals, Justices Rebecca Dallet, Ann Walsh Bradley and Janet Protasiewicz, agreed the case should have been dismissed, but took issue with the court not specifying why.

“Failing to provide an explanation for the dismissal results in a lack of guidance for litigants and the public and may effectively negate the ‘numerous hours of work and sums of money spent seeking a decision on the merits,’” Justice Dallet wrote in a concurring opinion.

Dallet said the court was tasked with addressing whether Van Oudenhoven was entitled to own a gun based on federal law. She said based on the court record, “it appears that this case may not squarely raise that issue.”

The court’s three conservatives wanted the court to hear the case. In one dissent, which was joined by fellow conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, Justice Annette Ziegler disagreed with Dallet’s reasoning and said addressing Van Oudenhoven’s question before the court “would develop the law.”

“The court should not dodge this issue that is properly presented,” Ziegler wrote. Ziegler also questioned whether Dallet’s concurring opinion questioned the Calumet County Circuit Court decision to expunge Van Oudenhoven’s domestic violence conviction six years ago.

“The concurrence’s apparent suggestion that somehow this court should consider the validity of the criminal 2019 expunction order, in this separate civil case, is wholly without merit in this case,” Ziegler wrote.

In a separate dissent, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote Van Oudenhoven’s case presented a question of statutory interpretation “perfectly fitting for this court’s decision, and we should answer it.”

Feel free to contact us with questions and/or comments.