Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: City of Janesville sign

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Whitewater
    Posts
    2

    City of Janesville sign

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	janesville.JPG 
Views:	298 
Size:	81.7 KB 
ID:	7997

    I was looking at the City of Janesville Wisconsin website and came across this sign. It appears they prohibit weapons but then add they will not be held responsible for safety. It appears to me they want to have their cake, restricting rights, and eat it too, not be held accountable is something happens. Is the verbal of this sign legal?

    http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=494

  2. #2
    Regular Member Blast Chamber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    13
    That reminds me of those "Not responsible for accidents" signs that people put up at garage sales which aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

    Talk about wanting to have it both ways. I doubt that Janesville's sign would stand up to a court challenge or lawsuit, but then again I'm not an attorney.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Blast Chamber View Post
    ...but then again I'm not an attorney.
    That's good Man. Never go full retard. Ask Sean Penn.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Thats pretty awesome how they won't even protect their poor defenceless residents from felonious knaves.

  5. #5
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    That sign pretty much sums up the situation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    I just noticed the sign doesn't say anything about denying liability. It states it cant "ensure" the safety of anyone and they don't offer any protection for anyone. If it has some blurb like "we can not be held responsible", or "enter at your own risk" that would indicate they are at least trying to refuse liability.
    Last edited by bigdaddy1; 02-21-2012 at 08:46 AM.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Big Dipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    I just noticed the sign doesn't say anything about denying liability. It states it cant "ensure" the safety of anyone and they don't offer any protection for anyone. If it has some blurb like "we can not be held responsible", or "enter at your own risk" that would indicate they are at least trying to refuse liability.
    I agree completely.

    All they have done is specifically acknowledge what we all say here all of the time. A gun ban that is not enforced (with limited access and metal detectors) does absolutely NOTHING to make any of the occupants SAFER. They have said nothing in that sign about limiting their liability. They are just warning everyone that enters that they are less safe because of the city's action.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    286
    They're admitting that there's danger. So If something happens (heaven forbid) this means that they're really admitting guilt is the way I'm reading the sign. I wonder if the city atty. dreamed this one up.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    No state preemption?

  10. #10
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Employee's don't bother calling 911, is what is reads. Take the bullet or knifing for the boss, and we''ll see you after you heal.

  11. #11
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    No state preemption?
    Wisconsin state law states that anyone can post no weapons signs. There are some regulations such as sign size etcetera but nothing that prevents them from posting.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  12. #12
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Employee's don't bother calling 911, is what is reads. Take the bullet or knifing for the boss, and we''ll see you after you heal.

    They can call, just dont expect them to get there in time to do anything other than chalk the body outline.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1
    My interpretation of the sign is - laws are only followed by the law abiding, so only the criminals will be armed in here. So don't get that warm fuzzy feeling of safety in this building because it's a false sense of security.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Wisconsin state law states that anyone can post no weapons signs. There are some regulations such as sign size etcetera but nothing that prevents them from posting.
    Should look into getting that fixed... WA state preemption does not allow local manipulable to create more restrictive laws than that of the state. Therefore the state can be the only ones that say what is off limits. The state does not list public buildings as a place that can be restricted.

    Hopefully you guys can make further progress on your firearm laws in the upcoming legislative sessions, good luck and stay safe.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Should look into getting that fixed... WA state preemption does not allow local manipulable to create more restrictive laws than that of the state. Therefore the state can be the only ones that say what is off limits. The state does not list public buildings as a place that can be restricted.

    Hopefully you guys can make further progress on your firearm laws in the upcoming legislative sessions, good luck and stay safe.
    Wisconsin has Preemption laws, but I don't know if that pertains to this. I will defer to those with the patience to investigate.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •