City of Janesville sign

Breezy · Feb 20, 2012

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

Blast Chamber · Feb 20, 2012

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.

HandyHamlet · Feb 20, 2012

Blast Chamber said:
...but then again I'm not an attorney.

That's good Man. Never go full retard. Ask Sean Penn.

ComradeV · Feb 20, 2012

Thats pretty awesome how they won't even protect their poor defenceless residents from felonious knaves.

lockman · Feb 20, 2012

That sign pretty much sums up the situation.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 21, 2012

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.

Big Dipper · Feb 21, 2012

bigdaddy1 said:
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.

JJC · Feb 21, 2012

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.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 21, 2012

No state preemption?

jbone · Feb 21, 2012

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.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 22, 2012

Fallschirmjäger said:
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.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 22, 2012

jbone said:
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.:banghead:

gunslinger10mm · Feb 28, 2012

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.

slapmonkay · Feb 29, 2012

bigdaddy1 said:
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.

bigdaddy1 · Feb 29, 2012

slapmonkay said:
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.

City of Janesville sign

Breezy

New member

Blast Chamber

Regular Member

HandyHamlet

Regular Member

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran

lockman

State Researcher

bigdaddy1

Regular Member

Big Dipper

Regular Member

JJC

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

jbone

Regular Member

bigdaddy1

Regular Member

bigdaddy1

Regular Member

gunslinger10mm

New member

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran

bigdaddy1

Regular Member