Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Oostburg Veterans park

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Frozen Tundra, , USA
    Posts
    88

    Question Oostburg Veterans park

    Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382
    I don't think parks can be posted unless they are national parks with controlled entry. IANAL

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    National Parks Gun Law, Public Law 111-24 512 codified 16 USC 7(b)


  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz272 View Post
    Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.
    If you have a CCL it doesn't matter.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Park buildings may be posted, but the park itself cannot. (Unless there is a "special event" there.)
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  6. #6
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Park buildings may be posted, but the park itself cannot. (Unless there is a "special event" there.)
    They may post for non-licensees. State Parks still ban non-licensees so Municipalities may ban non-licensees from parks. 29.089
    Plus, a municipality may cite a non-licensee for trespass under 943.13(1m)(b) if the park is posted. In other words you could receive 2 citations for carrying in a posted park without a license.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    They may post for non-licensees. State Parks still ban non-licensees so Municipalities may ban non-licensees from parks. 29.089
    Plus, a municipality may cite a non-licensee for trespass under 943.13(1m)(b) if the park is posted. In other words you could receive 2 citations for carrying in a posted park without a license.
    I don't know about that. The trespassing laws related to posting for gun carriers comes under 943.13(1m)(c) not (b). And under (c) there's no provision for government to post land, only buildings ("except during special events".) Secondly, State Parks can't ban non-licensees, they can only require that the firearm be unloaded and in a case. So I don't see how one would be held liable for a trespassing charge. At most a "failure to unload and case" citation-- which is what? I'm not sure, but I think it is no more than $100-- the same as the under 167.31.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    I don't know about that. The trespassing laws related to posting for gun carriers comes under 943.13(1m)(c) not (b). And under (c) there's no provision for government to post land, only buildings ("except during special events".) Secondly, State Parks can't ban non-licensees, they can only require that the firearm be unloaded and in a case. So I don't see how one would be held liable for a trespassing charge. At most a "failure to unload and case" citation-- which is what? I'm not sure, but I think it is no more than $100-- the same as the under 167.31.
    A Municipality may charge more than $100 for possession of a firearm in a park which is not unloaded and encased. 167.31 has zero to do with a municipal ordinance regarding manner of carry for a firearm. 167.31 is a State Statute. A Municipality may enact an ordinance regarding carry in Parks or on other Municipal property.
    A gun carrier may be charged with a 943.13(1m)(b) violation unless you are a licensee. It stands on its own. It existed before Act 35 was enacted and was only amended to add the part about licensees. The subsequent Statutes do not negate it. They clarify what a licensee may not do not what a non-licensee may do.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    A Municipality may charge more than $100 for possession of a firearm in a park which is not unloaded and encased. 167.31 has zero to do with a municipal ordinance regarding manner of carry for a firearm. 167.31 is a State Statute. A Municipality may enact an ordinance regarding carry in Parks or on other Municipal property.
    A gun carrier may be charged with a 943.13(1m)(b) violation unless you are a licensee. It stands on its own. It existed before Act 35 was enacted and was only amended to add the part about licensees. The subsequent Statutes do not negate it. They clarify what a licensee may not do not what a non-licensee may do.
    I didn't say 167.31 had anything to do with carry in parks or municipal property. I said as far as I can tell the state penalty for non-licensee having a firearm that was not unloaded and encased in a state park is no more than $100, i.e., the same penalty as in the vehicle transport law. If true, then a municipality couldn't have a greater penalty for a municipal park, right?

    943.13(1m)(b) covers trespassing in general. So if a municipality posted no trespassing signs on it's property it would apply equally to everyone, regardless if they had a firearm. Kind of defeats the purpose of a park, wouldn't it?

    943.13(1m)(c) covers trespassing as it relates to people with firearms. Nothing in there authorizes municipalities to post anything but buildings. If you read it carefully, you'll notice that it allows posting of residential land and buildings, and non-residential (e.g., commercial) land and buildings to be posted. However when it comes to the section regarding government property, it say NOTHING about land, but only buildings. Please cite the section regarding posting of government land for people with firearms if you can. It will be difficult, since there is no such section.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    I didn't say 167.31 had anything to do with carry in parks or municipal property. I said as far as I can tell the state penalty for non-licensee having a firearm that was not unloaded and encased in a state park is no more than $100, i.e., the same penalty as in the vehicle transport law. If true, then a municipality couldn't have a greater penalty for a municipal park, right?
    .
    I don't see why not. A greater penalty does not equal more stringent.

    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    943.13(1m)(b) covers trespassing in general. So if a municipality posted no trespassing signs on it's property it would apply equally to everyone, regardless if they had a firearm. Kind of defeats the purpose of a park, wouldn't it?
    No it does not and would not. As you pointed out, it would be a restriction on the manner of carry. Dogs on leashes, firearms unloaded and in cases. The WI State legislature added language which is to the effect that licensees may not be restricted access. There is no such language for non-licensees. This chapter stands on its own and you may be cited under it if you are not a licensee.



    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    943.13(1m)(c) covers trespassing as it relates to people with firearms. Nothing in there authorizes municipalities to post anything but buildings. If you read it carefully, you'll notice that it allows posting of residential land and buildings, and non-residential (e.g., commercial) land and buildings to be posted. However when it comes to the section regarding government property, it say NOTHING about land, but only buildings. Please cite the section regarding posting of government land for people with firearms if you can. It will be difficult, since there is no such section.
    Statutes restrict what you may do and do not give you the authority to do anything. Municipalities are property owners. Parks are not public right of ways. A Municipality has control over this property and is free to sell it, etc. Municipalities never have and currently do not need explicit Statutory authority to restrict firearms on land. They are simply prohibited by preemption from having a ordinance which is not similar to and no more stringent than a State Statute.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 07:34 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    943.13(1m)(c) covers trespassing as it relates to people with firearms. Nothing in there authorizes municipalities....
    I can not stress this point enough... Chapters under 943.13 prohibit individuals from trespassing and provides exceptions. That is all they do and that is their purpose.
    943.13(1m) states:
    Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture
    Note that it states "any of". This means that you may be cited for doing anything prohibited by 943.13(1m)(a) - 943.13(1m)(f). Each subdivision stands on its own and is not dependent upon another. You may be cited under 943.13(1m)(b) even if you may not be cited under 943.13(1m)(c)(2). Note the language in 943.13(c)(2).
    ...this subdivision does not apply to ...land occupied by the state or a local governmental unit...
    That means that ONLY 943.13(c)(2) does not apply to land owned by a municipality. It does not in any way effect the prohibitions of 943.13(1m)(b)
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 07:59 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Statutes restrict what you may do and do not give you the authority to do anything.
    That's not true, since some statutes do grant authority to do certain things.

    Let's get down to the meat of it. If a local government wanted to post it's land restricting the carrying of firearms, what state statue regarding posting land for carrying guns is it similar to?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    That's not true, since some statutes do grant authority to do certain things....
    There are no Statutes which grant you the authority to carry a firearm. Not even the State Constitution gives you the authority to Bear arms. It simply affirms the Right which you inherently have.

    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    Let's get down to the meat of it. If a local government wanted to post it's land restricting the carrying of firearms, what state statue regarding posting land for carrying guns is it similar to?
    We are back to 943.13(1m)(b). It's the local government's land and they may "notify" you that you may enter it if you are carrying a firearm unless you are a licensee. The State has prohibited firearms from being carried on State land under 29.089 for decades.
    Here is another way to look at chapter 943.13.
    943.13(1m)(b) prohibits you from entering or remaining on the land of another once notified to leave. This includes government land. The exception added with Act 35 is that a licensee may not be targeted exclusively because they are carrying a firearm.
    Subsequently, the remaining subdivisions under 943.13 prohibit licensees from entering specific land of another and prohibit entry onto land of another without express or implied consent regardless if it is posted or not.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 12:51 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    There are no Statutes which grant you the authority to carry a firearm. Not even the State Constitution gives you the authority to Bear arms. It simply affirms the Right which you inherently have.


    We are back to 943.13(1m)(b). It's the local government's land and they may "notify" you that you may enter it if you are carrying a firearm unless you are a licensee. The State has prohibited firearms from being carried on State land under 29.089 for decades.
    Here is another way to look at chapter 943.13.
    943.13(1m)(b) prohibits you from entering or remaining on the land of another once notified to leave. This includes government land. The exception added with Act 35 is that a licensee may not be targeted exclusively because they are carrying a firearm.
    Subsequently, the remaining subdivisions under 943.13 prohibit licensees from entering specific land of another and prohibit entry onto land of another without express or implied consent regardless if it is posted or not.
    No no no.... we're talking about POSTING, not carrying. Again, I'll ask you: What state statute about POSTING would a municipality point to and say it is similar to state law? Don't forget, since it is about firearms, it is preempted if there is no similar state law. Citation please.

    As for your earlier comment, you've said that statutes do not grant authority, they only prohibit. That's not true. Forget firearms, we're talking statutes in general.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    No no no.... we're talking about POSTING, not carrying. Again, I'll ask you: What state statute about POSTING would a municipality point to and say it is similar to state law? Don't forget, since it is about firearms, it is preempted if there is no similar state law. Citation please.

    As for your earlier comment, you've said that statutes do not grant authority, they only prohibit. That's not true. Forget firearms, we're talking statutes in general.
    A municipality does not need any additional authority to post. It already has it as a property owner. The State posts State Parks regarding firearms. Not only could you be cited for carrying a loaded and/or uncased firearm under 29.089, in a State Park but you could also be cited for trespassing. 943.13(2)(am) mentions posting in regards to 943.13(1m)(b) which is what you may be cited under in addition to a local ordinance prohibiting the carry of a loaded and or uncased firearm. Posting has zero to do with preemption. Posting is simply legal notice.
    The posting language regarding firearms in 943.13 including 943.13(2) simply defines one of the forms of legal "notice" which a property owner may use. It does not grant them authority to do so as it is not necessary.

    We are specifically talking about firearms in this thread. Statutes which grant authority typical pertain to law enforcement officers and the enforcement of laws. They may also dictate contract negotiations, etc.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    A municipality does not need any additional authority to post. It already has it as a property owner. The State posts State Parks regarding firearms. Not only could you be cited for carrying a loaded and/or uncased firearm under 29.089, in a State Park but you could also be cited for trespassing. 943.13(2)(am) mentions posting in regards to 943.13(1m)(b) which is what you may be cited under in addition to a local ordinance prohibiting the carry of a loaded and or uncased firearm. Posting has zero to do with preemption. Posting is simply legal notice.
    The posting language regarding firearms in 943.13 including 943.13(2) simply defines one of the forms of legal "notice" which a property owner may use. It does not grant them authority to do so as it is not necessary.

    We are specifically talking about firearms in this thread. Statutes which grant authority typical pertain to law enforcement officers and the enforcement of laws. They may also dictate contract negotiations, etc.
    Wrong again! As you ought to know, anything done by a municipality in WI regarding firearms is subject to the preemption statute. We're talking about a no trespassing sign here, not a simple "here are the park rules" sign. I'm still waiting and asking for the third time for you to cite the state statute regarding posting government land for firearms. Once again, as everyone can see, there is no statute regarding posting government lands, only buildings. Look at the language in the trespassing statute and compare what it says about giving notice in private residences and residential land, non-residential buildings and land, and then the government-owned property. Present in the residential and non-residential PRIVATE property is stuff about giving notice (by sign or by words) which includes both buildings and land. Conspicuously absent in the publicly-owned property is anything about posting land. Explain that.

    Any state or municipal-owned land in Wisconsin can be posted for "no trespassing" but then it would apply to anyone, whether or not they have a gun. There's simply nothing in the statutes that allows them to ban only people with guns.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post

    Any state or municipal-owned land in Wisconsin can be posted for "no trespassing" but then it would apply to anyone, whether or not they have a gun. There's simply nothing in the statutes that allows them to ban only people with guns.
    Parks are State land. Parks are posted for no firearms. It does not apply to everyone, only those who have firearms which are not unloaded and cased.
    943.13(1m)(b) allows property owners to prohibit you on their property unless you are a licensee and they are simply trying to prohibit people from carrying firearms. The language change as a result of Act 35 was deliberate. There would have been no need for it if it did not apply to non-licensees.
    You choose to conveniently ignore 943.13(1m)(b). Don't feel bad as it is a common error. Take the time to consult an attorney and see what they think about this Statute and if they believe that they could get you off if you were cited under it for trespassing because you were not a licensee and you were carrying a firearm on posted municipal property. I have consulted 2 and they both advised me that a municipality may post and cite for a violation if you are not a licensee.
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    ... Look at the language in the trespassing statute and compare what it says about giving notice in private residences and residential land, non-residential buildings and land, and then the government-owned property. Present in the residential and non-residential PRIVATE property is stuff about giving notice (by sign or by words) which includes both buildings and land. Conspicuously absent in the publicly-owned property is anything about posting land. Explain that....
    I already have and I suggest that you read my posts again.
    Each sub section stands on its own. 943.13 (1m)(c) stands apart from (b). As an example, 943.13(1m)(c)(2) further restricts the ability of a licensee to carry. It does not grant a licensee nor a non-licensee the authority to carry anywhere. It does not grant a licensee the authority to carry on government land. It simply adds no rights of refusal to entry on government land which are prohibited by 943.13(1m)(b)
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 06:29 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    You choose to conveniently ignore 943.13(1m)(b). Don't feel bad as it is a common error.
    I conveniently ignore it because it doesn't apply. And show us some pictures of those "posted" state parks. Oh, and get better lawyers.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    I conveniently ignore it because it doesn't apply. And show us some pictures of those "posted" state parks. Oh, and get better lawyers.
    It is you who will need a good lawyer if you are not a licensee and insist that you "know your rights" and Open Carry without a license in a posted area instead of actually reading the Statutes and following them....
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 04-15-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    It is you who will need a good lawyer if you are not a licensee and insist that you "know your rights" and Open Carry without a license in a posted area instead of actually reading the Statutes and following them....
    I read the statutes..... you never answered my questions by providing the citation regarding posting government land. I'll be waiting to see pictures of those signs posted for municipal land. If it was possible, then places like Madistan would have posted all of the city parks. Why do you suppose they have not?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousman View Post
    I read the statutes..... you never answered my questions by providing the citation regarding posting government land. I'll be waiting to see pictures of those signs posted for municipal land. If it was possible, then places like Madistan would have posted all of the city parks. Why do you suppose they have not?
    I already provided the relevant Statute Chapter and subdivisions. Nobody needs authority to post their land including municipal governments. Posting is simply a form of legal notice. You are convoluting separate subdivisions and not truly comprehending what they mean. Do yourself a favor and consult an attorney. Seriously.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542

    Oostburg Veterans Park is a village park.

    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz272 View Post
    Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.
    Do you have an update if there are any Park rules posted regarding firearms?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Frozen Tundra, , USA
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Do you have an update if there are any Park rules posted regarding firearms?
    I was planning on going to a Brat fry last Friday but was not able to make it. I don't know if it is posted or not.

Posting Permissions

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