Grizz272
Regular Member
Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.
Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.
They may post for non-licensees. State Parks still ban non-licensees so Municipalities may ban non-licensees from parks. 29.089Park 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.
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.
I don't see why not. A greater penalty does not equal more stringent.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?
.
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.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?
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.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.
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)(c) covers trespassing as it relates to people with firearms. Nothing in there authorizes municipalities....
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).Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture
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)...this subdivision does not apply to ...land occupied by the state or a local governmental unit...
Statutes restrict what you may do and do not give you the authority to do anything.
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.That's not true, since some statutes do grant authority to do certain things....
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
I already have and I suggest that you read my posts again.... 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....
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.
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....:dude: