Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Franklin Park, 4th of July. Should I ? or Shouldn't I ???

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    Franklin Park, 4th of July. Should I ? or Shouldn't I ???

    Applicability to County Parks/Land
    As explained above, the Act permits a county to ban the carry of concealed weapons via posting in any buildings that are “owned, occupied or controlled” by the county. However, a state or local governmental unit generally may not prohibit a person with a concealed weapon from entering or remaining on the “grounds” of a publicly controlled building or on public land (including parks). The one possible exception is that the Act permits an entity (including a state or local governmental unit) to prohibit concealed weapons at a “special event.” The Act creates trespassing liability for an individual who:
    While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with that firearm. This subdivision does not apply, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building used as a parking facility. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(c)(

    Don't really want to leave my friend in the car, any way i can check an see ???
    If it's ok, I'd like too print out something & carry it with me for the Leo's..

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    It is unlikely that Franklin will require paid admission to the park, or have designated entrances that are locked when the event is closed, so this would not meet the requirements of a "special event" as defined in the statutes.

    Take a look at the appropriate citations here: http://forum.opencarry.org./forums/s...=1#post1781282
    Last edited by E6chevron; 07-03-2012 at 12:03 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    What he said.
    Might be a good idea to print & carry the "special event" law & maybe the "gov't entities can't post land" law, in case a gov't employee similarly misunderstands them & tries to make your evening difficult.

    Or, if you have a permission slip, you could choose to conceal.
    In a crowd, I think that would be the more prudent action... unless you have one of those double-secret-handshake ultra-retention holsters.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 07-03-2012 at 01:12 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    I also agree you are good to go.

    Take care, have a good time, and carry on.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    What he said.
    Might be a good idea to print & carry the "special event" law & maybe the "gov't entities can't post land" law, in case a gov't employee similarly misunderstands them & tries to make your evening difficult.
    Govt entities may post land for non-licensees...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Govt entities may post land for non-licensees...
    I disagree with reference to governmental subdivisions of the state, such as county and local governments. Please provide the citation.


    If you are referring to government entities, such as the University of Wisconsin system, that is different.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 07-03-2012 at 07:27 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    I disagree with reference to governmental subdivisions of the state, such as county and local governments. Please provide the citation.


    If you are referring to government entities, such as the University of Wisconsin system, that is different.
    Here is what people are missing which gets them confused.. A Municipality retains property owner rights. This means that they (along with you and I) can prohibit trespassing under 943.13(1m)(b) for anyone they (we) wish including someone carrying a firearm. The only exception is for a licensee. This means that someone Open Carrying without a license may be cited. They may even post their land just as they always could. This has not changed. The new posting rules are for posting in order to prohibit licensees as allowed under the new chapters added with Act 35.
    With Act 35, there are additional property owner rights to post in order to prohibit licensees from your property. These are listed beginning with chapter 943.13 (1m)(c) .

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    Here is what people are missing which gets them confused.. A Municipality retains property owner rights. This means that they (along with you and I) can prohibit trespassing under 943.13(1m)(b) for anyone they (we) wish including someone carrying a firearm. The only exception is for a licensee. This means that someone Open Carrying without a license may be cited. They may even post their land just as they always could. This has not changed. The new posting rules are for posting in order to prohibit licensees as allowed under the new chapters added with Act 35.
    With Act 35, there are additional property owner rights to post in order to prohibit licenusees from your property. These are listed beginning with chapter 943.13 (1m)(c).
    I understand that some areas of public property, by statute, prohibit handguns. Well, your take on this is certainly not mainstream. Your separation between licensees and non-licensees on normal public grounds, is also different. I hope most are already familiar with 176.60(16) dangerous weapon prohibitions in LEO stations, jail/correction/prison facilities, secure mental health facilty, county/state/federal courthouse, municipal courthouse in session, beyond airport checkpoint, etc.

    I live in the city of Milwaukee (protected by Police Chief Flynn and Mayor Barrett) and if there were a legal way to prohibit all handgun carry on public grounds, it would have been done months ago! They nearly broke their arms signing the ordinances to post all the public buildings in the city.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...q-20111020.pdf

    Page 40 of the above DOJ FAQ, also agrees with me that normal public land occupied by the state or by a local unit of government, is not subject to prohibition thru posting/notification for those legally carrying a firearm.

    Land:
    It is unlawful for any person to enter or remain in any part of land that the person does not own or occupy after the owner of the land, if that part of the land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the land has notified the person not to enter or remain in that part of the land while carrying a firearm. This provision does not apply to a part of land occupied by the state or by a local unit of government; to a privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college; or to the grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university or college. In addition, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in a parking facility, this provision does not apply to any part of land used as a parking facility. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(c)2 and § 943.13(1e)(cm)
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    I live in the city of Milwaukee (protected by Police Chief Flynn and Mayor Barrett) and if there were a legal way to prohibit all handgun carry on public grounds, it would have been done months ago! They nearly broke their arms signing the ordinances to post all the public buildings in the city.

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...q-20111020.pdf

    Page 40 of the above DOJ FAQ, also agrees with me that normal public land occupied by the state or by a local unit of government, is not subject to prohibition thru posting/notification for those legally carrying a firearm.
    There already is an ordinance prohibiting firearms in Milwaukee parks. You are selectively quoting the FAQ. The FAQ agrees with you only for licensees. Page 40 refers to the restrictions for licensees.
    943.13(1m)(b) is what allows them to prohibit non-licensees from carrying on municipal property. You will find nothing in the FAQ nor State Statutes contrary to this as it stands on its own. Most municipalities are not concerned with municipal property besides buildings and parks/greenways.
    You are getting hung up on 943.13(1m)(c)(2) which says
    This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental unit,..
    "This Subdivision" means ONLY 943.13(1m)(c)(2) and NOT 943.13(1m)(b) which does not apply to licensees. In other words, licensees are explicitly exempted from 943.13(1m)(b) but are subject to 943.13(1m)(c)(2) which includes an exception for municipal lands. This exception explicitly does not apply to 943.13(1m)(b)
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-04-2012 at 02:17 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    I can find no Milwaukee ordinance prohibiting firearms in any parks or grounds. (not buildings)

    The ordinance against dangerous weapons in city buildings, passed before Nov. 1, 2011.

    Here is a JSonline news article from Aug. 20, 2011.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...128132258.html

    One sentence from the article was particularly interesting to me:

    Municipalities can prohibit weapons in government buildings if they post signs telling people not to enter while carrying a weapon, but weapons can't be banned from parks and other public grounds.
    ON EDIT:

    I did find the City of Milwaukee Ordinance regarding dangerous weapons in the parks:

    63-11. Dangerous Weapons. 1. No person may
    possess any airgun, BB gun, spring gun, bow with
    arrows, crossbow, sling or slingshot in any park or
    parkway except in an area designated by the
    director for target shooting or practice, without the
    written permit of the director.
    The above City of Milwaukee Ordinance DOES NOT restrict firearms.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 07-05-2012 at 07:09 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  11. #11
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post

    One sentence from the article was particularly interesting to me: Municipalities can prohibit weapons in government buildings if they post signs telling people not to enter while carrying a weapon, but weapons can't be banned from parks and other public grounds.
    They got it partially correct. They may not ban licensees from carrying handguns. Act 35 was all about a shall issue license system and giving licensees the ability to carry. It did relatively little for non-licensees and as it was not intended to advance constitutional carry.
    The ability to prohibit a non licensee from carrying a handgun under 943.13(1m)(b) is not effected by any of the exceptions under chapter 943.13(1m)(c). In each sub chapter it states "This subdivision does not apply". You will not find a cite that 943.13(1m)(b) does not apply. 943.13(4m) gives general exceptions to 943.13 as a whole. "This Section"

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave
    I did find the Milwaukee Ordinance regarding dangerous weapons in the parks:
    63-11. Dangerous Weapons.
    No person may possess any airgun, BB gun, spring gun, bow with arrows, crossbow, sling or slingshot in any park or parkway except in an area designated by the director for target shooting or practice, without the written permit of the director.
    With preemption, no local gun-related ordinance can be more strict than state law.
    State law says that only licensees may be prepared for self-defense in a state park.
    Therefore, a locality could have the same ordinance [licensees can carry], or could have a more citizen-friendly one [anyone who's legal can carry], but it can't have a more restricive one, as MKE currently does.

    Question is, does that mean people can ignore the local code as it has no weight,
    or is the default setting that of state law, so people have to have a permission slip?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    With preemption, no local gun-related ordinance can be more strict than state law.
    State law says that only licensees may be prepared for self-defense in a state park.
    Therefore, a locality could have the same ordinance [licensees can carry], or could have a more citizen-friendly one [anyone who's legal can carry], but it can't have a more restricive one, as MKE currently does.

    Question is, does that mean people can ignore the local code as it has no weight,
    or is the default setting that of state law, so people have to have a permission slip?
    I believe that a non-licensee would find themselves on the loosing end of the deal if they were to ignore the Ordinance because State Statutes dictates that it may not be applied to licensees.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    If you read it carefully, you will see that this City of Milwaukee Ordinance regarding dangerous weapons in the parks, is NOT a true gun-related ordinance. It does not restrict any firearms.

    http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-co.../ch63/CH63.pdf

    63-11. Dangerous Weapons. 1. No person may
    possess any airgun, BB gun, spring gun, bow with
    arrows, crossbow, sling or slingshot in any park or
    parkway except in an area designated by the
    director for target shooting or practice, without the
    written permit of the director.

    For those who are not familiar with the Wisconsin "Firearm laws Preemption" statute, here it is:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/66/IV/0409

    66.0409  Local regulation of firearms.

    66.0409(1) In this section:

    66.0409(1)(a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).

    66.0409(1)(b) "Political subdivision" means a city, village, town or county.

    66.0409(1)(c) "Sport shooting range" means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.

    66.0409(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    66.0409(3)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.

    66.0409(3)(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm. Any ordinance or resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm does not apply and may not be enforced if the actor's conduct is justified or, had it been subject to a criminal penalty, would have been subject to a defense described in s. 939.45.

    66.0409(4)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    66.0409(4)(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.

    66.0409(4)(b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.

    66.0409(4)(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.
    ...
    When studying and understanding these laws, it is important to recognize the differences in terminology and meaning, between some of the statutes. The "Firearm laws preemption" statute above, applies only to ordinances/regulations from a Political subdivision (city village, town or county).

    It does not apply to a special purpose district in this state, an instrumentality or corporation of the political subdivision or special purpose district or a combination or subunit of any of the foregoing. The term "Local Governmental Unit" (as is used in 943.13 Trespassing statute) applies to many more entities, than just the term "Political subdivisions".

    Put another way, Firearms laws preemption does NOT apply to "State" Universities/Colleges, Public Technical Colleges, School districts, Drainage districts, water districts, etc.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 07-05-2012 at 09:33 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    A ban on all carry of firearms upon any premises owned or leased by Milwaukee County...

    47.05. - Use of firearms, fireworks; hunting with bow and arrow and trapping; throwing of missiles; making of fires; deposit or breakage of tin cans, bottles and glassware; prohibitions.

    (1)
    Use of firearms and fireworks; hunting with bow and arrow; trapping. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description, nor shall any person engage in trapping within any park or parkway without a written permit of the department of parks, recreation and culture; nor shall any person hunt with bow and arrow within any park or parkway. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description upon any premises owed or leased by Milwaukee County which is not part of the county parks and parkways. The word "gun" shall include airgun.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-05-2012 at 10:32 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron
    If you read it carefully, you will see that this Milwaukee Ordinance regarding dangerous weapons in the parks, is NOT a true gun-related ordinance. It does not restrict any firearms.
    DOH! Man, there are days I need to learn to drink coffee.
    Thanks for pointing that out.
    (But I'll betcha that's what a Milwaukee cop or deputy would think.)

    OK, so here's the Milwaukee city code 105-34 about carrying dangerous weapons.
    It needs to be updated in several sections to be legal & in compliance with the preemption statute. The last listed update for most of these was JUL09.
    1a. It shall be unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon within the city of Milwaukee.

    1b. It shall be unlawful for any person to go armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm within the city, unless such dangerous weapon is secured or enclosed in a case designed to prevent unauthorized access to the weapon.

    1c. It shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer ... to carry a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state of Wisconsin, or in any building owned or leased by any political subdivision within the city.

    1d. It shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer ... to carry a handgun on any premises where the sale and consumption of alcohol beverages is licensed or permitted.

    1e. It shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer ... to place, possess or transport a firearm, in or on a motor boat with the motor running, or in or on a vehicle as defined in s. 167.31, Wis. Stats., unless the firearm is unloaded and encased in a carrying case.

    1f. It shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer ... to carry a firearm upon the grounds, or within 1000 feet of the grounds of a ... school.
    1a needs exemptions for licensees, & people on their own property or business.
    1b see 1a; also is more restrictive than the old transport law
    1c see 1a; also I'm curious how Milwaukee felt it could control what happens in a State building, or for that matter in any building not managed by MKE
    1d is contradicted by state law
    1e see 1d
    1f see 1a & 1d

    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight
    A ban on all carry of firearms upon any premises owned or leased by Milwaukee County...
    That also needs to be changed to be compliant with current state law.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 07-05-2012 at 12:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

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