Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Businesses advised to allow carry to gain immunity

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Businesses advised to allow carry to gain immunity

    TORT REPORT: What employers need to know about concealed-carry immunity

    Wisconsin’s new concealed-carry law, while heralded by many gun-rights advocates, has created some confusion for employers and property owners.

    The new law specifically provides immunity for employers/property owners that allow persons visiting their property to carry concealed weapons. There are however, some interesting issues presented by the law that should be discussed.

    Excerpt ... Read more at

    http://wislawjournal.com/2012/08/29/...arry-immunity/
    Last edited by John Pierce; 08-31-2012 at 09:08 AM.

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Doesn't the immunity apply for all carriers, open and concealed?

    I do not recall a diferentiation in the law for posting between concealed carries and open carriers. Was there one?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    "Failure to post proper signage prohibiting concealed weapons on the premises, likely means the prohibition lacks legal effect."

    Not quite right. A verbal command prohibiting one from entering with a gun by store owner or store employee has force of law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    I do not recall a diferentiation in the law for posting between concealed carries and open carriers. Was there one?
    Dont forget that open carry is still the red headed step child in many eyes.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  5. #5
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    "Failure to post proper signage prohibiting concealed weapons on the premises, likely means the prohibition lacks legal effect."

    Not quite right. A verbal command prohibiting one from entering with a gun by store owner or store employee has force of law.
    What that tells me is that if there is not proper signage and the proprietor does not verbally instruct you to leave you the trespassing violation in and by itself has no bearing.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    Dont forget that open carry is still the red headed step child in many eyes.
    Attachment 9169 I don't know why we get such a bad rap
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  7. #7
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Odd... this very question was asked by Doug over on that law article,
    then he posted complaining that people over here are criticizing the article.
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor
    I do not recall a diferentiation in the law for posting between concealed carries and open carriers. Was there one?
    The law only talks about prohibiting or allowing concealed 'weapons', but there is a provision saying that unless specifically stated, the laws do not restrict open carrying.

    Probably there are more Doug sock puppets that the admins haven't found yet.
    Or maybe they have, & they're just watching, building up evidence.

  8. #8
    Opt-Out Members scm54449's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Marshfield, WI
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    <snip>Probably there are more Doug sock puppets that the admins haven't found yet.
    Or maybe they have, & they're just watching, building up evidence.
    I reported several specific posts to the Mods several months ago and asked some direct questions regarding Doug posting here. They took no action and I received no replies.
    Member of Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultus habebunt...

  9. #9
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Back to the OP. I printed the article and put it in my bosses mailbox. I doubt it will do any good because bosses know more than anyone else but who knows. I had posted this question some time ago, that what if I was injured at work because my boss prohibits the right of protection. As I recall my question was not received very well.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  10. #10
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by scm54449 View Post
    I reported several specific posts to the Mods several months ago and asked some direct questions regarding Doug posting here. They took no action and I received no replies.
    Sorry we don't always get the chance to respond to each reported post. I get literally hundreds every day and I don't always have time to respond after reviewing each post.

    As for the reported potential sock puppets, I don't remember the specifics of your reported posts but I will say that it is a tricky thing to determine and we don't want to cut off a legitimate new member.

    Thanks!


    John

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest
    clap for the Doug man, you gonna dig him till the day you die.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4QV8S4snk
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sock puppet.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	7.9 KB 
ID:	9175  
    Last edited by McX; 08-31-2012 at 10:21 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Doug's last facade wasn't too trolly, we all knew who he was and he didn't deny it. Once he started getting trollish we called him out on it.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Different Provisions

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Odd... this very question was asked by Doug over on that law article,
    then he posted complaining that people over here are criticizing the article.

    The law only talks about prohibiting or allowing concealed 'weapons', but there is a provision saying that unless specifically stated, the laws do not restrict open carrying.

    Probably there are more Doug sock puppets that the admins haven't found yet.
    Or maybe they have, & they're just watching, building up evidence.
    While Act 35 trespassing provisions relate only to concealed weapons, all of Wisconsin's trespassing laws are in effect. A compliant sign that prohibits concealed firearms arguably does not prohibit open carry. It would not also prohibit non-firearm weapons. However, it is probably revealing the attitude of the property possessor. Thus open carry would be met with an oral demand to leave. At least you would have that opportunity whereas with signage, you are in violation once you cross the threshold. Whether or not concealed carry of a non-firearm weapon is trespassing may not be a clear as it seems. It smacks of trying to be "cute" - which is usually not well received by judges.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    I Don't Know

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    What that tells me is that if there is not proper signage and the proprietor does not verbally instruct you to leave you the trespassing violation in and by itself has no bearing.
    what the author was trying to say . I suspect he didn't read Act 35 in its entirety and somehow thinks signage is the only method of notification. Thus he is not saying (and it would be incorrect to say) that BOTH signage and oral notification (both of which are "verbal"*) are required.

    *non-verbal might be an employee at the entrance performing a mime of the restriction.

  15. #15
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    what the author was trying to say . I suspect he didn't read Act 35 in its entirety and somehow thinks signage is the only method of notification. Thus he is not saying (and it would be incorrect to say) that BOTH signage and oral notification (both of which are "verbal"*) are required.

    *non-verbal might be an employee at the entrance performing a mime of the restriction.
    I have to disagree, verbal and posted are not the same thing. A sign is something read, not heard. The idea of a sign prominently posted at all entrances is meant to inform you, not entrap you. If you did walk into a business that did not post and an employee then did inform you that firearms are not permitted that is verbal notification and you should simply leave. It is not advisable to argue your position.

    I do agree that if a business posts a no concealed carry sign, the intent would be clear to a reasonable person that that business is prohibiting firearms altogether and not just those who conceal.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    While Act 35 trespassing provisions relate only to concealed weapons, all of Wisconsin's trespassing laws are in effect. A compliant sign that prohibits concealed firearms arguably does not prohibit open carry. It would not also prohibit non-firearm weapons. However, it is probably revealing the attitude of the property possessor. Thus open carry would be met with an oral demand to leave. At least you would have that opportunity whereas with signage, you are in violation once you cross the threshold. Whether or not concealed carry of a non-firearm weapon is trespassing may not be a clear as it seems. It smacks of trying to be "cute" - which is usually not well received by judges.

    943.13 "Trespass to land."
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/943/II/13

    Although titled "trespass to land," this Wisconsin statute, deals with much more than that, especially since the changes made by WI 11Act35: Buildings, special events, residences, multi-family, etc.

    There is NO specific reference to Open or Concealed carry in this statute. CCL licensees are referred to in several places, but even for them, it is not mentioned that they need to be carrying open or concealed. There is also NO reference to the exact wording on "5x7" signage or verbal notifications where allowed.

    A proper sign stating "No Concealed Carry" does not imply no Open Carry anymore than it implies "suit and tie required". Further verbal instructions from a person in authority, could indicate that Open Carry is not allowed.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Au Contraire

    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    943.13 "Trespass to land."
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/943/II/13

    Although titled "trespass to land," this Wisconsin statute, deals with much more than that, especially since the changes made by WI 11Act35: Buildings, special events, residences, multi-family, etc.
    I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you restate?

    There is NO specific reference to Open or Concealed carry in this statute. CCL licensees are referred to in several places, but even for them, it is not mentioned that they need to be carrying open or concealed. There is also NO reference to the exact wording on "5x7" signage or verbal notifications where allowed.
    Where did I say that some "exact wording" existed? Where wouldn't signage or an oral notificaiton be allowed?

    Regarding your first point - remember the discussion is about the immunity issue.

    175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.
    (21) IMMUNITY.
    (a) The department of justice, the department of transportation, and the employees of each department; clerks, as defined in sub. (11) (a) 1. a., and their staff; and court automated information systems, as defined under sub. (11) (a) 1. b., and their employees are immune from liability arising from any act or omission under this section, if done so in good faith.
    (b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
    (c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
    (d) A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).
    History: 2011 a. 35.
    Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Law. Hinkston. Wis. Law. July 2012.

    Sounds pretty specific to me. In other words, a restriction on open carry does not impact the immunity of the decisionmaker. At least in the context of Act 35.

    While a licensee may generally carry concealed or openly, a property owner may prohibit any type of carry so, a fortiori, he may restrict the mode of carry. The method of notification does vary depending on the mode of carry/licensee status. There is no stated minimum for a sign prohibiting open carry. A nonlicensee carrying concealed (despite its unlawfulness) probably does not bring the immunity provisions into play.

    A proper sign stating "No Concealed Carry" does not imply no Open Carry anymore than it implies "suit and tie required". Further verbal instructions from a person in authority, could indicate that Open Carry is not allowed.
    I think the connection between one sign on firearm carry with another is much closer than with one regarding attire. While a poorly worded sign may get you off the hook, I wouldn't want to present that as my defense. If you show up in a suit and tie, but wearing flip-flops, you are probably going to be as unwelcome as if you arrived in Bermuda shorts. I think in both cases there are other, implied, conditions on entry. Of course, you are likely to simply be asked to leave so we would never know.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    I Think We Agree - at least in part

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1 View Post
    I have to disagree, verbal and posted are not the same thing. A sign is something read, not heard. The idea of a sign prominently posted at all entrances is meant to inform you, not entrap you. If you did walk into a business that did not post and an employee then did inform you that firearms are not permitted that is verbal notification and you should simply leave. It is not advisable to argue your position.

    I do agree that if a business posts a no concealed carry sign, the intent would be clear to a reasonable person that that business is prohibiting firearms altogether and not just those who conceal.
    True but I never contended otherwise. Verbal notice could be written (posted) or oral (from a person). A written notice could also be non-verbal (e.g. a "ghostbusters" type sign - although this would not comply with Act 35) or oral (a defined whistle, perhaps). A (braille) sign is "read" by touch, so the sense being used is not always dispositive. Notification by an employee is sufficient and I don't see where I argued otherwise. I would say that a mute employee holding a ghostbuster sign at each entrance would suffice, even though it doesn't meet the requirements of Act 35. I am of the opinion that Act 35 expects the sign will have words on it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    While Act 35 trespassing provisions relate only to concealed weapons, ...
    That is not correct. Perhaps you mean: While Act 35 immunity provisions for those who do NOT prohibit firearms relate only to concealed weapons,

    This is a link to WI 11ACT35
    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011...ed/acts/35.pdf

    Here are a few places where it mentions trespassing laws that affect Open or Concealed Carry:

    Sections 4 thru 8. 29.089 (2) (state parks and fish hatcheries)

    Sections 9 thru 10. 29.091(1) (state wildlife refuges)

    Sections 11 thru 16. 29.621(4,6) (wildife refuges)

    Section 38. 175.60 (16) (police station, prison, jail, county, state, or federal courthouse, beyond a security checkpoint in an airport, etc.)

    Sections 73 thru 83. 943.13 (trespassing on/at land, residences, multi-family, non-residential, special event, governmental building, university/college buildings. proper signage/notification)
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Partial Credit?

    No, I meant what I said. I was incorrect in relation to Sections 73-83. However, since concealed carry was generally prohibited prior to Act 35, I believe the the focus was on concealed weapons. Pre-Act 35, OC was unlawful or could otherwise be prohibited in most of the indicated places. Even now, OC is prohibited in many of the locations you listed (either for nonlicensees or everyone not otherwise authorized). In any event, the changes to the other listed sections were not changes to the law on trespass but your point is well-taken. Thank you for correcting my comment and helping to clarify the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    That is not correct. Perhaps you mean: While Act 35 immunity provisions for those who do NOT prohibit firearms relate only to concealed weapons,

    This is a link to WI 11ACT35
    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011...ed/acts/35.pdf

    Here are a few places where it mentions trespassing laws that affect Open or Concealed Carry:

    Sections 4 thru 8. 29.089 (2) (state parks and fish hatcheries)

    Sections 9 thru 10. 29.091(1) (state wildlife refuges)

    Sections 11 thru 16. 29.621(4,6) (wildife refuges)

    Section 38. 175.60 (16) (police station, prison, jail, county, state, or federal courthouse, beyond a security checkpoint in an airport, etc.)

    Sections 73 thru 83. 943.13 (trespassing on/at land, residences, multi-family, non-residential, special event, governmental building, university/college buildings. proper signage/notification)

  21. #21
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    "Failure to post proper signage prohibiting concealed weapons on the premises, likely means the prohibition lacks legal effect."

    Not quite right. A verbal command prohibiting one from entering with a gun by store owner or store employee has force of law.
    I was under the impression that ONLY the correct signage carried with it the 'force of law' where as a 'verbal request' was just that...a 'verbal request' that could only result in a minimal civil trespass penalty..based on the fact that enforcement could be subjective with no definitive legal standing for the business owner/employee to use against you... ( I sure hope that sounded clear :-) )

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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