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...-need-to-know-about-concealed-carry-immunity/

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?

"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.

ccwinstructor said:

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

Click to expand...

Dont forget that open carry is still the red headed step child in many eyes.

Law abider said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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.

bigdaddy1 said:

Dont forget that open carry is still the red headed step child in many eyes.

Click to expand...

View attachment 9169 I don't know why we get such a bad rap

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.

ccwinstructor said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MKEgal said:

<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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

scm54449 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

clap for the Doug man, you gonna dig him till the day you die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4QV8S4snk

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.

Different Provisions

MKEgal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I Don't Know

bigdaddy1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

apjonas said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

apjonas said:

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.

Click to expand...

943.13 "Trespass to land."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/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.

Au Contraire

E6chevron said:

943.13 "Trespass to land."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I Think We Agree - at least in part

bigdaddy1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

apjonas said:

While Act 35 trespassing provisions relate only to concealed weapons, ...

Click to expand...

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/related/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)

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.

E6chevron said:

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/related/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)

Click to expand...