I need a cite

I need to know the statute that deals with business posting and the consequences of ignoring the posting. any help woiuld be appreciated.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60/21

(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).

No Tolerance, I was asking about someone ignoring a posting and carrying anyway and getting caught. my apologies for any confusion.

943.13 Trespass to land

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture
(c) (2) While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresidential building, or land that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land, if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply ... if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds, or land used as a parking facility.

Click to expand...

939.52 Classification of forfeitures

(3) Penalties for forfeitures are as follows
(b) For a Class B forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000

Click to expand...

A forfeiture is a ticket.
Since it doesn't involve the possibility of imprisonment, it's not a crime.

939.12 Crime defined.

A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.

Click to expand...

This is important because if a firearm is used in a crime, the law says it cannot be returned (unless it was taken from the rightful owner, who did not give permission for its use in the crime).

See 968.20 Return of property seized section (1m) (b)

Here's one place you can search the WI state statutes:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/RSB/STATS.HTML
There's a search box on the left near the top. It takes words, phrases (in quotes), or numbers.

MKEgal said:

Here's one place you can search the WI state statutes:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/RSB/STATS.HTML
There's a search box on the left near the top. It takes words, phrases (in quotes), or numbers.

Click to expand...

thanks

I would also cite the first Heller case .. they discuss heavy-handed penalties for firearms law violations.

People who carry where the merchant does not want ... its should only be a small fine .. like a parking ticket ..

Hi everyone,
I am new here as a poster but have lurked on the site for a long time. Hopefully I can contribute. I do have a question though with this thread. NoTolerance posted about the immunity clauses. Does this mean that DOJ and DOT employees do not have to disarm if they enter into a business with a sign posted? Does this also apply to school zones, do they need to disarm then? Thanks for the help!

JerryD said:

No Tolerance, I was asking about someone ignoring a posting and carrying anyway and getting caught. my apologies for any confusion.

Click to expand...

No, it was my fault for reading too fast and not paying attention to your actual question close enough. My bad.

DJ380 said:

Hi everyone,
I am new here as a poster but have lurked on the site for a long time. Hopefully I can contribute. I do have a question though with this thread. NoTolerance posted about the immunity clauses. Does this mean that DOJ and DOT employees do not have to disarm if they enter into a business with a sign posted? Does this also apply to school zones, do they need to disarm then? Thanks for the help!

Click to expand...

IANAL, but I read 175.60.21(a) as more of a "catch-all" to prevent people from suing the DOJ, et al, for providing immunity to those identified in that section, or neglecting to provide immunity for others not identified.

For example, a non-posted business is involved in a mass shooting situation. Because the business didn't post, they are immune from liability - the victims (or their families) would have a difficult time bringing suit against them and the business is not criminally liable. The victims (or their families) cannot then attempt to sue the DOJ for providing that immunity, per this statute.

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

DJ380 said:

NoTolerance posted about the immunity clauses. Does this mean that DOJ and DOT employees do not have to disarm if they enter into a business with a signposted?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Unless they're on-duty LEO they still have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

(21) Immunity
(a) The department of justice, the department of transportation, and the employees of each department; clerks... and their staff; and court automated information systems... and their employees are immune from liability arising from any act or omission under this section, if done so in good faith.

Click to expand...

I hadn't extrapolated that so far as to reason through them having immunity for a shooting, but that's reasonable. (IANAL)
My original take on that is that if they issue (or refuse to issue) a license, & their actions follow the law, or even if they're acting outside the law they can reasonably claim (convince a judge) that they were acting in good faith, they're immune.

Does this also apply to school zones, do they need to disarm then?

Click to expand...

Yes. Unless someone is an on-duty LEO or meets one of the other exceptions, everyone is required to have their firearms in a non-useful state on school property.

To Be Precise

MKEgal said:

Absolutely not. Unless they're on-duty LEO they still have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Click to expand...

Almost. Unless they're on-duty LEO or a major network correspondent they still have to follow the same laws as everyone else.


Non-posting immunity applies to the consequences of not posting, not to every conceivable action that may occur.

Yes. Unless someone is an on-duty LEO or meets one of the other exceptions, everyone is required to have their firearms in a non-useful state on school property.

Click to expand...

Remembering that school zone is different than school property (grounds).

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I figured I wasn't correct in my reading of it, but wanted to be sure. I appreciate all your responses.

apjonas said:

Remembering that school zone is different than school property (grounds).

Click to expand...

In Wisconsin.
Other states may do the same, or may follow federal law.
In federal law, being inside a 1st grade classroom with a useful firearm (loaded &/or uncased) is the same as being 999' away from the edge of the property, standing on the sidewalk, armed.

MKEgal said:

943.13
A forfeiture is a ticket. Since it doesn't involve the possibility of imprisonment, it's not a crime.

Click to expand...

Does anyone know if they passed the bill that gives authority to county/municipal law enforcement to enforce state forfeitures? There was a bill but I don't know if it was passed or not. When the CCW law went into effect counties and municipalities were told by the Attorney General office that they had to adopt the state statute about carrying into a posted business into an ordinance, as local police did not have the statutory power to make arrests on a state forfeiture.

One way around this was a bill that would give local/county cops the authority under state law to enforce/make arrests on state forfeitures. But that was 2 years ago. Did it pass?