• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Friend yelled at by manager at West Allis Speedway

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It is not my place to comment on this any more. By his request I'm not putting any details online. If he wants to discuss it publicly he can come on here.
That is best.

Even if no legal action anticipated, the story/event is without the candor of first person comment - basically hearsay.

No slight intended.
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
A More Specific Provision

Here defined as enclosed land. Wisconsin Stats has two broad categories of trespass, trespass to land and criminal trespass to dwellings.

Wouldn't this fall under Wis. Stat. 943.13 (1m)(c)(2) - a nonresidential building? (1m)(a) seems to deal with unimproved land and does not need to involve a firearm.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Positive Replies are Better

LOL It used to be a question on owner/occupant, now it is instruction on armed. Whatever. Glad you' re reading Wisc. Stats.

You seem to be ridiculing me for asking questions. Why? I am merely trying to understand the OP in the context of WI law. If I am in error, please tell me how.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
The OP had this: "He advised her that her store was not posted, and open carry was legal."

and this:"But the customer service rep he spoke with said the store must be posted if the manager doesn't want weapons carried."

It seems that, at a minimum, posting was discussed by your friend and the customer service rep. If they are encouraged to post, they will post. Why even bring it up? So, yes it has "something to do with" what you wrote.

Little of topic. but I want every business that is anti-constitutional, to say it in big bold signs. one, it will let me know not to give them my money(OC or CC). they don't deserve it.
secondly I want every Bad guy there is to know it is a "GUN FREE ZONE", or rather a rob with out consequences zone. the only guys they want to keep out is the good ones that are armed. so if every one knows it they won't go there
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Little of topic. but I want every business that is anti-constitutional, to say it in big bold signs. one, it will let me know not to give them my money(OC or CC). they don't deserve it.
secondly I want every Bad guy there is to know it is a "GUN FREE ZONE", or rather a rob with out consequences zone. the only guys they want to keep out is the good ones that are armed. so if every one knows it they won't go there
I understand your feelings, but I'm not of a mind to encourage gun buster signs or to push someone in that direction.

The result would be we'd end up with a proliferation of no guns signs viewed by a multitude of people - must be the general standard as they'd see signs everywhere :(

Except for a very few, there are no Guns Welcome signs to offset the negative/restrictive ones. Most people beyond our circle do not understand that the lack of a posted restriction most often means no restriction.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
I understand your feelings, but I'm not of a mind to encourage gun buster signs or to push someone in that direction.

The result would be we'd end up with a proliferation of no guns signs viewed by a multitude of people - must be the general standard as they'd see signs everywhere :(

Except for a very few, there are no Guns Welcome signs to offset the negative/restrictive ones. Most people beyond our circle do not understand that the lack of a posted restriction most often means no restriction.

Remember, though. The way Wisconsin law is written businesses that post have an extra liability added to them, and those that don't post don't. The legislature was very wise to write the law that way so we don't become a post hell like Minnesota did.

Big business lawyers are well aware of these facts and advise large national chains of what is in their best interest regarding this issue. I'm willing to bet that carries far, far more weight with corporate decision makers than the opinion of some local manager who can't understand normal thinking.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
To Be Accurate

Remember, though. The way Wisconsin law is written businesses that post have an extra liability added to them, and those that don't post don't. The legislature was very wise to write the law that way so we don't become a post hell like Minnesota did.

Big business lawyers are well aware of these facts and advise large national chains of what is in their best interest regarding this issue. I'm willing to bet that carries far, far more weight with corporate decision makers than the opinion of some local manager who can't understand normal thinking.

Businesses that do not post have some additional protections. Those who do post aren't much worse off than if this provision didn't exist. It is important to note that the "no post" benefits don't create a slam dunk, can't be sued situation. It only provides immunity for activity "arising" from that decision. For a good overview see

http://www.wisbar.org/newspublicati...article.aspx?Volume=85&Issue=7&ArticleID=8710
 
Top