Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: New DNR rules prohibit carry within 100 yards of state campgrounds, picnic areas

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    New DNR rules UPDATED 4/6/16

    Nik Clark needs our help. We need to call our DNA and I suggest our legislators. DNR is prohibiting carry in Campgrounds, picnic areas etc...

    Greetings in freedom.

    Rarely a day goes by that government bureaucrats aren't out making more rules with little-to-no concern for law-abiding citizens right to carry Wisconsin.

    Within the last few weeks, the DNR has proposed new rules that deal with state-owned shooting ranges as well as campgrounds, campsites, picnic areas, and the area surrounding state campgrounds. For the entire list of proposed rules see: http://dnr.wi.gov/About/NRB/2016/Apr/04-16-3B1.pdf

    There is a very troublesome rule proposed that bans lawful carry (open carry or concealed carry) at state campgrounds, campsites, picnic areas and within 100 yards of state campgrounds.

    Here is the proposed rule highlighted:

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/media/...c_area_ban.jpg

    I spoke to multiple people at the DNR last week who assured me their INTENTION is not to prohibit people who are carrying for self-defense from possessing/carrying in these locations. I was told the "enforcement policy" was not to cite/ticket people lawfully carrying for self-defense, not hunting. THE PROBLEM IS ENFORCEMENT POLICY can change at any time on a whim and THE RULE BANNING CARRY IN AND AROUND STATE CAMPGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS IS PUBLISHED.

    Wherever these rules are published and posted, thousands of lawful carriers who carry for self-defense will see the rule that says they are prohibited from carrying in and around state campgrounds and picnic areas and be misled into believing they can't exercise their right to carry there.

    We are being told "take our word for it" that DNR wardens won't ticket lawful concealed/open carriers. There are state statutes that CONFLICT with this rule. Unfortunately, most people who go to use a state campground or picnic area, aren't legal/legislative experts with citations of state statutes handy to defend themselves against a published rule that is actually not allowed per state statutes.

    WHY IS THE DNR PUBLISHING A RULE THAT THEY SAY THEY WON'T ENFORCE? WHY IS THE DNR PUBLISHING A RULE THAT CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY?????

    JUST THE PUBLICATION of this rule will chill the right to carry of thousands of Wisconsin concealed carry license holders who want to go camping and picnicking in state owned areas but will see the rule and think they can't.

    The Natural Resources Board meets April 13th to approve the proposed rules. The Natural Resources board CAN MAKE CHANGES to the proposed rules. Wisconsin Carry's attorneys have advised that if the proposed rule was changed to only prohibit DISCHARGE of a firearm (with an exception for guns discharged lawfully for self-defense) and not restrict possession, it would be acceptable.

    How can you let the DNR know you disapprove of this misleading "ban" on lawful carry? You can call the DNR agency contact person:

    Kathryn Fitzgerald at 608-267-2764.

    Tell Kathryn you disapprove of the proposed rule that bans lawful carry in and around state campgrounds, campsites, and picnic areas. Tell her a rule that conflicts with state law will confuse citizens and discourage them from their lawful right to carry.

    SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS by EMAIL, MAIL, or Fax TO:

    Kathryn Fitzgerald
    Dept. of Natural Resources
    Bureau of Facilities and Lands
    PO Box 7921
    Madison, WI 53707
    Phone: 608-267-2764
    Fax: 608-267-2750

    EMAIL: kathryn.fitzgerald@wisconsin.gov

    Please take the time to email, call, or write. Ask the Natural Resources board to reject the rule banning possession of firearms in and around state campgrounds and campsites. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to carry for self-defense when they go camping or hiking in and around campsites and picnic areas.

    Carry On,

    Nik Clark
    Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    nik@wisconsincarry.org
    Last edited by Law abider; 04-06-2016 at 05:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Divide and conquer works as well as it always has. He has his fiefdom, Cory Graf has his, the NRA guy has his, all for status and title.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Does the rule comport with state law?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Does the rule comport with state law?

    66.0409 Local Regulation of Weapons.
    (1) In this section:
    (a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
    (b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or county.
    (c) “Sport shooting range” means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting,
    skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.
    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact or enforce 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 knife or 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.
    Ignore and disobey such foolishness. It is illegal, unlawful and any attempts to do so could well be classed as harassment, assault or worse. The problem is there is no penalty listed for violating state preemption
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Ignore and disobey such foolishness. It is illegal, unlawful and any attempts to do so could well be classed as harassment, assault or worse. The problem is there is no penalty listed for violating state preemption
    § 66.0409 does not apply to the sovereign state itself. The DNR is a bureau of the executive's administration and not a political subdivision, city, town or village. The Department of Natural Resources is brother to the Department of Justice, scions of the same sire.

    There is indeed no penalty for violating preemption
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    § 66.0409 does not apply to the sovereign state itself. The DNR is a bureau of the executive's administration and not a political subdivision, city, town or village. The Department of Natural Resources is brother to the Department of Justice, scions of the same sire.

    There is indeed no penalty for violating preemption
    What's the point of a rule change and no penalties? Flexing muscles to let us serfs know that they have power? Or are they up to something we don't yet know.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Nik clark of wi carry needs our help. UPDATED

    Greetings in Freedom,

    This is a follow-up to an email I sent a short time ago. I have a new contact person for the Natural Resources board (please use this contact instead of Kathryn Fitzgerald who was listed in a previous email)

    The DNR has proposed new rules for state campgrounds/campsites/picnic areas that state you cannot possess a firearm within 100 yards of state campgrounds, picnic areas, or within camp sites.

    (see proposed rule here) http://www.wisconsincarry.org/media/...c_area_ban.jpg

    Here is a direct contact for the Natural Resources Board liason who collects and coordinates public comment for the upcoming hearing to approve the proposed rules.

    Please call or email Laurie and tell her the rules need to be changed to only prohibit discharge of firearms (and have an exception for firearms discharged in self-defense). This would allow the DNR to prohibit hunting near campgrounds but NOT prohibit lawful carriers (open and concealed) to carry when they camp, or hike near campgrounds and picnic areas.

    Laurie J. Ross, Board Liaison
    Office of the Secretary
    Laurie.Ross@wisconsin.gov
    608-267-7420
    PO Box 7921
    Madison WI 53707-7921

    If the proposed rules are not changed, they will be published and thousands of lawful carriers will think they are not allowed to carry in and near state campgrounds and parks.

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    law, since you seem to insist on posting and intermingling your comments with other people/organization's alerts...could you please at least differentiate who is saying what as it is confusing as all get out and you are not giving them their appropriate due for their material.

    thanks...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    law, since you seem to insist on posting and intermingling your comments with other people/organization's alerts...could you please at least differentiate who is saying what as it is confusing as all get out and you are not giving them their appropriate due for their material.

    thanks...

    ipse
    Ok. I posted two e mails from WI Carry. I don't think everyone gets them, I could be wrong. But It is important to let the entire WI 2A supporters know what is going on. I think you mean that I comment on the postings so you can't differentiate who is saying what.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    I had no trouble understand your posts thanks for the information.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    popple butte
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Divide and conquer works as well as it always has. He has his fiefdom, Cory Graf has his, the NRA guy has his, all for status and title.
    Right on. I wonder how the garbage dump lawsuit is progressing.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273

    Exclamation Ruh Roh!!

    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2015AP146 (Recommended for Publication), clearly distinguishing between agency rules and ordinances or resolutions when applying the preemption provision outlined in section 66.0409, Wis. Stats. - See more at: http://www.staffordlaw.com/blogs/mun....m9Nucgac.dpuf

    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2015AP146 (Recommended for Publication), clearly distinguishing between agency rules and ordinances or resolutions when applying the preemption provision outlined in section 66.0409, Wis. Stats.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2015AP146 (Recommended for Publication), clearly distinguishing between agency rules and ordinances or resolutions when applying the preemption provision outlined in section 66.0409, Wis. Stats. - See more at: http://www.staffordlaw.com/blogs/mun....m9Nucgac.dpuf

    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2015AP146 (Recommended for Publication), clearly distinguishing between agency rules and ordinances or resolutions when applying the preemption provision outlined in section 66.0409, Wis. Stats. - See more at: http://www.staffordlaw.com/blogs/mun....m9Nucgac.dpuf


    http://www.staffordlaw.com/blogs/mun...on-city-buses/
    Zoinks!!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Under review by SCOWI

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison, 2015AP146 (Recommended for Publication), clearly distinguishing between agency rules and ordinances or resolutions when applying the preemption provision outlined in section 66.0409, Wis. Stats. - See more at: http://www.staffordlaw.com/blogs/mun....m9Nucgac.dpuf

    Zoinks!!
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...eview-by-SCOWI
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I had no trouble understand your posts thanks for the information.
    You are welcome Firearms. I am not trying to offend anyone. Just wanted to make sure we all got the info.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Representative Gannon's reply!

    First, I wanted to thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have seen previous rules passed by the DNR with similar situations and this one seriously concerns me.



    I plan on sending this onto my constituents and ask them to contact the DNR regarding this rule. The legislature purposely wrote state statutes giving its citizens some of the broadest CCW rights in the USA, but the DNR is trying to usurp authority by banning them in camp grounds.



    I will do what I can to fix this problem the DNR has created.



    Regards,

    Bob Gannon

    State Representative

    58th Assembly District

    Rep.Gannon@legis.wisconsin.gov

    608-264-8486
    Last edited by Law abider; 03-29-2016 at 02:35 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Nik's update

    Greetings in Freedom,

    First, please pat yourselves on the back. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of you have reached out to the DNR to express your displeasure with their rule prohibiting carry in and around state campgrounds, campsites, and picnic areas.

    The response you are getting from the DNR is typical government bureaucratic deflection.

    Many people are being told the "change" only has to do with civil war re-enactments. THIS IS FALSE. The rule I cited in an earlier email (see link here)

    http://www.wisconsincarry.org/media/...c_area_ban.jpg

    This rule applies to all possession of firearms. ONE of the changes in the rule is being made to allow civil war re-enactments, but the rule itself covers all carry.

    As indicated in a previous email. ITS TRUE the state law exempts concealed carry from the rule. BUT THE RULE NEEDS TO SAY THAT. That is the problem.

    When that rule is approved, it will be published. When it is published, wherever it is published (DNR websites, DNR pamphlets, hunting rules/regulations, campground rules "signs") anyone who reads it will NOT know they can still legally carry. The rule conflicts with state law,but it doesn't tell people it conflicts with state law. People will be misled into believing they cannot carry some place they legally CAN.

    Its extremely disappointing, but not surprising the DNR is trying to confuse people who call to express their input as a citizen.

    Its very simple. THE RULE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED so anyone who reads it will know it only applies to hunting. That is why it should be changed to only prohibit DISCHARGE of a firearm not possession. AND the rule should note that "discharge of a firearm for self-defense is protected under state law"

    Carry on,

    Nik Clark
    Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    nik@wisconsincarry.org

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Ignore and disobey such foolishness. It is illegal, unlawful and any attempts to do so could well be classed as harassment, assault or worse. The problem is there is no penalty listed for violating state preemption
    Heaven forbid that they actually had one .... the world would quit revolving....

  18. #18
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    § 66.0409 does not apply to the sovereign state itself. The DNR is a bureau of the executive's administration and not a political subdivision, city, town or village. The Department of Natural Resources is brother to the Department of Justice, scions of the same sire.

    There is indeed no penalty for violating preemption
    Well thats annoying. However there is still the 2A itself and that stands even though the vast majority of even gun owners only pretend to believe it. The prohibition is void.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Well thats annoying. However there is still the 2A itself and that stands even though the vast majority of even gun owners only pretend to believe it. The prohibition is void.
    Chance of me finding a citizen guilty : zero

    For reasons above by RWL ...

  20. #20
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Ignore and disobey such foolishness. It is illegal, unlawful and any attempts to do so could well be classed as harassment, assault or worse. The problem is there is no penalty listed for violating state preemption
    Except a federal law suit under 42 USC 1983, 1985 & 1986

  21. #21
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Except a federal law suit under 42 USC 1983, 1985 & 1986
    Well it's something. But the penalty is totally inadequate in the case of school shootings where multiple children have died as a direct result of the unlawful prohibition on firearms. It would also be incredibly difficult to prove. I think there should be a penalty similar to that of Texas which from the top of my head is $10,000 a day for every single place that unconstitutionaly prohibits firearms. But that will never happen as even supposedly pro-2A people don't actually believe in the Second Amendment.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  22. #22
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Well it's something. But the penalty is totally inadequate in the case of school shootings where multiple children have died as a direct result of the unlawful prohibition on firearms. It would also be incredibly difficult to prove. I think there should be a penalty similar to that of Texas which from the top of my head is $10,000 a day for every single place that unconstitutionaly prohibits firearms. But that will never happen as even supposedly pro-2A people don't actually believe in the Second Amendment.

    Not talking about schools. I'm talking about where a state agency propagates regulations in direct violation of state law, especially if they try to enforce those regulations on a law abiding citizen. If it were me that got busted I'd file on everyone from the guy who scrubs the latrines to every member of the board of the DNR.

  23. #23
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Not talking about schools. I'm talking about where a state agency propagates regulations in direct violation of state law, especially if they try to enforce those regulations on a law abiding citizen. If it were me that got busted I'd file on everyone from the guy who scrubs the latrines to every member of the board of the DNR.
    You wouldnt have to file a thing. You'd be kidnapped and assaulted by the local police, who will hold you to ransom, then forced to attend court. At which point it's a lottery whether the case is heard by an American or a traitor. If it is the latter then that ruling will stand regardless of the Constitution, likely more money will be extorted from you and because of the fact judges are largely immune from prosecution, they'll get away scot free, while your rights continue to be denied
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Latest Update for the DNR Rules 4/6/16

    They are off the drawing board for now!!!!! Great work folks.

    Greeting in Freedom,

    Today I received an update from the Wisconsin DNR. The new rules they had proposed (which prohibited loaded firearms in and around state campgrounds and picnic areas) have been taken OFF the agenda for the Natural Resources board meeting on April 13th. The DNR is going back to the drawing board to re-draft the rule and clarify NR 45.09(1) so it doesn't conflict with state law which allows the right to open carry, or concealed carry (with a permit) firearms in and around state campgrounds and picnic areas.

    They will bring a modified rule to the board later in the year and they will let me know when they do.

    Great job with all the calls and emails. Its off the table for now and we'll make sure to keep up on it when it comes back in modified form.

    For those who haven't heard. Wisconsin recently issued its 300,000th concealed carry permit.

    http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/...its-since-2011

    Carry On,

    Nik Clark
    Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
    nik@wisconsincarry.org

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    It is amazing what a little sun light well do for bureaucrats.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 04-06-2016 at 06:43 PM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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