IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY IN MILWAUKEE,

imported post

yagoo wrote:

Again...read the post I made previous to this one...the whole point of the state law that you are pointing to is so that if the state legislature so chooses, they can "overrule" municipal regarding guns. However, there are NO laws regarding open carry in the state legislature for a reason. If the state legislature wanted to enact a law that said "all citizens may open carry.." then the pre-emption would kick it. That is not the case, however.

Click to expand...

The premption law wouldn't touch this, since allowing somebody to do something which is NOT Prohibited is NOT more stringent.

Please read some more forum posts on the subject, your credibility is already suffering as Bunker's has.

imported post

yagoo wrote:

Again...read the post I made previous to this one...the whole point of the state law that you are pointing to is so that if the state legislature so chooses, they can "overrule" municipal regarding guns. However, there are NO laws regarding open carry in the state legislature for a reason. If the state legislature wanted to enact a law that said "all citizens may open carry.." then the pre-emption would kick it. That is not the case, however.

Click to expand...

I think you should read the statute more carefully. Please point out where my logic is wrong.

"If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components"

So lets assume a locality has an ordinance banning OC. Does it fall in the realm of an ordinance that regulates the use,keeping,possession,or bearing of a firearm?

To me, it does.

Ok. So lets look at the second part of the statute:

"and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995."

So, if the law is "not the same as or similar to a state statute" the ordinance has no legal weight.

So show me the law that the local ordinance banning OC is similar to.

It seems to me, with close reading of the law, you are wrong. So you will have to cite to me, why you are right.

imported post

I agree they are un-reasonable...but they are NOT unenforceable...thats the only point i am trying to make.

imported post

I agree they are un-reasonable...but they are NOT unenforceable...thats the only point i am trying to make.

imported post

So, you're saying the city attorney of Milwaukee was WRONG when he acknowledged that the city's ordinance regarding the licensing of people selling guns was unenforceable because there is no state licensing? And you're saying Assistant Attorney General Jeff Kassel was WRONG when, before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he said, during three separate cases, that is was perfectly legal to carry a gun down State Street in Madison and Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee?

imported post

yagoo wrote:

I agree they are un-reasonable...but they are NOT unenforceable...thats the only point i am trying to make.

Click to expand...

They are 100% unenforceable, and if you don't believe it, then call the AG's office tomorrow and ask. Call the Milwaukee city attorney's office and ask. Call one of your law professors and ask.

imported post

"and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute,"

This implies that there must first, in fact, exista state statute regarding open carry. There is NOT. Therefore, the section of the law is void in this instance.

It is quite simple and how all law would work. If the state legislature intended to allow open carry, they would simply have a statute allowing it. That is how everyjudge and lawyer will read this.

Again, not saying that its right or wrong...just that it is.

imported post

The city wants to avoid litigation, therefore if you OC, you will most likely be cited with disorderly conduct. Either way, you will/can get arrested and chargedwith a crime.

imported post

yagoo wrote:

"and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute,"

This implies that there must first, in fact, exist a state statute regarding open carry. There is NOT. Therefore, the section of the law is void in this instance.

It is quite simple and how all law would work. If the state legislature intended to allow open carry, they would simply have a statute allowing it. That is how everyjudge and lawyer will read this.

Again, not saying that its right or wrong...just that it is.

Click to expand...

You have a very strange reading of the law. I don't see how you can get that interpretation at all. It does not imply there must be a state statute at all.

" and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect"

That says "if there is no law like this one, the ordinance is not legal" it DOES not say "if there is no law, then the ordinance is legal" which is what you are saying.

Are you really a law student? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

imported post

Oh, don't forget to call all the lobbyists who fought on behalf of cities like Milwaukee and Madison who didn't want the preemption statute passed because they knew it would void this type of municpal ordinance.

There's no statute that allows me to walk down the street or to breathe, but I believe the legislature intended to allow me to do those things....

You said you're in law school? Really?

imported post

again... if the legislature intended to allow open carry, they would have created a statute saying just that. Yes, I am in law school, really.

The ACTUAL language is:

[align=left]"..unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than,a state statute"[/align]
[align=left]You conveniently left thatlast partout of your last post. In my opinion, that is the MAIN and most important part of the sentence. The idea is that a municipality, if it is to make a law regarding guns, must not make one that is not the same or LESS stringent than any state law....there is no state law, so it is not possible that a municipal law could be less stringent.[/align]
[align=left]Your comment about "breathing or walking down the street" is just plain stupid.[/align]

imported post

And I guess those dunderheadknow-nothing idiots in the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, who are lawyers the last time I checked, are WRONG when they wrote:

"Act 72 [the preemption statute] invalidated existing local controls on the purchase, possession, and use of handguns in municipalities around the state, including ordinances in Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Stevens Point, Superior and Wausau."

imported post

Well, we'll see who's stupid. Sorry, but I'll believe the statements of the Milwaukee city attorney, assistant attorney general, lawyers at the Legislative Reference Bureau and let's not forget Gov. Jim Doyle-- who is not only the governor but former Attorney General-- over you. I know they all completed law school. And when you get it straight, come back and apologize for spreading nonsense.

imported post

delete duplicate post

imported post

yagoo wrote:

again... if the legislature intended to allow open carry, they would have created a statute saying just that. Yes, I am in law school, really.

The ACTUAL language is:

[align=left]"..unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than,a state statute"[/align]
[align=left]You conveniently left that last part out of your last post. In my opinion, that is the MAIN and most important part of the sentence. The idea is that a municipality, if it is to make a law regarding guns, must not make one that is not the same or LESS stringent than any state law....there is no state law, so it is not possible that a municipal law could be less stringent.[/align]
[align=left]Your comment about "breathing or walking down the street" is just plain stupid.[/align]

Click to expand...

Just wow.
Lets look at that sentence.

" unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute."

So that says, unless the new ordinance is the SAME AS, or SIMILAR TO ... a state statute, a locality may not enact a law about bearing arms.

So, if there is no state statute, then a locality can't pass the ordinance, since
it is not the " same as or similar to" a state statute.

How are you reading this any different?

Read the sentence out load. Try re-writing it with different words if you don't get it. Like this:

If a locality makes a law about firearms, it must be the same as, or similar to an existing state statute. And by the way, when we say similar to, it can't be more restrictive, so don't play that game.

See? How does it read when you think about it:

Like this:
If a locality makes a law about firearms, it must be be about something where there is no state law already.

But I can't get that out of the law anywhere.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

So, you're saying the city attorney of Milwaukee was WRONG when he acknowledged that the city's ordinance regarding the licensing of people selling guns was unenforceable because there is no state licensing? And you're saying Assistant Attorney General Jeff Kassel was WRONG when, before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he said, during three separate cases, that is was perfectly legal to carry a gun down State Street in Madison and Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee?

Click to expand...

and did the court agree with him? no. Otherwise you would be walking down the street with your gun. Reverend wright says god damn america, does that mean that God is damning america because wright happens to be in the business of god?

the fact that a DA or lawyer, or judge says something about the law doesn't make it so. The law is not set in stone. You are entitled to your opinion. I am giving you mine, which I find to be more correct than yours.

imported post

Why does the state legislature not just say something to the affect of "citizens can open carry"? If you don't realize that the intent was not to legalize open carry, you are being blind. Look how many rules there are about guns in section 941 or whatever it is! No mention of open carry. I'm done for the night. I hope you all carry in peace.

imported post

Insofar as it's legal to open carry, yes the court agreed with him. Even Shirley Abrahamson, the most liberal member of the court, said that as long people can open carry then, in her opinion, the concealed weapons statute was constitutional. But she emphasized that there has to be a way to exercise the right to bear arms otherwise the concealed statute would have to fall.

imported post

yagoo if there is no statute against breathing, and some municipality made a law that it was only legal to breath in the city hall, that would be MORE strict than what the state allows. Applied to firearms which are special in the laws, the same thing applies, any law against something when there is no prohibition is MORE STRICT, PERIOD!! .....AND.... Therefore invalidated.

If you don't get it after all the posts on this thread and others then YOU will never get it. Time to focus on another subject.

imported post

yagoo wrote:

Why does the state legislature not just say something to the affect of "citizens can open carry"? If you don't realize that the intent was not to legalize open carry, you are being blind. Look how many rules there are about guns in section 941 or whatever it is! No mention of open carry. I'm done for the night. I hope you all carry in peace.

Click to expand...

Why does the state not have a law saying I can wear blue shoes? Why do they not have a law saying that I have the right to reproduce?

The law bans what you CAN'T do. It does not say what you CAN do. Can you imagine what the law would look like if you tried to list all the things it is legal to do?

In Virginia, we have no law saying we CAN OC. That is why it is legal.
A law student should really understand that concept.

If they wanted to ban OC, wouldn't they have just left out the word "concealed" from the laws making concealed carry illegal? So by intentionally qualifying carrying a weapon with "concealed" they must be thinking about open carrying, and leaving it legal.