• 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.

School Zone Law - what is there to it really?

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

OK, I've been running this through my mind for a while. Here's the language of the Wisconsin "school zone" statute:

POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds.



Consider this. Most sidewalks are on private property. Sure the public uses them, but the property upon which they sit is private, owned by the homeowner or business owner. The sidewalk is there by virtue of a "sidewalk easement" but the property is private. This is clear because the city will fine YOU, the property owner, if you don't shovel the snow on the sidewalk ON YOUR PROPERTY. And if somebody tripped on a poorly maintained or icy sidewalk, they will sue the property owner, not the city. Finally, the government wouldn't need a sidewalk easement to put a sidewalk across your property if it was government property and not yours.

A publicly owned sidewalk would be only those placed on the school property itself or other property owned by a governmental entity. In other words, a very small percentage of all sidewalks.

The obvious implication is that if the school zone law means what it says-- and the language is not vague-- one ought not to be subject to arrest under that law if one stays on sidewalks that aren't in front of schools or other government buildings-- even if that sidewalk is within 1000 feet of school property or even right across the street from a school.

Thoughts anyone?
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
OK, I've been running this through my mind for a while. Here's the language of the Wisconsin "school zone" statute:

POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds.



Consider this. Most sidewalks are on private property. Sure the public uses them, but the property upon which they sit is private, owned by the homeowner or business owner. The sidewalk is there by virtue of a "sidewalk easement" but the property is private. This is clear because the city will fine YOU, the property owner, if you don't shovel the snow on the sidewalk ON YOUR PROPERTY. And if somebody tripped on a poorly maintained or icy sidewalk, they will sue the property owner, not the city. Finally, the government wouldn't need a sidewalk easement to put a sidewalk across your property if it was government property and not yours.

A publicly owned sidewalk would be only those placed on the school property itself or other property owned by a governmental entity. In other words, a very small percentage of all sidewalks.

The obvious implication is that if the school zone law means what it says-- and the language is not vague-- one ought not to be subject to arrest under that law if one stays on sidewalks that aren't in front of schools or other government buildings-- even if that sidewalk is within 1000 feet of school property or even right across the street from a school.

Thoughts anyone?

My thought is that argument and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee and a felony conviction. But I am not a lawyer.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

What, are you talking for the point of making a demonstration to risk a felony charge?

'cuz otherwise you're screwed as soon as you need to cross a street anyway....
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

LOL, not persuaded eh? But lawyers tend to be sticklers for things such as the actual language and meaning of words.

Crossing the street? Unload and encase.... proceed across the street. Reload. Inconvenienced, but not screwed.
 

Rick Finsta

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
232
Location
Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I've been milling this over for a while, shotgun. Unfortunately, I can't find good case law as to whether or not "easement for public use" (sidewalk easement) has been treated as public property for "public safety" laws like the school zone bulls$%t. There just doesn't appear to be any precedent, but I am not a lawyer, and have not employed one in my search.

This is really important to me, because there is a private grade school that is probably within 1000' of my house, so I theoretically cannot cross my own sidewalk if it is considered public property. I'm hoping to not ever test the law, as I simply don't trust the courts to give me a fair verdict.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

pkbites wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
OK, I've been running this through my mind for a while. Here's the language of the Wisconsin "school zone" statute:

POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds.



Consider this. Most sidewalks are on private property. Sure the public uses them, but the property upon which they sit is private, owned by the homeowner or business owner. The sidewalk is there by virtue of a "sidewalk easement" but the property is private. This is clear because the city will fine YOU, the property owner, if you don't shovel the snow on the sidewalk ON YOUR PROPERTY. And if somebody tripped on a poorly maintained or icy sidewalk, they will sue the property owner, not the city. Finally, the government wouldn't need a sidewalk easement to put a sidewalk across your property if it was government property and not yours.

A publicly owned sidewalk would be only those placed on the school property itself or other property owned by a governmental entity. In other words, a very small percentage of all sidewalks.

The obvious implication is that if the school zone law means what it says-- and the language is not vague-- one ought not to be subject to arrest under that law if one stays on sidewalks that aren't in front of schools or other government buildings-- even if that sidewalk is within 1000 feet of school property or even right across the street from a school.

Thoughts anyone?

My thought is that argument and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee and a felony conviction. But I am not a lawyer.
But if you were the arresting officer testifying stand in court. And you had testified that you had arrested someone for having a firearm on a sidewalk in front of a residence within 1000' of school grounds. And the defense attorney then reads the statute and turns to you and asks, "Officer, was my client on private property when you arrested him?" How would you reply?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:
I've been milling this over for a while, shotgun. Unfortunately, I can't find good case law as to whether or not "easement for public use" (sidewalk easement) has been treated as public property for "public safety" laws like the school zone bulls$%t. There just doesn't appear to be any precedent, but I am not a lawyer, and have not employed one in my search.

This is really important to me, because there is a private grade school that is probably within 1000' of my house, so I theoretically cannot cross my own sidewalk if it is considered public property. I'm hoping to not ever test the law, as I simply don't trust the courts to give me a fair verdict.
Public use doesn't necessarily mean it isn't private property. A shopping mall is for public use, but it is private property too. The law only states that it has no effect on private property.

And no, I'm not suggesting that people put it to the test just to test it, but it could be a potential legal defense if someone was arrested under those circumstances.
 

Rick Finsta

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
232
Location
Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I think the statute is clearly written, and I think it means what it says - and I think that should clearly mean that privately owned sidewalks within 1000' of a school are a legal place to carry. I also know that we just got a 5/4 decision on a .22LR revolver in a night stand being protected by 2A by SCOTUS. :?

Dad always said "never trust a judge."
 

trailblazer2003

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
211
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, ,
imported post

Shotgun, speaking of school zones. Did you ever get a response from the Madison city clerk(?) about a permit to carry in a school zone? I lost track, and don't remember if you updated on the subject.
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Just curious, you guys ever thought about legislation to establish an exemption for CHL holder like we have here?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Open carry will bring an extra-legal Disorderly Conduct charge.

Comp-tech wrote:
Just curious, you guys ever thought about legislation to establish an exemption for CHL holder like we have here?
941.23 Carrying concealed weapon. Any person except
a peace officer who goes armed with a concealed and dangerous
weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding s.
939.22 (22), for purposes of this section, peace officer does not
include a commission warden who is not a state−certified commission
warden.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 115, 221; 2007 a. 27.
The burden is on the defendant to prove that he or she is a peace officer and within
the exception. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973).
A defendant was properly convicted under this section for driving a vehicle with
a gun locked in a glove compartment. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 388 N.W.2d 565
(1986).
To “go armed” does not require going anywhere. The elements for a violation of
s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach;
2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).
A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation
by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from
view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this
section. State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).
There is no statutory or common law privilege for the crime of carrying a concealed
weapon under s. 941.23. State Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999),
97−1423.
Under the facts of the case, the privilege of of self−defense was inapplicable to a
charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538,
638 N.W.2d 280, 00−0744.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are
possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit
in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s need
to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid
restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. The right to keep and bear
arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and
sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately
operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State
v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056. See also State
v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed
weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise
the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s interest in
concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms
substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute?
and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the
only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear
arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.
This section is constitutional as applied in this case. The defendant’s interest in
exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed
weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in
prohibiting him from carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle. State v. Fisher,
2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.
Judges are not peace officers authorized to carry concealed weapons. 69 Atty. Gen.
66.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Comp-tech wrote:
Just curious, you guys ever thought about legislation to establish an exemption for CHL holder like we have here?
To summarize the law Doug just cited...

Wis. is one of the 2 remaining states that issues zero CHLs. Don't issue 'em, don't recognize 'em if they're from somewhere else.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Well, almost zero CHL's.

And there already is an exemption for firearm carry contained in the school zone law but the question is whether it is ever granted or remains theoretical. I suspect it's only words and not a reality, but I intend to find out.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


Interesting that this "school zone" law comes under "crimes against children" although it's not a crime to have a gun within 1000 feet of a child, but instead within a 1000 feet of a parcel of land.

Truly one of the most stupid laws for many reasons.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Horrible sentence; "...by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and ..."

This is not a reference to the Department of Justice agency. It is not capitalized as a title but is a descriptive phrase.

948.605 Gun−free school zones.
[ ... ]
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Horrible sentence; "...by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is located, and ..."

This is not a reference to the Department of Justice agency. It is not capitalized as a title but is a descriptive phrase.

948.605 Gun−free school zones.
[ ...]
(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds;
2. If the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by a political subdivision of the state or bureau of alcohol, tobacco
and firearms in which political subdivision the school zone is
located, and the law of the political subdivision requires that,
before an individual may obtain such a license, the law enforcement
authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
State statutes rarely, if ever, capitalize the names of state agencies. I don't know the reason for this, but here are some examples randomly pulled from the statutes:

31.01 Definitions. Terms used in this chapter are defined as
follows:
(1) “Corporation” means a private corporation organized
under the laws of this state.
(2) “Department” means the department of natural resources.

41.01 Definitions. In this chapter:
(1) “Department” means the department of tourism.

101.01 Definitions. In this chapter, the following words and
phrases have the designated meanings unless a different meaning
is expressly provided:
(1m) “Department” means the department of commerce.

102.01(2)(ap) “Department” means the department of workforce development

14.01 Office of the governor; creation. There is created
an office of the governor under the direction and supervision of the
governor.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Oh get serious.

It doesn't say "any" license issued by the state or BATFE...it says a license *TO DO SO* (possess a firearm in a school zone). Otherwise...a driver's license would fit their description - after all, it's a license issued by the state and they have to verify that I'm legally able to obtain such a license....

On the other hand, this brings up an outstanding Heller type argument - they say you can't do it without a license, and don't issue licenses. Bam.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Teej wrote:
Oh get serious.

It doesn't say "any" license issued by the state or BATFE...it says a license *TO DO SO* (possess a firearm in a school zone). Otherwise...a driver's license would fit their description - after all, it's a license issued by the state and they have to verify that I'm legally able to obtain such a license....

On the other hand, this brings up an outstanding Heller type argument - they say you can't do it without a license, and don't issue licenses. Bam.
Actually it doesn't say a license by the state. Rather, it's a license from a "political subdivision of the state" which means city, village, town or county. (Maybe even school district.)

But your second point, Teej, is what I've been saying all along-- if they do not actually issue such licenses, then there's no practical way to exercise the constitutional right, ergo, one may challenge the constitutionality of the law as applied.
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Teej wrote:
Comp-tech wrote:
Just curious, you guys ever thought about legislation to establish an exemption for CHL holder like we have here?
To summarize the law Doug just cited...

Wis. is one of the 2 remaining states that issues zero CHLs. Don't issue 'em, don't recognize 'em if they're from somewhere else.
Thanks for the clarification....my brain was hurting trying to understand all of that (no offense Doug)...lol
 
Top