School Zone Law - what is there to it really?

imported post

There is no way to rationalize the school zone law. It was made by buffoons in a state of fear and panic instead of adults under calm and reason. It is so full of loop holes and vague language that it would probably never survive a court test. Unfortunately the penalty is so severe for those that cherish their gun rights that it is unlikely that it will be intentionaly tested. I feel our only hope is to find some legislative representative that is pro-gun and has the guts to ask the Attorney General for an opinion on which portions are constitutional and enforceable.

Here is an example of how utterly stupid it is. If a LEO is off duty he can not enter a school zone with a loaded firearm in order to assist someone in grave danger. 948.605(2)(6). He also can not discharge his firearm in a school zone if he is off duty. 948.605(3)(b)(4). The key phrase is official capacity. However, a civilian firearms instructor that may be in the process of conducting a firearms training course can come to assistance. 948.605(2)(4). He can also fire the firearm 948.605(3)(b)(2).

Of course it is unlikely that an off duty LEO would ever be charged with a crime for giving assistance by use of a firearm but by literal interpretation he could be charged with a felony.

On the issue of sidewalks. I have also done a lot of reseach on the subject. I share shotguns opinion that sidewalks in front of private residences and business are private property that has been designated for public use. I also suspect the same for streets although I'm not comfortable with saying so just yet. I have noticed on my property abstract that it shows a 33 foot easment for a town road. 33 feet would be to the center of the road, the maintenance of which is contracted with the township and paid for through property taxes.

Doug listed some annotations from supreme court opinions. I have no confidence in the state Supreme Court. It sits too close to the lap of Doyle. It can't seem to remember what decisions it makes from one case to another. Probably because it is more concerned with making the proper political decision than the proper legal opinion. An example is that the Court laid down three conditions that define concealement in both Kieth and Hamdan. One of those conditions is that the firearm must be within reach. Yet the Court found Fry guilty of carrying a concealed weapon because it was locked in a glove compartment. What can be more out of reach than in a locked glove compartment?

imported post

Stare decsis annotations that have been made black letter statute law by being written into the law, conflated as it were. Talk about legislation from the bench!

My Eastern property line is indeed the center of the road and there is an easement to allow and contain the road. My neighbor to the South accesses his property via an easement on my Southern property line.

imported post

Roads can differ from street to street, for instance, I live on the corner of a county road and a city street, so I own to the center of the city street, but not to the center of the county road, as far as I can tell. There is language in the statutes (Trans - 304 maybe? I can't recall for certain) about which roads have which easements. For instance, I believe most State Highways are owned by the state, but there is an easement for public use for 30-something feet from the centerline. I think in some places, the sidewalks fall within the road's easement, and some places they are specifically covered by a seperate easement.

It's been awhile since I looked any of this up, so I may be off-base.

imported post

I imagine it matters if the roadway or the street bounding a business or residence is an easement or not. An area of easement remains part of the property but the easement grants use of all or part of the property for a specific use. It generally becomes part of the deed and may be a permanent part or have a specific life. In any regard the easement is property of the owner.

imported post

Ok, it seems like to me that this is the biggest thing to keep down the law. Let's get a legal fund together, find one of our members here who's home is within the 1000 foot school zone law, and sue.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Ok, it seems like to me that this is the biggest thing to keep down the law. Let's get a legal fund together, find one of our members here who's home is within the 1000 foot school zone law, and sue.

Click to expand...

I guess that's one approach. But the angle I was contemplating is to attack the failure of any municipality to issue licenses as provided by statute, leaving no practical manner in which to exercise a constitutional right within "school zones."

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Ok, it seems like to me that this is the biggest thing to keep down the law. Let's get a legal fund together, find one of our members here who's home is within the 1000 foot school zone law, and sue.

Click to expand...

I guess that's one approach. But the angle I was contemplating is to attack the failure of any municipality to issue licenses as provided by statute, leaving no practical manner in which to exercise a constitutional right within "school zones."

Click to expand...

To get standing (without being arrested)one would need to apply for AND be denied a license (or other allowance)in the districtthey intended to sue for failure to provide a means for the exercise of the right to bear arms in a school zone. I dont thinkone would have standing to sue (even ifthey lived in a school zone) unlessthey suffered some loss(freedom, money, arrest, right, etc). Remember Heller was the only one of the people that sued DC that had standing because he had actually applied for a permit and been denied.

imported post

That's how I see it too Parabellum! I don't think "getting denied" a permit will be too difficult, since I don't think any municipality is issuing them or even aware that there's a provision for them to do so.

imported post

I might be a good candidate for litigation; I live just about 1000' from a school zone, and the only way I can walk into town is through two school zones. I can walk out of town to the south without problems, but this has stopped me from carying for evening walks with my wife. Perhaps I should apply for a permit and see what happens.

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

I might be a good candidate for litigation; I live just about 1000' from a school zone, and the only way I can walk into town is through two school zones. I can walk out of town to the south without problems, but this has stopped me from carying for evening walks with my wife. Perhaps I should apply for a permit and see what happens.

Click to expand...

Apply both to the city and the school district. I doubt either will have a clue what you're asking for. When I asked the Madison city clerk's office about it, they were clueless. When I pointed it out to them in the statutes, they kind of did an "ooohhhh" but remained clueless. I have not yet followed up (been busy) with a formal request to that office (which is what they suggested) but I intend to do so. I will be surprised if anyone finds a single school district or municipality in this state that is aware of school zone licensing, let alone actually issuing licenses.

Nearest school zone to me is probably close to a mile, but I can get close to one by just going for a stroll along my usual path.

imported post

I went to my city clerk's office to apply for this license to carry in a school zone and they had no idea what I was talking about. One lady there even said that if that gave those out they would have a lot of dead teachers. They asked if I had went to the police station, which I just came from. The police told me that only police officers and PI's may get the license, and since I am niether I could try the ATF. The clerk call the sheriff he had never herd of this license either and also said try the ATF. The nearest ATF office is a hour away so not today have to try there when I have so more time.

imported post

GRB wrote:

I went to my city clerk's office to apply for this license to carry in a school zone and they had no idea what I was talking about. One lady there even said that if that gave those out they would have a lot of dead teachers. They asked if I had went to the police station, which I just came from. The police told me that only police officers and PI's may get the license, and since I am niether I could try the ATF. The clerk call the sheriff he had never herd of this license either and also said try the ATF. The nearest ATF office is a hour away so not today have to try there when I have so more time.

Click to expand...

:lol: "no idea what I was talking about" -- just as I suspected.

I wonder what is wrong with their teachers that makes them think law-abiding people with no criminal record would want to shoot them?:?

If the police think that only police and PI's get that license, where are they getting them if nobody around there has even heard of it?

I would suggest calling an ATF office before taking an hour-long drive.

imported post

Moreover, Shotgun, can I please see one of those officers' licenses, so I know they are not committing a felony every time they drive past a school on their way home from work?

imported post

Rick Finsta wrote:

Moreover, Shotgun, can I please see one of those officers' licenses, so I know they are not committing a felony every time they drive past a school on their way home from work?

Click to expand...

Driving to/from work is considered acting in official capacity. Most departments have that in their written policies.

It appears that off duty officers are also covered by H.R. 218 as long as they don't actually go on the property itself. But H.R. 218 only covers concealed carry, not open.

imported post

GRB wrote:

One lady there even said that if that gave those out they would have a lot of dead teachers.

Click to expand...

Such a stupid comment!

It's insulting to teachers for suggesting there's something about that that would make them targets, and also to citizens to suggest they'd want to kill teachers.

Secondly, the intention of the school zone prohibition was, presumably and ostensibly, to protect children not teachers. That's why it's in the statutes under "crimes against children." (Although one might argue that the true intention (and actual effect) was to mess with gun owners, because it protects neither children nor teachers, but it does do a fine job of messing with gun owners. )

Third, if someone was truly intent upon shooting a teacher, I don't think they'd be stopped by the prohibition against firearms within a thousand feed of school grounds. (Can you imagine a criminal being stopped because the penalty of a lesser crime weighs more heavily on his decision than that of the greater crime?) The only way a prohibition against firearms can possibly be effective is to have a secured area where nobody gets in without being searched. Even that brings no guarantees. Clearly this is not the way it is in "school zones."

Finally, again, if someone was truly intent upon shooting a teacher, why assume the only place they be targeted is inside the school zone?

This law has no good justification for its existence. Again I would point to what I believe is it's "true intention and actual effect."

imported post

Sent an email to the city of La Crosse, WI. Pointed out they have the unenforceable "only officers can carry" ordinance.

In addition, I asked the same question about getting a permit to carry in a school zone.

I sent:

Dear Chief xxxx:

I contacted you on May 28, 2008, concerning the unenforceability of city
ordinance 7.01(B). Your response was that you had forwarded the
information/request to the city attorney. I also sent a copy of that
email letter to the city attorney and the Mayor. To date, no one has
seen fit to reply. I write this letter for two (2) reasons. The first
is to request a reply as to the legality of open carry and the
unenforceability of ordinance 7.01(B) within the city of La Crosse.

The second is to request a license to allow me to exercise my
constitutional right to openly carry in a school zone within the city of
La Crosse. State Statute 948.605 (2)(a) specifically states possessing
a firearm within a school zone to be a Class I felony unless
948.605(2)(b)2 "the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so." Please forward me the necessary paper work and application
procedures to obtain a license to carry a firearm for security, defense,
and any other lawful purpose pursuant to Wisconsin's state constitution
Article 1, Section 25 within a school zone.


Thank again for your time and service in these matter.

Click to expand...

The Cheif's reply:

I am writing in regard to your request of May 28, 2008 and I regret that
circumstances were such that I was unable to respond until now.

You contend in your letter that city ordinance 7.01 (B) can not be
enforced and further it would be a violation of a citizens
constitutional rights should he or she be charged for disturbing the
peace or disorderly conduct for lawfully bearing arms, even if it may
unintentionally create public discomfort.

In your second correspondence you are also requesting a license to
openly carry in a school zone within the city of La Crosse.

I have conferred with the City Attorneys office and am of the opinion
that even if the ordinance is unenforceable other ordinances and state
statutes could still be enforced. The possible circumstances are too
numerous to list but as an example: entering a bank wearing a ski mask
while shouting in a loud voice and at the same time openly displaying a
AK47 could very likely result in a disorderly conduct violation. Going
armed while intoxicated could represent reckless use of a weapon, etc,
etc, etc.

In regard to your request for a license to openly carry a firearm in a
school zone, I do not have the authority to issue a license to carry a
firearm to any individual whatsoever.

Once again, I regret the late response to your request and I trust that
I have answered your questions. Please do not hesitate to write or call
me personally if I can be of assistance.

Click to expand...

imported post

pkbites - can you walk me through the reasoning that off-duty cops are covered? I'd be interested to see the case law there, as I reached a different conclusion altogether. I can understand to and from work being "in official capacity," but I can't see a departmental requirement to carry off-duty as still being "in an official capacity." That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO...

imported post

bnhcomputing:

The chief sure used a lot of "weasle words" to agree that you were correct didn't he? You have to somewhat read between the lines to draw that conclusion. For example; he says "even if the ordinance is unenforceable" If the attorney advice was that the ordinance was enforcable the chief more than likely would have said something along the lines of "After conferring with the City attorney it is our opinion that the ordinance is still enforcable". He then states that barring the ordinances there are other statures that could be applied. He then says "the posible circumstances are to numerous to list" The key word is "circumstances". He doesn't say the possible number of statues. He then goes on to describe a circumstance. A circumstance that is diometrically opposed to your indication that the open carry would be peaceful. An indication he is grasping for straws.

I think it will be rare that we get any law enforcement authority to come right out and say "yes, peaceful open carry is not unlawful" even though the bottom line of the chiefs letterimplies that fact.

Concerning the chief's position on the "school zone" law. He is probably correct in stating that he does not have the authority to issue a license authorizing firearm carry in a school zone. The statute specifically states "political subdivision" or ATF.It does not include a locallaw enforcement agency. The letter requesting such a license probably needs to be addressed to a city council, county board, townboard or perhaps all three. They are the only political subdivisions defined as such in state statutes.

imported post

Other states issue carry permits through police departments, so it is reasonable to expect the same here. Since Wisconsin does not have carry permits, the appropriate channel would be City Hall.

imported post

The police department, being an agency of a municipality, could be delegated with the responsibility to issue such a license. But I think that we'll find that no police department or city/village clerk's office has been authorized to issue school zone carry licenses. That, of course, is the problem. By making inquiries and requests, we'll be going beyond mere speculation and providing documentation to support my theory.

Regarding the La Crosse chief's other comments, I agree with him. One can easily imagine circumstance in which a disorderly conduct charge could apply to someone's behavior with a firearm, e.g., shouting in a bank with an AK-47 while wearing a mask. But one cannot easily imagine circumstances in which mere peaceful carry of a firearm would be a violation of a Wisconsin law. The fact that the chief resorted to an extreme example indicates that one would have to engage in fairly dissident behavior while armed to draw a charge that would stick. Shouting in a bank while masked is probably sufficient to get a disorderly conduct charge, even if not armed.

Big deal! Nobody here is claiming that we have a right to act like a bunch of asses while armed. But we certainly do have the right to conduct normal day-to-day activities while armed. If you act like an ass-- armed or not-- you deserve any trouble that comes your way.