Wisconsin's 20 largest cities

imported post

I conducted an informal survey of the local ordinances of the 20 largest cities in Wisconsin to see how many continue to have ordinances on their books impacting open carry which are clearly preempted by state statute (i.e., invalid and unenforceable.)

Note: I looked primarily for ordinances that would involve open carry per se. Be aware that some municipalities have other ordinances that are also preempted under the state's firearms preemption statute: Madison is a perfect example because it has preempted ordinances regarding "barbed bullets" "short barrel handguns" etc.

I have cited the particular chapter, title or section of the preempted local ordinance for reference. Here is what I found for the largest 20 cities in Wisconsin, by order of population:

1) Milwaukee (596974): 105.34 (1)(b)

2) Madison (208054): 25.01(7)

3) Green Bay (102313): 27.604(3)(a)

4) Kenosha (90352): Nothing prohibiting open carry. [Note: City ordinance does prohibit carrying a concealed "pea shooter!"] :quirky

5) Racine (81855): 66-58

6) Appleton (70087): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

7) Waukesha (64825): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

8) Oshkosh (62916): 17-3(A) [Note: Somewhat ambiguous wording of this ordinance. One might plausibly argue it only prohibits concealed weapons, but it appears to prohibit both open and concealed by my interpretation.]

9) Eau Claire (61704): 9.32.040(F) [Note: requires firearms to be unloaded and encased.]

10) West Allis (61254): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

11) Janesville (59498): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

12) La Crosse (51818): 7.01(B)

13) Sheboygan (50792): 70-252 and 70-253

14) Wauwatosa (47271): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

15) Fond du Lac (42203): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

16) Brookfield (38649): 9.28.010 [Note: requires firearms to be unloaded and knocked down, or encased.]

17) Wausau (38426): 9.08.010(a)

18) New Berlin (38220): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

19) Beloit (35775): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

20) Greenfield (35476): 10.01


So, it appears that 11 of the 20 largest cities fail to be in compliance with state law. If I have missed anything, please submit a correction!

I am perhaps a little surprised that 9 cities are in compliance. I expected maybe 3 or 4.

Edited 10/27 to include populations as of last official census.

The next 20 largest cities (added 10/27/08)

21) Manitowoc (34053): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

22) Menomonee Falls (32647): Section 62-87

23) Franklin (29494): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

24) Oak Creek (28456): 11.21(b) [Note: Although this section of the ordinance is entitled "concealed weapons in public establishments" it appears to prohibit all firearms that are "readily accessible" in "a business establishment open to the public."

25) West Bend (28152): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

26) Superior (27368): 86-74(b)

27) Stevens Point (24551): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

28) Neenah (24507): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

29) Mequon (21823): 46-107

30) Watertown (21598): 11.32

31) Muskego (21598): 9.01(1)(a)

32) South Milwaukee (21256): Nothing prohibiting open carry. :celebrate

33) De Pere (20559): 142.2

34) Fitchburg (20501): Nothing prohibiting open carry. [Note: City ordinances are not available online. I called the city clerk and was referred to the police department, which tried to refer me back to the clerk's office :? but was told by PD that there is no city ordinance regarding the bearing of firearms and that one "just needs to follow state law."

35) Sun Prairie (20369): 9.32.010

36) Marshfield (18800): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

37) Wisconsin Rapids (18435): 25.12

38) Cudahy (18429): 9.02(2)(a)

39) Germantown (18260): Nothing prohibiting open carry.

40) Ashwaubenon (17634): 9.02(1)

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

So, it appears that 11 of the 20 largest cities fail to be in compliance with state law.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, as I can find nothing in state law that says the ordinance must "come off" the books. I believe state statute simply says such ordinances cannot be enforced.

imported post

16) Brookfield: 9.28.010 [Note: requires firearms to be unloaded and knocked down, or encased.]

Click to expand...

I've talked to Brookfield PD in recent months regarding open carry in their city. They tell me that unless you have a “Blue Card” issued by the state, they will arrest you. Brookfield does enforce ALL their ordnances.

Give 'em a call and ask for yourself. (262) 787-3700

imported post

Bunker wrote:

16) Brookfield:  9.28.010 [Note:  requires firearms to be unloaded and knocked down, or encased.]

Click to expand...

I've talked to Brookfield PD in recent months regarding open carry in their city. They tell me that unless you have a “Blue Card” issued by the state, they will arrest you. Brookfield does enforce ALL their ordnances.

Give 'em a call and ask for yourself.  (262) 787-3700

Click to expand...

So what? If the police choose to break the law, see where it gets them.
Why don't you call the Brookfield city attorney and see what he says.

For somebody who is a self-proclaimed "investigator" you have a piss poor understanding of the law and investigative techniques.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

So, it appears that 11 of the 20 largest cities fail to be in compliance with state law.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, as I can find nothing in state law that says the ordinance must "come off" the books.  I believe state statute simply says such ordinances cannot be enforced.

Click to expand...

No, it says nothing about "cannot be enforced." The language reads "no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution."

To "enact" means "to establish by legal and authoritative act." If those ordinances are on the books, they are enacted. Therefore, those municipalities are not in compliance with state law.

imported post

Bunker wrote:

they allow open carry in Milwaukee and the surrounding communities....

Click to expand...

He has SEEN the light,

HAL - LE - LU - JAH! HAL - LE - LU - JAH!

HAL-LE - LU-JAH! HAL-LE - LU-JAH! HAL - LE - LE-JAH!


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13713&forum_id=57&highlight=bunker

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

bnhcomputing wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

So, it appears that 11 of the 20 largest cities fail to be in compliance with state law.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, as I can find nothing in state law that says the ordinance must "come off" the books. I believe state statute simply says such ordinances cannot be enforced.

Click to expand...

No, it says nothing about "cannot be enforced." The language reads "no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution."

To "enact" means "to establish by legal and authoritative act." If those ordinances are on the books, they are enacted. Therefore, those municipalities are not in compliance with state law.

Click to expand...

66.0409(4)(b)
(b) 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, 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.

Again, I see nothing in the statute that stipulates the ordinance must be removed.

If I have missed something, please enlighten me.

imported post

You're right.

But let me put it this way. If the state enacted a law that said "No one may place Yosemite Sam mudflaps on an 18-wheeler, would you say "my mudflaps don't have to be removed because they're already there?"


The state law has already effectively removed such ordinances. They're like blank pages in the ordinance books.


Right Bunker?

imported post

Bunker wrote:

Brookfield does enforce ALL their ordnances.

Click to expand...

What does military material have to do with it? :lol::lol:

imported post

Respectfully, No.

They're pages that allow you, an individual, to acquire standing and pay to erase. You may be convicted of a preempted local ordinance and required to pay the fine. You will be relieved only if the appeal is successful.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Respectfully, No.

They're pages that allow you, an individual, to acquire standing and pay to erase. You may be convicted of a preempted local ordinance and required to pay the fine. You will be relieved only if the appeal is successful.

Click to expand...

I know. I was just messing with a stubborn person who needs to be de-bunked a little.

imported post

Doug, Shotgun:

Am I to understand that both of you feel these municipalities with these ordinances could indeed charge and convict for an ordinance violation, even though statute says it may NOT be enforced?

I would stipulate that arrest is certainly possible, as one can be arrested for almost anything but aswe have it in writing from the City Attorney in Eau Claire that the ordinance cannot be enforced, and has not been enforced since 1995, changes would be met with an immediate motion to dismiss.

I am not a lawyer either, but once the judge is looking at the dismissal motion, he/she would either have to dismiss, or override 66.0409(4)(b).

As far as conviction, can either of you show a single case where an individual was convicted, not a guilty plea, but actually convicted of a local municipality ordinance violation?

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Doug, Shotgun:

Am I to understand that both of you feel these municipalities with these ordinances could indeed charge and convict for an ordinance violation, even though statute says it may NOT be enforced?

I would stipulate that arrest is certainly possible, as one can be arrested for almost anything but aswe have it in writing from the City Attorney in Eau Claire that the ordinance cannot be enforced, and has not been enforced since 1995, changes would be met with an immediate motion to dismiss.

I am not a lawyer either, but once the judge is looking at the dismissal motion, he/she would either have to dismiss, or override 66.0409(4)(b).

As far as conviction, can either of you show a single case where an individual was convicted, not a guilty plea, but actually convicted of a local municipality ordinance violation?

Click to expand...

My opinion? Anything is possible, but I would say the chances of a conviction are practically zero. So low that I would not be concerned in the least. Anyone who got convicted of violating a local ordinance for mere OC in a area not prohibited by state law would be foolish not to file an appeal (and subsequent lawsuit.)

imported post

IANAL Charge and conviction is the only way to gain standing for appeal in higher court to make its stare decisis/case law effective on the lower municipal court.

Hypothetically the judge'll say "I don't work for those people, I work for the people of my town or county."

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

IANAL Charge and conviction is the only way to gain standing for appeal in higher court to make its stare decisis/case law effective on the lower municipal court.

Hypothetically the judge'll say "I don't work for those people, I work for the people of my town or county."

Click to expand...

Now I'll disagree with this statement as well. If a judge gets overturned/appealed all the time, they will quickly find themselves working in the private sector again.

I do not believe you can find a case whereby any judge has ruled against the preemption statute.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

IANAL Charge and conviction is the only way to gain standing for appeal in higher court to make its stare decisis/case law effective on the lower municipal court.

Click to expand...

Stare decisis is probably not applicable since the black letter law is clear.

imported post

Madison repealed their ordinance..see:

"Sec. 25.01(11), MGO, purports to ban the purchase and sale of handguns and handgun ammunition within the City. The City no longer has the authority to adopt such an ordinance, pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec. 66.0409. The subsection is repealed by this ordinance"

imported post

West Milwaukee has no ordinance saying that you can't openly carrying. I even spoke with the Police chief, who said there was no ordinance on the books.

imported post

gdyslin wrote:

Madison repealed their ordinance..see:

"Sec. 25.01(11), MGO, purports to ban the purchase and sale of handguns and handgun ammunition within the City. The City no longer has the authority to adopt such an ordinance, pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec. 66.0409. The subsection is repealed by this ordinance"

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The ordinance still appears on the books. Explain why you think they've repealed it.

In fact, the city continues to have a de facto ban on the commercial sales of handguns by use of their zoning ordinance which makes it virtually impossible to find a place within the city that meets all of the requirements. This is probably one of the primary reasons that Gander Mountain closed both stores and moved outside of the city. They wanted to sell handguns but not fight city hall to do so. Particularly ballsy on the part of the city is the language which dictates where handgun shops can be located in adjacent municipalities. Here's the zoning language:

Section 28.10(4)(c)59. Handgun shop, subject to the following conditions:
a. Such shop shall be located in a building of Type 5 construction as
defined in ILHR 51.03(5), Wisconsin Administrative Code.
b. No handgun shop shall be located within 1000 feet of any church,
synagogue, temple, mosque or any other place of worship, any lot in a
residence district, either in the City of Madison or in a municipality
adjacent to the City of Madison, any of the following planned
developments which allow residential dwelling units: planned
community development, planned unit development, and planned
community mobile home parks; any public park, any private or public
elementary, secondary or vocational school, any public or private
playground, any day care center, any public library, any youth recreation
area including little league baseball fields, soccer fields, or
YMCA/YWCA.
c. No handgun shop shall be located in the same detached building where
alcohol beverages are sold.
d. No handgun shop shall be located in the same detached building where
any patron thereof under the age of 18 years may enter, unless
accompanied by a parent, guardian or adult spouse 18 years of age or
over.

imported post

shernandez wrote:

West Milwaukee has no ordinance saying that you can't openly carrying. I even spoke with the Police chief, who said there was no ordinance on the books.

Click to expand...

:question: I believe that's what I reported above.