Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Milwaukee-based school security expert: authorities look for intent to violate 1000 ft school zone

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    I believe that live within the school zone of Pierce Elementary School. If you drew a straight line from the school to my house (cutting through 4 houses and yards), it would be 750 feet from door to door. If a path was drawn from the from door of the school along the sidewalks, from door to door, it would be just beyond 1,000 feet. Does this mean that I am not allowed to leave my property with my firearm if I were to walk my dog (away from the school)? Also, is the 1,000 foot measurement start at the building, or is it the entire school property?

    John K.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Also, is the 1,000 foot measurement start at the building, or is it the entire school property?
    1000ft from the edge of the property.

    I'm don't know the answer to your other question of your home being within 1000ft of a school.

    anyone?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Greenfield, WI / Grand Forks, ND, ,
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    I'm don't know the answer to your other question of your home being within 1000ft of a school.

    anyone?
    948.605 Gun−free school zones. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this
    section:
    (a) “Encased” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
    (ac) “Firearm” does not include any beebee or pellet−firing
    gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any
    starter pistol.
    (am) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
    (b) “School” has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
    (c) “School zone” means any of the following:
    1. In or on the grounds of a school.
    2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
    (2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individ-
    ual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individ-
    ual 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 enforce-
    ment authorities of the political subdivision must verify that the
    individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    3. That is not loaded and is:
    a. Encased; or
    b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
    4. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school
    in the school zone;
    5. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
    between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
    employer of the individual;
    6. By a law enforcement officer or state−certified commission
    warden acting in his or her official capacity; or
    7. That is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
    traversing school grounds for the purpose of gaining access to
    public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
    grounds is authorized by school authorities.
    8. By a person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the
    school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the
    school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
    John, unfortunately, you are correct: This law means you may not leave your property open carrying a firearm. You are essentially "land locked" in a School Zone. Only way to transport firearms on or off your property is if they are unloaded and encased.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Thank you both, Hugh and Mr. Greg, for your reply. This is extremely helpful. Now I know something to keep in mind when I buy my next house.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Do you own your sidewalk? I live within 1000' of a private school, but everyone in this neighborhood owns the sidewalk, making it private property (easement notwithstanding). There is no case law on this, but private property is private property as far as that exception is written, IMHO. Technically I'm in violation if I cross the road, though.

    EDIT: Just sent this to my representatives-

    Dear Representative Gottlieb and Senator Grothman:

    I live within 1000' of a private school, and I would like some clarification on the firearms carry prohibition in school zones. 948.605 clearly exemptsany private property within this school zone, however, I am not sure what effect the easement for public use of land on my sidewalk means under this law, even though I do own the sidewalk itself (as do my neighbors). In order for me to excercise my right to openly carry a firearm for security, defense, or any other lawful purpose, I would like clarification on this law so that I will not find myself facing felony charges for peacably traversing public roads and walkways in my own town. I think the best way to do this would be to amend the law to exempt any lawful conduct within the area, similar to the access to hunting land provision, but without any need for prior permission. Another way would be to ask the Attorney General for clarification on what constitutes "private property" for this law, as I cannot believe that even with the Wisconsin Legislature's history of poor law writing, the intent here was to stop anyone from moving through this area while lawfully armed. Please note that there are no exemptions to this for off-duty police officers, meaning that cops are commonly committing this felony on their way to and from work in many areas of the State.

    I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter, because even though this law is clearly unconstitutional (as similar laws in other states have been found), I do not wish to have to defend myself against a felony charge because of an obtuse and overbearing law.

    Sincerely,
    Me

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The statute says "private property" it is presumed to mean any private property not just the property that may be owned by the carrier. Also in question is whether or not sidewalks are considerd private property or public property. The adjacent homeowner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk and boulevard out to the street. The adjacent owner also pays property tax on the sidewalk and boulevard. If sidewalks are considered private property then technically a person could carry on any sidewalk in front of a private residence or business. Of course if that theory holds true then any sidewalk in front of a public building would put a stop to the walk because it would also be considered public. I have done considerable research on the subject and have not been able to find any answer to the question "Is a sidewalk in front of a private residence or business public or private property". Unfortunately the penalty for testing the theory is too severe to risk conviction. Conviction is a class I felony. A person convicted would be barred from owning a firearm for as long as the conviction is on his record. Until we can find a rock solid answer to the question it is better to err on the side of discretion.

    The statute also states that if a person does carry a firearm in a school zone it must be unloaded and in a carrying case. That brings into question concealment. The WSSC has ruled that it matters not if the firearm is loaded or unloaded it is considered concealed if it meets the following conditions: The person knows the firearm is there. The firearm is within reach. The firearm is hidden from view. Some people will claim that if the firearm is carried in a encasement specifically designed for a firearm it advertises the presence of a firearm and doesn't really meet the "hidden from view" condition. Not so. There are fanny packs and purses that are specifically manufactured to encase a firearm for concealed carry. Those encasements meet all the requirements of a suitable encasement as described in statite 167.31. Theypurposely don't advertise the presence of a weapon.

    Finally: 948.606(2)(3)(b) implies it is lawful to carry a firearm in a locked rack on a vehicle. I presume that means the typical firearms rack one would normally find in many pickup trucks. In my opinion there are two problems with that statement:When the WSSC visited questions concerning the apparent conflict between the vehicle crry statute and the concealed carry prohibition statute it ruled that a person is required to comply with both statutes. In other words if you carry a firearms in or on a vehicle it must be encased and carried out of reach. Carrying a firearm in a locked rack inmost pickup trucks doesn't meet the 'out of reach" requirement. The statute also says nothing about the firearm needing to be encased when locked in the rack.

    The Gun-free school zone 948.605 has got to go. My opinion is that if it ever got to the WSSC it would be found unenforceable and unconstitutional. It probably will never get there because the risk of conviction is too great. It appears our only low risk way to get the statute changed or removed is with the legislature.

    Now that we have a clarification of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and clarification as to when the disorderly conduct statute can be applied to open carry it is time to work on the vehicle carry and school zone problems.



  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The statute says "private property" it is presumed to mean any private property not just the property that may be owned by the carrier. Also in question is whether or not sidewalks are considerd private property or public property. The adjacent homeowner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk and boulevard out to the street. The adjacent owner also pays property tax on the sidewalk and boulevard. If sidewalks are considered private property then technically a person could carry on any sidewalk in front of a private residence or business.
    a Calif. appeals ct. held otherwise on this question on a simuilar school zone/sidewalk issue.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    The Gun-free school zone 948.605 has got to go. My opinion is that if it ever got to the WSSC it would be found unenforceable and unconstitutional. It probably will never get there because the risk of conviction is too great. It appears our only low risk way to get the statute changed or removed is with the legislature.
    This is a great comment. We cannot expect the SSC to hear this case since nobody here would want to risk the conviction and then the long appeal process while defenseless.

    I believe this is the MOST restrictive of the statutes, and it can only reasonably be dealt with using legislative means. I really do believe that this statue was enacted as a means to keep people from open carrying in the city where every public school is probably a quarter to half mile apart at most, leaving spotty areas in which to carry legally in non-private property. Throw in private schools and you have quite a cluster on your hands as far as carrying goes. Luckily private property is exempt so it makes transportation between property in a vehicle doable with unloaded/encased. However you better be sure to unload AND encase your firearm when you get in your car cuz if an LEO finds either one is not done then you're a felon. Kinda sad. We need to start putting the pressure on our reps and senators to act on this. I don't think they will swallow an outright appeal and then free carrying in schools. We will have to settle for school property only (not counting the centerline of the street, if applicable).

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin's language is from the feds.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

    The way I read this unless you buy a gun in Wisconsin, made in Wisconsin,you can be charged with a federal offense if you carry it within 1000 feet of a school,




    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:
    Do you own your sidewalk?
    I believe that the sidewalk is public property. I called the city to find out. She said that she was pretty sure that it is a public sidewalk but owner maintained. So I put a request in to have a damaged section of my sidewalk replaced. They told me that they would assess who is responsible for what when they send someone out. If I am responsible for replacement, then it should be considered my property/private property. I am not sure of their time-frame to check out the sidewalk. Worst case scenario is that it is public and I have to stick on my property while OCing but I will have a new section of sidewalk.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Flipper wrote:
    Wisconsin's language is from the feds.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

    The way I read this unless you buy a gun in Wisconsin, made in Wisconsin,you can be charged with a federal offense if you carry it within 1000 feet of a school,
    Yeah. That is such a ******** reason. The government uses the "interstate commerce" excuse to get what they want when they have no solid valid reason. It is like playing poker against someone who has unlimited wild cards to use at free will because they know that if they played by the rules they would loose.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Mike, I appreciate the pointer, but I'm not remotely worried about a WI judge feeling the same way about private property as a CA judge.... yet.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    People are organizing picnics and OCing when going about their normal business.

    No marches yet unless I have missed a thread. Though now that OC is recognized by law enforcement in a uniform fashion, the need for "march" to exercise our rights is less important I think now.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I tend to see "marching" usually as a sign of weakness anyway - much stronger statement is made by run of the mill discreet open cary about town.

    And obviously Wisconisn has this huge problem with the 1000 ft. school zones - it would look pretty goffy to 'march" a bunch of people thru a school zone to a convoy of paddy wagins waiting to scoop everybody up for booking, no?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    After talking to a cop acquaintance all the A.G.’s decision did, in Milwaukee, was enrage the chief and guarantee you a felony takedown (on the ground face down, and not necessarily in a gentile fashion), handcuffing, a long through examination of your record, a sobriety test, lots and lots of flashing lights, and anything else they can think of at the moment.



    The Police Chief and Sherriff of Milwaukee, also the police in many nearby suburbs, have not taken this decision lightly and many have openly stated that you are in for a “cuff and stuff” for O.C.



    That being said I truly think some sort of legal public action in Milwaukee County is necessary. We have a right and the police are using scare tactics to prevent us from using it. One may say the police are actually abusing there power at this point.







    RECALL Jimmy D!!!!!!

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    And obviously Wisconisn has this huge problem with the 1000 ft. school zones - it would look pretty goffy to 'march" a bunch of people thru a school zone to a convoy of paddy wagins waiting to scoop everybody up for booking, no?
    There MUST be an exemption or exception to this law, MUST BE!!



    Look at how many parades take place where the veterans are carrying firearms, and they are NOT CASED. Most of these parades either start, end, or go past a school. How is it that CERTAIN SPECIAL people get to do this?



    Nothing against the vets here mind you, just saying.....

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    i hear ya!

    in union grove the memorial day parade starts at memorial park (right next to the high school) with a gun salute! so now they are carrying in a school zone AND discharging a firearm within a school zone.. on public property no less.. then they walk down main street to memorial cemetary.. passing at least 2 more schools.. im not sure if they are within 1000' or not though.. all with a police escort!

    im sure i would have a police escort if i carried over there also.. but i would be cuffed and in the back of the car.. not walking down the street throwing candy

    maybe thats the ticket.. throw candy = no felony?



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    An what about Flynn in Milwaukee?? Will he be "taking down" the vets as they open carry in the parade? I say we submit an application to enter these parades. Tell them strait up, it is to make a political statement, and what we intend to do. We will walk the parade route, just like the vets. We will hand out the candy and the pamphlets para worked on. Might be a $200 - $300 entry fee. If they deny us entry, but other groups can "carry firearms" then we can go after them on that front.



    As a side note, and not wanting to make a fake 911 call, but how would they handle a 911 "man with a gun" call if somebody were to make such a call from the parade route??? Wouldn't that in effect force Flynn to "take down" the vets?



    I watched a parade last year, where the Laos vets carrying AR-15's, must have been 15 to twenty in that parade, and they went within 1000' of a school.

    Again, not anti military or anti vet here, just using that as an example...



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I am guessing here, But I think the school zone restriction was put into law to try and up the charges against the criminals that would consider a drive-by or taking a gun into a school. The statute is obviously flawed because it restricts the rights of the law abiding citizen.

    Does anyone think we would have better luck getting the wording modified instead of it being struck from the books outright.
    For instance, if a criminal is caught with a firearm within the restriction zone, that zone trespass could be a charge modifier to increase both incarceration and fines.

    if we ask for it to just be removed, the anti's will have a much more valid position to fight back with their "We need to protect our children" cry.

    We need to offer wording to be changedin the statute that for the law abiding citizen this restriction does not apply, but for someone that has lost their right to own a gun, it increases their charges against them. This will give the police bigger and better charges to use against a criminal, keep the anti's happy (to a point) and protect us from mistakenly crossing that 1,000' border by accident and getting nicked for a felony charge whitch would take any and all rights away from us.

    Anyone?

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    We need to offer wording to be changedin the statute that for the law abiding citizen this restriction does not apply
    That's what Hamdan seems to stand for already.

Posting Permissions

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