Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Wisconsin woman takes aim at illegal open carry bans in Sauk City and Prairie du Sac!

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

    Post imported post

    Sounds like some folks need to start open carrying in these cities, provided you can stay out of the pesky school zones!

    Interestingly, the article makes no mention of Hamdan's lawful purpose doctrine which appears to call into question gun control laws in Wiscosnin generally even if not preempted.

    --

    http://www.wiscnews.com/spe/news/451912

    Village gun ordinances under fire

    Photo by Todd Krysiak / Sauk Prairie Eagle

    Candace Dainty, a Sauk City resident and state coordinator for the Second Amendment Sisters, believes that ordinances restricting how firearms can be carried in Sauk Prairie are illegal.

    By Todd Krysiak, Sauk Prairie Eagle

    A respresentative of a gun rights organization is questioning the legality of ordinances that place restrictions on gun owners when they enter the villages of Sauk City and Prairie du Sac .
    Both villages require gun owners to unload and encase their weapons when in the villages.
    Candace Dainty, who lives in Sauk City and is the state coordinator for the Second Amendment Sisters, said she believes the ordinances do not follow established state law and go against recent statements made by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen about the right of citizens in Wisconsin to openly carry a firearm in the state.
    "The state of Wisconsin says open carry is legal," she said.
    However, ordinances that have been on the books in both villages for decades contradict that view and Sauk Prairie Police Chief Jerry Strunz referred to the ordinances when asked about how officers should handle a person who openly displays a firearm.
    "Both communities have ordinances stating that weapons have to be unlocked and cased," he said.
    Strunz said he believed most people living in and around Sauk Prairie were aware of the restrictions and followed them.
    Dainty argued that the ordinances have no legal standing because of Wisconsin Act 72, passed in 1995. She said the Act restricts municipalities from passing laws that are more strict than state laws related to firearms. The Act states that any ordinances in place prior to the passage of the Act "shall have no legal effect."
    Van Hollen's opinion was provided in a memorandum sent to prosecutors across the state in April and was intended as a guide for district attorneys considering whether to issue charges for gun-carrying violations.
    Repeated phone calls and messages left on the telephone of Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett seeking her perspective on the issue were not returned.
    Sauk City attorney Erin Brennan, who handles prosecutions for Sauk City in Sauk Prairie Municipal Court, did not return a message left at her office Monday.
    Village of Prairie du Sac Administrator Alan Wildman said application of the ordinance is "up to the officer in each situation."
    He said he believed Van Hollen's comments were directed toward a specific incident in Milwaukee.
    "As a municipality, one of our responsibilities is to provide for public safety," he said. "The village board decided this was an important public safety issue and a good thing to have on the books."
    Wildman said an infraction that did not include any other kind of offense most likely would be a civil matter handled in municipal court with the strictest penalty amounting to a fine.

    Some restrictions apply
    State statutes do place some restrictions on open carry across the state and failure to follow many of those restrictions could result in criminal charges.
    According to state law, firearms may not be concealed in any way, must be unloaded and secured in a closed case when transported in a vehicle, are not permitted in public buildings, cannot be carried within 1,000 feet of a school unless properly secured for travel, cannot be handled by anyone under the age of 18 and state law restricts carrying a firearm in bars and some other places where alcohol is sold.
    Private business owners also have the ability to restrict people who openly display a firearm from entering their business.

    A right to self-defense
    Dainty said her organization supports gun rights because Wisconsin citizens should be able to defend themselves and all United States citizens have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
    "It's not about open carry, it's about people not overreacting," she said. "Cops carry guns with them and we think nothing of it, yet we see a civilian with a gun and we think 'Oh, my gosh he's gonna shoot me.' Come on, get a life."
    Wildman said open carry laws don't work in today's culture, particularly in population centers.
    "Given the population density of our communities, when a person walks down the street with a gun in this day and age, that's going to make folks uncomfortable," he said. "We're not saying they can't have a gun. We're not saying they can't carry a gun. We're just saying there's a way to do it without making everyone uneasy."

    Wisconsin State Statute 66.0409 (2)
    " ... no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, 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, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute."

    Village of Prairie du Sac Ordinance 9.2.1
    "No person, except a sheriff, police officer or other law enforcement officer, shall ... have any firearm, compound or strung bow, rifle, spring gun, air gun or pneumatic pellet gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and enclosed or encased within a carrying case or other suitable container."

    Village of Sauk City Ordinance 239-7A
    "No person except a sheriff, police officer or other law officer shall ... have any firearm, rifle, spring gun, air gun, or pneumatic pellet gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container in which the weapon is not visible."



  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Wildman said open carry laws don't work in today's culture, particularly in population centers.
    "Given the population density of our communities, when a person walks down the street with a gun in this day and age, that's going to make folks uncomfortable," he said.

    Wrong. I've open-carried dozens of times in "population centers" much denser than Sauk City and PDS, and have not observed a SINGLE instance where people were uncomfortable.

    Last week I even had a nice old lady stop me in Home Depot while I was Open Carrying and ask me about which concrete she should use. We carried on a 10 minute conversation about her project. She was not the slightest bit uncomfortable. Just one example of hundreds.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Tell the P.D/Sheriff's Dept. to clarify this again with the WI AG. They think they are above him or the law, and they can do what they want, just like the chief flynn in Milwaukee.

    These people should leave the US and live in other communist countries, so they can do what they want.

    Remember, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. :celebrate

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Ahhh yeah another salty taste in my mouth!! There ******* on us again! We seriously need legal help on this.Same with the Milwaukee county ordinance, because obviously us calling doesn't seem to help...... Is there any other way than getting arrested and spending boat loads of money on legal fee's? I honostly don't have a clue, what can we do about these ordinances? I'm sorry to say it but I almost feel as if the system is broken......... :?



    Ben

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI, ,
    Posts
    102

    Post imported post

    [img]C:%5CTom%27s%20Documents%5CPersonal%5Cmrs%20doubtf ire.jpg[/img]Wow, I didn't know that Mrs. Doubtfire lived in Sauk City.


    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/TJDAVI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/img]
    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/TJDAVI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img][img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/TJDAVI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/img]

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    Is there any other way than getting arrested and spending boat loads of money on legal fee's? I honostly don't have a clue, what can we do about these ordinances?
    You can bring an action in state court to have the ordinances declared invalid - and while normally it is not a good idea to litigate these things as a criminal defendant, these ordinances appear to have very minor civil penalties, so even if you were ticketed, you could probably fight it that way.

    Normally public pressure on city councils and managers get these things admitted as being invalid - so residents in those towns and surrounding areas need to make some noise.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    BJA wrote:
    Is there any other way than getting arrested and spending boat loads of money on legal fee's? I honostly don't have a clue, what can we do about these ordinances?
    You can bring an action in state court to have the ordinances declared invalid - and while normally it is not a good idea to litigate these things as a criminal defendant, these ordinances appear to have very minor civil penalties, so even if you were ticketed, you could probably fight it that way.

    Normally public pressure on city councils and managers get these things admitted as being invalid - so residents in those towns and surrounding areas need to make some noise.
    Mike, thank you for your time. I agree with you on this case.

  8. #8
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Wildman said open carry laws don't work in today's culture, particularly in population centers.
    "Given the population density of our communities, when a person walks down the street with a gun in this day and age, that's going to make folks uncomfortable," he said. "We're not saying they can't have a gun. We're not saying they can't carry a gun. We're just saying there's a way to do it without making everyone uneasy".
    Somebody tell Wildman to come visit Arizona where we walk down the street with a gun on our hip in this day and age.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Open Carry, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    GWbiker wrote:
    Wildman said open carry laws don't work in today's culture, particularly in population centers.
    "Given the population density of our communities, when a person walks down the street with a gun in this day and age, that's going to make folks uncomfortable," he said. "We're not saying they can't have a gun. We're not saying they can't carry a gun. We're just saying there's a way to do it without making everyone uneasy".
    Somebody tell Wildman to come visit Arizona where we walk down the street with a gun on our hip in this day and age.
    Wiildman likes guns, and knows the law, he just ignore it. He pretends that the law doesn't exist, but his. I don't think he wants to come down to Arizona, because he is WI Diamond Doolye's Assistant.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    WI Patriot wrote:
    Wow, I didn't know that Mrs. Doubtfire lived in Sauk City.
    Hmmm,,,"Mrs. Doubtfire"! I bet she does more than throw a lime at you if you act in a threatening manner!

    So the U.S. and state constitution does not apply in Sauk and Prairie Du Sac these days?

    Does anyone have the E-Mails address of the police chief and the town board members? it seems like they need a little refresher course.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Could one possibly litigate as there own attorny in a case like this? I mean I have read the Milwaukee County ordinance and Sauk/ Prarie Du Sac ordinances and they appear to be clearly in violation of the state pre-emption statute. When Mr. Greg, Myself and others were looking into the Park ordinance I think the fine came up as possibly 800$. I didn't mean to sound pessimistic in my other post but jeez I would have thought the city or county would have abolished them already seeing as they are both clearly in violation.

    Ben

  12. #12
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    BJA wrote:
    Is there any other way than getting arrested and spending boat loads of money on legal fee's? I honostly don't have a clue, what can we do about these ordinances?
    You can bring an action in state court to have the ordinances declared invalid - and while normally it is not a good idea to litigate these things as a criminal defendant, these ordinances appear to have very minor civil penalties, so even if you were ticketed, you could probably fight it that way.

    Normally public pressure on city councils and managers get these things admitted as being invalid - so residents in those towns and surrounding areas need to make some noise.
    Criminal defendant? What's the crime? How about if you are arrested, sue them for violation of civil rights?

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    BJA wrote:
    Is there any other way than getting arrested and spending boat loads of money on legal fee's? I honostly don't have a clue, what can we do about these ordinances?
    You can bring an action in state court to have the ordinances declared invalid - and while normally it is not a good idea to litigate these things as a criminal defendant, these ordinances appear to have very minor civil penalties, so even if you were ticketed, you could probably fight it that way.

    Normally public pressure on city councils and managers get these things admitted as being invalid - so residents in those towns and surrounding areas need to make some noise.
    Criminal defendant? What's the crime? How about if you are arrested, sue them for violation of civil rights?
    Here it appears a summons wold be issued, but then indeed you are litigating as a criminal Defendant, and a civil suit would most likley have to wait until your criminal cae was over.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    As per Village of Prairie du Sac Administrator Alan Wildman, from the article :

    "Given the population density of our communities, when a person walks down the street with a gun in this day and age, that's going to make folks uncomfortable," he said. "We're not saying they can't have a gun. We're not saying they can't carry a gun. We're just saying there's a way to do it without making everyone uneasy."

    Yeah,,,,it's called Concealed Carry !

  15. #15
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    WI Patriot wrote:
    Wow, I didn't know that Mrs. Doubtfire lived in Sauk City.
    Hmmm,,,"Mrs. Doubtfire"! I bet she does more than throw a lime at you if you act in a threatening manner!

    So the U.S. and state constitution does not apply in Sauk and Prairie Du Sac these days?

    Does anyone have the E-Mails address of the police chief and the town board members? it seems like they need a little refresher course.
    Oh come on! I had the pleasure of meeting Candy at the La Crosse picnic and speaking with her. There is no doubt about the fire in her soul or her passion for pro-gun causes. I am happy she is on our side!

    As far as some email addresses, here is the email of Prairie du Sac administrator Wildman:

    awildman@wppienergy.org

    Sauk Prairie's Chief of Police Jerry Strunz can be reached at:

    jerrys@saukprairiepd.com

    Let 'em know what you think of their ignorant comments that were printed in that story!



    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    "A respresentative of a gun rights organization is questioning the legality of ordinances that place restrictions on gun owners when they enter the villages of Sauk City and Prairie du Sac .
    Both villages require gun owners to unload and encase their weapons when in the villages.
    Candace Dainty, who lives in Sauk City and is the state coordinator for the Second Amendment Sisters, said she believes the ordinances do not follow established state law and go against recent statements made by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen about the right of citizens in Wisconsin to openly carry a firearm in the state.
    "The state of Wisconsin says open carry is legal," she said.
    However, ordinances that have been on the books in both villages for decades contradict that view and Sauk Prairie Police Chief Jerry Strunz referred to the ordinances when asked about how officers should handle a person who openly displays a firearm.
    "Both communities have ordinances stating that weapons have to be unlocked and cased," he said.
    Strunz said he believed most people living in and around Sauk Prairie were aware of the restrictions and followed them.
    Dainty argued that the ordinances have no legal standing because of Wisconsin Act 72, passed in 1995. She said the Act restricts municipalities from passing laws that are more strict than state laws related to firearms. The Act states that any ordinances in place prior to the passage of the Act "shall have no legal effect."
    Van Hollen's opinion was provided in a memorandum sent to prosecutors across the state in April and was intended as a guide for district attorneys considering whether to issue charges for gun-carrying violations.
    Repeated phone calls and messages left on the telephone of Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett seeking her perspective on the issue were not returned.
    Sauk City attorney Erin Brennan, who handles prosecutions for Sauk City in Sauk Prairie Municipal Court, did not return a message left at her office Monday.
    Village of Prairie du Sac Administrator Alan Wildman said application of the ordinance is "up to the officer in each situation."
    He said he believed Van Hollen's comments were directed toward a specific incident in Milwaukee.
    "As a municipality, one of our responsibilities is to provide for public safety," he said. "The village board decided this was an important public safety issue and a good thing to have on the books."
    Wildman said an infraction that did not include any other kind of offense most likely would be a civil matter handled in municipal court with the strictest penalty amounting to a fine."

    -------

    Are you serious? There was a time when seeing a black man meant you crossed the street to the other side. There was a time when Homosexuals couldn't hold hands and walk down the street without being assaulted.

    While the right in question in those examples is a merely implied civil right, and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is a very blatantly defined Constitutional one; the hate, propagandist lies, and prejudice against all 3 is identical.

    If you fear a gun owner simply going about their business, there is something desperately wrong in your head, and you need to seek psychiatric help. Ranting and spreading soft-mannered hate-speech on the matter instead, is damn irresponsible, and terroristically familiar. Especially for a figurehead of a community. For a Head of a Police Department, some may even consider it a breach of oath.

    There are hundreds of examples across the nation which prove that Open Carry works damn well. So well, that the false 'need' for police to even exist, is being called into question. Losing your job is what you're really afraid of. You need people to keep believing in your hate and fear, or you may cease to be in a position to bilk them for all your pork-barreling.

    I hope the village board is prepared to pay the price for their arrogance. And should Mr. Strunz forget his place, as another prominent tyrant in his state has, he should be prepared for even worse. We the People have had our fill of imperialists like you hiding behind lies and fear-mongering as a justification for wiping you ass with the Bill of Rights.

    You both disgust me, and belong in a different country. You have no respect for Basic Human Rights? Go somewhere else. This is AMERICA.

    -----

    sent
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I work in Prairie Du Sac and have submitted a letter to the editor and Candy did as well. From what we can tell they will both be published next week Wednesday. (Thursday for view on the internet). There is word out there that the Wisconisn State Journal is watching this.

    Candy signed up on the forum today, you may want to remove your comment WI Patriot......
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Candy.. I LOVE YOU!! Awesome article and great photo! I have to get one of those shirts!

    Give them hell!!



    Your Sister in Arms...



    Nicole

    Maryland State Co-Coordinator

    Second Amendment Sisters!!!

    Firearms.. The Ultimate in Feminine Protection!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Isn't it odd that the two prosecuting attorneys, positions normally open to media attention due to their political nature, have suddenly forgotten how to use modern tools of communication?

    The phrase 'duck and cover' comes immediately to mind!
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  20. #20
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    And I thought theSecond Amendment Sisterswould carry this. I guess not...

    I for one, am let down... But hey, there only rights...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I open carry in California all the time. I have shot down all those stupid urban legends about dense populations.

    http://caopencarry.blogspot.com

    CARRY ON!

    -N8

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    And I thought theSecond Amendment Sisterswould carry this. I guess not...

    I for one, am let down... But hey, there only rights...
    Still trolling?

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    smooth wrote:
    AaronS wrote:
    And I thought theSecond Amendment Sisterswould carry this. I guess not...

    I for one, am let down... But hey, they're only rights...
    Still trolling?
    ...then I'm gonna play grammar police.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dunnell, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    My opinion here, but if a person has a permit to carry a weapon, they should be able to be in a school area. I really don't care what anybody says on this. Where are all these gun crimes happening at? You are at a school play and a kid comes in shooting??? Guess what? Nobody there can do anything but get shot. You are trusted with a permit to carry in public, it should be good anywhere. I do believe though certain places they should be covered, like in a school for etc.

  25. #25
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Hiperf2009 wrote:
    My opinion here, but if a person has a permit to carry a weapon, they should be able to be in a school area. I really don't care what anybody says on this. Where are all these gun crimes happening at? You are at a school play and a kid comes in shooting??? Guess what? Nobody there can do anything but get shot. You are trusted with a permit to carry in public, it should be good anywhere. I do believe though certain places they should be covered, like in a school for etc.
    The real joke is to take a look at the Milwaukee school zones. About 80 % of the city!!! WI Patriot went as far as to draw it up with the homicides in Milwaukee. It is so bad, I will never buy a house in a school zone, ever! Thank God, so far, I am not in one.

    Oh, and Ixtow, I HAD to GED. Thanks for reminding me. I am 40, and still working on my spelling...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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