Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Change Your Laws!

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

    Post imported post

    Well, looking over Cedarburg and Mequon’s local laws, I found that both have ordinances banning open carry. So, I sent every Common Council Member and the Mayors a letter (about 18). Most looked just like this.



    Dear Mequon Common Council Member,



    I was just looking over a few of the local Cedarburg regulations, and bumped into Sec. 46-107 (General prohibition (of firearms). This ordinance clearly prohibits the open carry of a firearm.



    As I am quite sure by now you are aware, the Wisconsin State Preemption Statute 66.0409 Sub. 2, makes most of Sec.46-107, of the Mequon Village Code, null and void. Wisconsin Statute 66.0409 in part reads “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.”.

    I would like to know if the Mequon Common Council has brought up that its open carry (of a hand gun) restriction, need to be removed from your local regulations?

    If the Common Council has not yet discussed this topic, I am asking that you do so at the next meeting.



    Thank you very much for your time,



    So think any will reply?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Why should they? My pigeonhole/town mailbox always has letters in it.

    That said, my town's gun ordinance is moot for vagueness and that is good.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  4. #4
    Regular Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    was reading the paper this morning and saw this.

    local police chief supports changing village gun ordinance because he thinks

    it violates state constitution

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/46140327.html



  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    they will all go into effect if preemption is overturned, which the governor is working on.
    I agree with you that these local ordinances need to be removed.

    But I also think that if pre-emption was lifted, then there is a huge constitutional issue because its not just a 'law' or lack of a law that allows us to bear arms, we have a constitutional right.

    How can a citizen in Lannon exercise their constitutional right to bear arms if their local ordinance prohibits it?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    In accordance to the preemptive statute they have no choice in the matter. They have to relax the restrictions. Even if every person in the town votes against open carry, 900 people in Lannon do not make the laws of the state

  7. #7
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Why should they? My pigeonhole/town mailbox always has letters in it.

    That said, my town's gun ordinance is moot for vagueness and that is good.
    Well, Statute 66.0409 tells us that these laws are not legal. So as far as I can read, the old laws are not legaland, any enforcement, would also be illegal. If used, the local laws could cost the local town a good chunk of money (as it will in West Milwaukee).

    If we don't start getting this stuff off our books, who else will? This is not my fight, it is ours. I think we all need to start sending out letters, calling and forcing the needed changes.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I am totally aware of how fickle our state legislature and supreme court are. That said I doubt that Doyle or the legislature would be successful in getting the premeption statute 66.0409 recinded. In my opinion the only strong and point blank position the SSC has taken on firearm carry is to say that the State must provide a manner of carry so that people can exercise the rights we have been given by Article I section 25 of the state constitution. The SSC has also recognized that there are but two manners of carry, hidden and visible. The Court has also stated that the legislature has made the concealed carry prohibition a strict liability that even applies to Article I section 25. Ss941.23 and the strict liability it imposes on concealed carry makes open carry the only constitutional option. Those comments all add up to making any oridinance, now and in the future, that prohibits open carry unconstitutional. Those SSC opinions will also make it extremely difficult for Doyle to get enough legislative votes to repeal the premption statute.

    Of course we must pay attention to Doyle's scheme but the only scenario I can see playing out is that the legislature would re-write statute 941.23 allowing concealed carry. Of course that would come with a proliferation of requirements and restrictions. Then the whole issue of constitutional rights versus state privilege rears it's ugly head again.

    Unfortunately trying to second guess the governor, the legislature and the state supreme court is as probable as winning the lottery.

    My opinions.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    References

    State v Hamdan:

    ¶39. The State's broad police power to regulate the ownership and use of
    firearms and other weapons continues, notwithstanding Article I, Section 25.
    Nonetheless, the amendment's broad declaration of the right to keep and bear
    arms inevitably impacts the exercise of that power. In this state,
    constitutional rights do not expand the police power; they restrict the police
    power.
    (emphasis mine)

    ¶48. Wisconsin's current CCW statute is very broad. It is essentially a strict
    liability offense.
    The legislature has not authorized any statutory defenses
    or exceptions (other than peace officers) to the broad prohibition found in the
    statute. As presently construed, the statute prohibits any person, except a
    peace officer, from carrying a concealed weapon, regardless of the
    circumstances, including pursuit of one of the lawful purposes enumerated in Article I section 25. (emphasis mine)

    ¶51. As a result of our legislature's decision to prohibit the carrying of
    concealed weapons under any circumstance, the interaction between Wisconsin's
    CCW statute and the state constitution's right to bear arms is anomalous, if not
    unique. It appears that no other state, except perhaps Kansas, completely bans
    the carrying of concealed weapons by all citizens in all circumstances while
    simultaneously recognizing the right of individuals to own, possess, and carry
    firearms for lawful purposes.

    ¶71. In circumstances where the State's interest in restricting the right to
    keep and bear arms is minimal and the private interest in exercising the right
    is substantial, an individual needs a way to exercise the right without
    violating the law. We hold, in these circumstances, that regulations limiting a
    constitutional right to keep and bear arms must leave some realistic alternative
    means to exercise the right.
    (emphasis mine)

    ¶72. For instance, in order to keep and bear arms for the purpose of securing
    one's own property, a weapon must be kept somewhere and may need to be handled
    or moved, all within the weapon owner's property. During these times, the
    firearm will be either visible or concealed. The State argues that even under
    the strictest enforcement of the CCW statute, a person lawfully in possession of
    a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the
    open--holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster,
    displaying the weapon on the wall, or otherwise placing the weapon in plain
    view. (emphasis is mine)

  9. #9
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Sure do wish I could fit a good gun rack in my FJ Cruiser...

    I would love to mount a steel box to the floor of my truck (to lock up my gun), but I am under the impression that if it is mounted, I might have issues. Any ideas on this? I just hate the thought of leaving a gun in my truck, in just a plastic box...



  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    AaronS:

    Who knows. Our firearm laws are a mess.

    This is what the stupid school zone law says.

    948.605 Gun Free School Zones.

    (2) Possession of firearms 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:

    3. That is not loaded and is:

    a. encased; or

    b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a vehicle.

    Yet the state supreme court has ruled in one case that a firearm locked in a glove compartment was concealed and in another case that a firearm locked in the center console of a SUV was concealed.

    Anybody on this forum named Solomon?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Forgot to include:

    The statute reads (b)3(a) encased; or.It does not say encased; and. One could conclude that the statute requires the firearm to be uncased if locked in a rack, however then the person runs afoul of the vehicle firearm transport statute 167.31 that requires a firearm to be encased when in or on a vehicle.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    Anybody on this forum named Solomon?
    I'm all for cutting the state in half.....



    I just sent in an email about mycity's preempted ordinanceslast week to my alderperson. I got a rather nice reply.

    Here is the email corispondence. Names my have been changed to protect the inoccent.....





    Insert name of cool person here,

    I brought it to the police chiefs attention. He will be contacting the city's attorney and ordinance committee. We will hopefully get this ordinance cleaned up. Thanks ,
    Alderperson



    Hi Insert name of alderperson here,
    I was wondering if you were aware thatMy City has a preempted ordinance on the books prohibiting people from openly carrying firearms. The ordinance is in Chapter 9 under "orderly conduct" and reads; in part:


    (2) FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION; DISCHARGE, POSSESSION AND SALE
    (A) Discharging and Carrying of Firearms. No person except a sheriff, police officer or other
    law officer shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring gun, air gun, or pneumatic
    pellet gun of any description within My City,or have any firearm, rifle,
    spring gun, air gun, or pneumatic pellet gun in his possession or under his control within
    this cityunless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a
    carrying case or other suitable container.

    Although the part of the ordinance dealing with discharge is not preempted and perfectly legal according to Wisconsin State Statute 66.0409, thesecond part in bold "shall have no legal effect and is unenforceable". I would like to see what we can do about getting this ordinance changed in my city.
    Thanks,
    Awesomely cool person
    Some address inmy city

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0066.pdf

    66.0409 Local regulation of firearms. (1)In this section:
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Good responce. I am going back and forth with the DNR at this time about the same thing. I would like to see the ban in our parks removed as well.

    My wife told me that she heard Scott Walker on the radio today say that he wants to get ride of OC, for CC. At first it sounds good, but I just hate to give up a right, to only get a card back (that can be taken away). I say OC is a given, and CC is the extra thing...

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    I say OC is a given, and CC is the extra thing...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I've said it a number of times before. In my opinion our open carry rights are not up for barter. If Walker's position is to replace our open carry rights with a "the State giveth and the State taketh away" privilege then we are better off, from a firearms carry standpoint, with keeping Doyle in office. Doyle has publically gone on record that he supports open carry. There are some, including myself, that would be more comfortable with an out of sight out of mind carry manner but I personally would only accept a concealed carry provision if it came with no more prohibitions and restrictions that our present open carry rights. That is where the monster lays. There without doubt would be a great measure of chant that we need concealed carry because 48 other states allow some measure of it. That chant would gain a lot of public support because of the popularity of the subject and because it depicts Wisconsin as a maverick state.With a concealed carry friendly governor the anti-gun members of the legislature will jump upon the opportunity to enact concealed carry legislation. Legislationfilled with onerous rules and regulations. They will accomplish two goals: evisceration of our open carry rights and furthur gun control on the Wisconsin people.

    As amazing as it sounds I think many legislators were not even aware we had a constitutional right tocarry open firearms until the Attorney General's memorandum was released. Many were shocked and pledged counter action. Some that supposedly supported gun control were surprised. They felt their position was a safe one to take because they didn't feel we actually had any firearm carry rights that needed protection. As the plot unfolds this is one area we have to be very watchful of.

    As far as I am concernedthere is only one acceptable approach; repeal of the present concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23. True state compliance to the fundamental rights contained in Article I section 25 would be to allow the people to carry firearms in the manner they desire, visible or concealed.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    As far as I am concernedthere is only one acceptable approach; repeal of the present concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23. True state compliance to the fundamental rights contained in Article I section 25 would be to allow the people to carry firearms in the manner they desire, visible or concealed.
    Here we agree with one another 100%.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Lammie wrote:
    As far as I am concernedthere is only one acceptable approach; repeal of the present concealed carry prohibition statute 941.23. True state compliance to the fundamental rights contained in Article I section 25 would be to allow the people to carry firearms in the manner they desire, visible or concealed.
    Here we agree with one another 100%.
    amen..

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Just a little update on my above post:


    Cool Person,

    No the Police Chief will not be enforcing it.

    Alderperson





    Alderperson,
    Thanks, Iappreciate you taking the time to look into this for me. If it wouldn't be too much troubleit would begreatif you could give me any updates after you hear.
    Thanks again,
    Cool Person

    P.S.I gather that the Police Chief doesn't plan on attempting to enforcethis then. Correct?
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Nice job, I wish the Milwaukee County Parks Ordinance would change with a few letters. This ordinance is a pain in my side. I want to be able to walk along the beach and through seven bridges knowing I can adequately protect myself from a group of thugs.

    It looks to me now that we gotta contact the milwaukee county corporation council. They seem to be hard to contact though... Will update when I finally get to talk to them. If anyone else wants to call in regards to milwaukee county ordinace 47.05 being in confliction with the state pre-emption statute I would greatly apreciate it.



    Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel

    901 North 9th Street, Suite 303
    Milwaukee, WI 53233
    View Map & Directions
    T: 414-278-4087 F: 414-223-1249



    Ben





  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lowell, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    The township I live in has an open carry prohibition as well...I'm going to look up the exact ordinance and bring it up at the next meeting...which I believe is tomorrow. Then on to the county board since I believe dodge county still has an OC ban on the books as well.

    Or should I wait till next month and publicize my intentions to have the Lowell ordinance recinded, hoping to get more supporters?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Nytedrgn wrote:
    The township I live in has an open carry prohibition as well...I'm going to look up the exact ordinance and bring it up at the next meeting...which I believe is tomorrow. Then on to the county board since I believe dodge county still has an OC ban on the books as well.

    Or should I wait till next month and publicize my intentions to have the Lowell ordinance recinded, hoping to get more supporters?
    All you would really need to do is inform the localityof Stat. 66.049 and explain that it puts them in a highly actionable position (read lawsuit)if they try to enforce that null & void firearms ordinance by arresting an individual. Money talks!

  22. #22
    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 agree that one should contact their elected representatives first. It worked for me! I'm sure it won't work in all cases and maybe I just got lucky. I myself was surprised to getthe answer I was looking for so fast. I used to work with my alderman and maybe that had something to do with it. In any case, it just goes to show that one person can make a difference and I would hope in encourages those who have these preempted ordinances on the books to act.

    I'd also agree that pointing to the cost couldn't hurt. I'm sure the individual officers wouldn't like to be sued either.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Pointman, I called the Milwaukee CountySheriff's office and they said they will enforce it, as long as it is on the books. I didn't hear it from any other authority besides them. Thanks for risking your butt in the parks I hope you still carry without confrontation. However if you are arrested under the ordinance the max fine I believe is 800$ but I'd hope you might be able to defend yourself in courtwithout an attorny as many can see it is in clear violation of the pre-emption statute.



    Ben

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

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
  •