South Milwaukee to consider open-carry issue

imported post

Saw this article on jsonline.com:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/46711147.html

South Milwaukee to consider open-carry issue
By Tom Kertscher of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Jun. 2, 2009 6:06 a.m.

South Milwaukee - The Common Council tonight will consider an ordinance that would allow police to write tickets if people carry guns into businesses that post signs saying no guns are allowed.
Businesses already have the right under state law to regulate whether customers can openly carry guns into their businesses, said Police Chief Ann Wellens.
The new ordinance would give police the authority to write tickets to violators, she said.
Like chiefs in some other communities, Wellens has already notified businesses of their right to post signs banning the so-called open carry of guns.
The notices were prompted by a memorandum issued April 20 by state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen saying that the open carry of guns is legal.
State statutes do impose restrictions, however, including banning the open carry of guns in taverns, schools and public buildings.
____________________________________________________________________

As people have mentioned in other posts, businesses that don't want people to OC evidently don't want the busine$$ of the people who OC. But a special ordinance to ticket people who OC in businesses that post signs saying no guns are allowed? How about the business owner asking the person OCing to leave? A ticket for what? Trespassing? Disorderly Conduct?

This is another example of the overreaching arm of an anti-gun government entity trying to provide a nanny state, and over reacting before there is a problem. Has there been an outcry from businesses having this problem? Has there been police calls regarding brandishing, quick-drawing OCers in the mom and pop stores?
Of course not. This is just another intimidation tactic.

Memo to business owners:
http://www.southmilwaukeepd.org/pdf/business letter oc.pdf

No Weapons Sign:
http://www.southmilwaukeepd.org/images/No Weapons Sign jpg.jpg


MOLON LABE!!!!!!

imported post

Down the page on the jsonline.com website was this, also from South Milwaukee:

South Milwaukee council may change sex offender ordinance

By Tom Kertscher of the Journal Sentinel Jun. 1, 2009 | South Milwaukee - The Common Council on Tuesday will consider changing its sex offender ordinance so that offenders would be allowed to accompany their own children to school and to school functions.
Police Chief Ann Wellens said Monday she would not make a recommendation on the proposed exemption.
___________________________________________

So South Milwaukee will make special exceptions for sex offenders, with the police chief silent on the issue, but woe be it to someone OCing in a business with a dopey "no weapons allowed" sign.

So OC in South Milwaukee is frowned upon, but being a sex offender is just fine!

imported post

Ahhhhh I love my city and state....NOT. First off I believe this would infringe upon the 66.049 pre-emption statute.ANyone familiar with the legislation in regards to businesses posting a sign and non-compliance, a fine? or something on the state level? I'd love to call them THIS morning. I'll look hard myself!

But in all seriousness, this is rediculous just last december South Milwaukee imposed an ordinance banning parkong trailers, boats or cars on YOUR OWN grass. I obviously have no frickin clue about the people I live around.....



I'll post when I have more info,



Ben

imported post

BJA wrote:

First off I believe this would infringe upon the 66.049 pre-emption statute.

Click to expand...

Why? Private property owners have rights too.

66.0409 negates any laws regarding the ownership or carrying of firearms (that don't line up with the state's laws).

That has zero impact on a private property owner saying he doesn't want weapons carried on his property / in his store.

I doubt they could constitutionally impose restrictions based on a posted sign, but if you are personally told by the property owner / manager that either the gun leaves or you leave, and you ignore their request...they can throw pretty harsh laws out there and be just fine in the eyes of the constitution and 66.0409.

imported post

I am not arguing the property owner's rigths, I am arguing whether the locality has the right to impose an ordinance in this case.



Well a firearm specific ordinance in regards to carry for one, is nullified if it is not similar and less restrictive. Help me figure out if it is in confliction. What are the penalties as recognized by the state, that are specific to someone carrying a gun in a store with a no-guns sign is up? Once we figure that out we can see if it's in confliction. I agree the owner does have the right to prohibit carrying in his store. My only beef is if there may be a local ordinance that pertains to this carrying. Lets find the state legislation that deals with this and we can analyze this further.



Ben

imported post

seems redundant to me.. if i go to your house and you want to throw me out.. you have every right to..
if i refuse there are already ordinances in place for that.. should make no difference if im carrying a gun or not..
if this is ONLY for people that carry.. that seems a little discriminatory to me.

imported post

Thats what I'm saying Scamp, there cannot be a firearms specific odfinance. It must be tresspassing or disorderly conduct.



Here is a memo from the Sheboygan CountyDA:





Private Business Prohibitions[/b]

Constitutional rights are checks on government [/i]power, not private entities. Accordingly, any private business, whether a mini-mart, a grocery store or a factory, etc., may prohibit firearms on their property and in their buildings. Failure to comply with such a private business prohibition may result in trespass or disorderly conduct charges.



^ Under the state pre-emption law they have to charge it like that. They cannot make firearm specific laws that are NOT similar or stringent. From what I can see the lack of State Law regulating complying with a no firearm sign would make there ordinance null? Does anyone else see what I see? They cannot charge themin violation ofa firearm specific local ordinance, they must charge them with tresspassing or disorderly conduct, something to that effect.....



Anyone agree?





Ben

imported post

I would simply say that it violates the property owners rights to NOT charge the individual.

Lets say some OCer didn't see a sign. He walks into the store and the manager asks him to leave or put his firearm in his car or what have you. The manager may not want to have him charged with anything.He just may not want the firearm in the store (hence the sign) Themanager probably doesn't want to ban the guy from comming back into his store. That would be great for business.:quirky

Just like the state would violate the store owners rights by not allowing the said owner to put up a "no firearms" sign, the state also violates the owners rights by not allowing the owner to decide whether or notto press any charges.

imported post

Make sure you let businesses know that they lost sales because of their policy.

Send the manager copies of receipts of things you buy elsewhere that you would've bought in their store.

imported post

Will do. I just contacted the SouthMilwaukee Police department. The chief of police and board members are all in a meeting till noon, (right before I leave to work):?. But I was able to talk to an officer. From what the officer told me is that they are looking to duplicate the state statute. He wasn't able to give me the statute or the exact wording of the ordinance. But I hope thats all there trying to do, just duplicating the state statute and not making something more restrictive in non-compliance with the state pre-emption statute.



Ben

imported post

i guess i dont understand the reason for duplicating laws that are already in effect...
what purpose does that serve?

imported post

skamp wrote:

seems redundant to me.. if i go to your house and you want to throw me out.. you have every right to..
if i refuse there are already ordinances in place for that.. should make no difference if im carrying a gun or not..
if this is ONLY for people that carry.. that seems a little discriminatory to me.

Click to expand...

This is also my point from my original post. If a business owner asks you to leave his business because you're loitering, creating a problem, whatever; they can do so, it's their business. My issue is with creating a local ordinance to target specific persons, i.e. people who OC.
Granted, I don't remember the last time I was shopping in South Milwaukee, but I would avoid making a purchase at any business with a sign that says "No Weapons Allowed". In fact, I would go into the business just to let them know that I will not purchase anything because of their sign.
They don't want me to OC in their business? Fine. That is their right. It is also my right to patronize businesses that I choose, and boycott those with whom I do not agree.

imported post

skamp wrote:

i guess i dont understand the reason for duplicating laws that are already in effect...
what purpose does that serve?

Click to expand...

Because state laws are handled by the state System.

By making it a local ordinance, they process it through muni court and keep the money from the fines.

imported post

Teej wrote:

skamp wrote:

i guess i dont understand the reason for duplicating laws that are already in effect...
what purpose does that serve?

Click to expand...

Because state laws are handled by the state System.

By making it a local ordinance, they process it through muni court and keep the money from the fines.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's it exactly.

imported post

I'd even say that in many cases (though not all) it's to our benefit that the laws do get duplicated.

That's why every county and most cities pass their own laws on, say, speeding. Wouldn't want to clog the state court system with all of those, plus losing the ticket revenue.

Or as another example...laws on pot. Many counties have adopted laws a bit softer than the state's (including milwaukee and waukesha). You _could_ be rendered to state prosecution, but generally they prefer to deal with it administratively and keep the fine themselves rather than have to worry about locking you up and all the extra paperwork.

imported post

If they pass this law, any judge that can read most likely would disregard it on appeal of a ticket. There cannot be extra restrictions for gun carriers, state preemption covers that. If a property owners wants to kick someone out for OC'ing that is fine, but there are already laws covering that.

imported post

Teej wrote:

skamp wrote:

i guess i dont understand the reason for duplicating laws that are already in effect...
what purpose does that serve?

Click to expand...

Because state laws are handled by the state System.

By making it a local ordinance, they process it through muni court and keep the money from the fines.

Click to expand...

i didnt even think about that.. thanks for clearing that up..

imported post

Sounds to me like South Milwaukee is considering passing an ordiance in violation of the state preemption statute. we need to see the details but lobbying should start now to oppose the effort.

imported post

is the council meeting tonight?? if so, get some folks there to speak against the ordiance as violating preemption.

--

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/46729827.html

So. Milw Considers Open Carry Gun Ordinance
By Diane Pathieu with Jay Sorgi


Story Created: Jun 2, 2009

Story Updated: Jun 2, 2009


The open-carry gun issue comes to South Milwaukee.

A new ordinance would give police authority to write tickets to people openly carrying their weapons in businesses that have signs that ban them.

Would you put up that sign?

One local store loves the idea: Wild Flour Bakery in Downtown South Milwaukee.

They've served Southeast Wisconsin for years through ups and downs.

"We were broken into a couple of years ago," said Tina Behling of Wild Flour Bakery.

"You don't know what to expect. It's very scary. There could have been someone in here with a weapon."

To Behling and the bakery owners, banning people from bringing guns into their stores is a great idea.

"The only people we really want to see in here with weapons would be your police officers," said Behling.

South Milwaukee's common council is considering an ordinance regulating the carrying of firearms.

A business would have the right to post a sign banning guns in their stores, and if passed, officers would have the right to ticket violators.

Behling says she understands it's a fine line, but in her mind, her safety and that of her customers is most important.

"Officers are the only ones to me that should carry guns, and I know it's against their rights, but I feel very strongly that this is how it should be."

The South Milwaukee common council is scheduled to take up this ordinance at their meeting Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m.

imported post

BJA wrote:

I am not arguing the property owner's rigths, I am arguing whether the locality has the right to impose an ordinance in this case.



Well a firearm specific ordinance in regards to carry for one, is nullified if it is not similar and less restrictive. Help me figure out if it is in confliction. What are the penalties as recognized by the state, that are specific to someone carrying a gun in a store with a no-guns sign is up? Once we figure that out we can see if it's in confliction. I agree the owner does have the right to prohibit carrying in his store. My only beef is if there may be a local ordinance that pertains to this carrying. Lets find the state legislation that deals with this and we can analyze this further.



Ben

Click to expand...

I think what this law is telling us, is that the sign,IS the owner telling us we are not welcome. If we go in anyway, a fine will be imposed. Very much like the fine for State Parks. So if the State can do it to us in a Park, I guess the sign will do it to us in a store. I thought Minn. had the same kind of sign law.?

Click to expand...

The thing I am also thinking, is that all our work is starting to pay off. People are accepting that I have a right to carry. Private owners can, and should be able to ban me, but I am still being accepted as a person with the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...