• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

South Milwaukee considers fining open carriers - MEETING TONIGHT 16 June!!

Mugenlude

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Racine, WI
imported post

BJA wrote:
Just got off the phone with John Chism's office the District attorny. They will be calling me back very shortly.Then we will go from there, and hopefully take hubert's track and file a complaint. So who wants to be the 15 people with me? Also Doug could you please elaborate lol.



Ben
Do these 15 people have to be residents of South Milwaukee? I know it might hold more weight if they were, but I'm a resident of that state that would typically patron the area so it would effect me.
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Okay I just got off of the phone with the south Milwaukee City attorny. It appears I am gaining ground! But it's not over yet.....:banghead: He will be looking further into the state law regarding this. But if he can't find anything that circumvents what I am saying he may be persuaded by what I said and not go forward with the parts of the ordinance that I believe to be in confliction.

Magenlude, I hope I can fixit by just talking to them for now. The City attorny at least seems like he doesn't want to do anything illegal.However the DA's office should hopefully be calling me back and I will talk to them about further action.

Thanks for sending the letterLammie!



Ben
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I sent this memo to the So. Milwaukee Mayor, Aldemen and Police Chief Ann Wellens.

It is said that the city of So. Milwaukee is in the process of enacting an ordinance regulating the open carry of firearms within it's jurisdiction. The ordinance is supposedly numbered 23.03. It reads:

Section 23.03 Firearms Prohibited. (1) It is unlawful for any person to carry any firearm, loaded or unloaded in any public building, on the grounds surrounding any public building, in any public park, in any school, on any school grounds, on any playground,at little league field,throughout Grant Park and the Oak Creek Parkway, on any premises licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages and on the grounds of and within any premises where the owner or lessee has posted a sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms.

I would like to call your attention to the fact that certain portions of the ordinance are contrary to the limits of firearm control put on political subdivisions of the state, by way of state statute 66.0409.

66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.

(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), 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.


Under the umbrella of s66.0409 it is my interpretation that the parts of the proposed ordinance that are in opposition to s66.0409 are:

, on the grounds surrounding any public building, in any public park, on any playground, at little league fields, throughout Grant Park and the Oak Creek Parkway, and on the grounds of and within any premises where the owner or lessee has posted a sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms.

The State has no statutes prohibiting or regulating carry of firearms in those locations. The State prohibitions are limited to: in public buildings, places that sell on sale alcohol, transport in or on a vehicle and in school zones. Any local ordinances that prohibit and regulate firearm carry in additional locations are in fact not similar to and are more strict than the state statutes and are therefore contrary to s66.0409.

The statute references the posting of “no guns allowed” signs by private businesses. That in itself is prohibited by the word, bearing, as contained in s66.0409. While it may, in dispute, be allowable for business owners to restrict access to their establishments, it is against s66.0409 for a local subdivision to ticket and penalize a person for firearm carry in private businesses. If such person refuses to leave at owner request then a charge of disorderly conduct or trespass may be warranted, but not a ticket for the simpleact of firearm carry.

Attorney General Van Hollen's recent memorandum which confirmed that the people of Wisconsin do have the constitutional right to open carry firearms is sometimes used as an endorsement of “no guns allowed “ signage by private businesses, in fact your own police chief Ann Wellens has done so. There is no mention of such a matter in the AG memorandum.

Respectfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Good work guys - keep it up! Let's try to head this off at the pass.

Maybe open carriers can show up to the next council meeting and speak against the proposal as (1) Illegal (violates letter and spirit of preemption, (2) and not necessary as civil and criminal tresspass law already gives property owners the tools they need to control access to their properties.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

Maybe open carriers can show up to the next council meeting and speak against the proposal as (1) Illegal (violates letter and spirit of preemption, (2) and not necessary as civil and criminal tresspass law already gives property owners the tools they need to control access to their properties.

A group of carriers protesting outside the building anyway.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

lockman wrote:
Maybe open carriers can show up to the next council meeting and speak against the proposal as (1) Illegal (violates letter and spirit of preemption, (2) and not necessary as civil and criminal tresspass law already gives property owners the tools they need to control access to their properties.

A group of carriers protesting outside the building anyway.
Right, sorry to leave any implication you all could carry inside the goivt. building . . . yet :)
 

Lammie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
907
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I received the following emails from Police Cheif Ann Wellens of the So. Milwaukee police department. They are in response to my email to her concerning proposed ordinance 23.03.

Mr.XXXXX

Thank you for your email. The Common Council had the first reading of the ordinance on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at the Common Council meeting. The ordinance was referred back to committee for further discussion. The ordinance has not passed as the second and third readings have not occurred at the Council level. The Legislation & Permits Committee will be holding a meeting to discuss this ordinance. I would encourage you to attend the meeting to express your concerns over the proposed ordinance in reference to the Wisconsin State Statute you cite. The meeting date will be posted on the City of South Milwaukee’s web site.

I will forward your concerns to City Attorney Murphy, the author of the ordinance.

Regarding the last paragraph: On April 30, 2009 the Wisconsin Department of Justice posted on WILENET a document from Attorney General Van Hollen regarding FAQ from law enforcement:

“Q. May private businesses and private property owners in Wisconsin designate their property as a no-open-carry-zone?”

“A. Yes. No state or federal laws prevent a private business owner or property owner from prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm on privately owned property.

Both the Wisconsin & United States Constitutions protect a person’s right to bear arms. However, the constitutional rights limit government action, not private action. Private property does not lose its private character merely because the public may use it for designated purposes such as shopping. Just as businesses may exclude individuals who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights on private property, they also may exclude individuals who exercise their rights under Article I, 25 and the Second Amendment.

Business owners may choose the method by which they inform the public that firearms are not permitted on their premises. They may, for example, post a sign notifying visitors that firearms are not permitted, or they may orally inform individuals of that policy.”

“Q. What should we do if a person openly carries a firearm into a private no-open-carry-zone?”

“A. If someone refuses to comply with a business’ request that they not come on their premises with a firearm, you should respond as you would in other situations where a person has been asked to leave private property and refuses. Depending on the facts and circumstances, trespassing or disorderly conduct charges may arise out of that situation.”

You are correct to state that I sent a letter to business owners in South Milwaukee regarding this issue. I believe the letter sent properly reflects the information provided by the Attorney General.

If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at the South Milwaukee Police Department. I would also recommend you attend the Legislation & Permits meeting to address the committee members regarding your comments.

Sincerely,

Chief Ann M. Wellens


Chief Ann M. Wellens

South Milwaukee Police Department

2424 15th Avenue

South Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53172

414-768-8060

414-768-8067 (fax)

wellens@ci.south-milwaukee.wi.us

**********************************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This is a transmission from the City of South Milwaukee and may contain information, which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 414-762-2222.

CAUTION:

Internet and e-mail communications are the City of South Milwaukee’s property and the City of South Milwaukee reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. The City of South Milwaukee reserves the right to monitor messages by authorized City of South Milwaukee Personnel at any time without further consent.

**********************************************************************

Mr.XXXXXX:

I spoke to City Attorney Murphy regarding your concerns about the proposed ordinance and Wisconsin State Statue 66.0409. City Attorney Murphy stated the proposed ordinance will contain changes to reflect 66.0409 at the next Legislation & Permits meeting. Please monitor the City web site for a meeting date. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chief Ann M. Wellens

Chief Ann M. Wellens

South Milwaukee Police Department

2424 15th Avenue

South Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53172

414-768-8060

414-768-8067 (fax)

wellens@ci.south-milwaukee.wi.us

**********************************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This is a transmission from the City of South Milwaukee and may contain information, which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 414-762-2222.

CAUTION:

Internet and e-mail communications are the City of South Milwaukee’s property and the City of South Milwaukee reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. The City of South Milwaukee reserves the right to monitor messages by authorized City of South Milwaukee Personnel at any time without further consent.

**********************************************************************
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

So...

The city attorney wrote an ordinace that he, being a lawyer, should have reasonably known was in violation of state statutes? Call me dumb here, but whosigns this guy's paycheck? Is he even a lawyer?
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

pvtschultz wrote:
So...

The city attorney wrote an ordinace that he, being a lawyer, should have reasonably known was in violation of state statutes? Call me dumb here, but whosigns this guy's paycheck? Is he even a lawyer?
Thats the place to look at. The PEOPLE in charge that do this stuff.
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

We have two more common council hearings to go before this may be passed. I believe they may be spaced out every two weeks. I'm hoping on monday when I call up the city attorny that he has freaking realized that he can't pass this ordinance, and drops the whole ordinance.

We know EVERYTHING besides the inside the school, and inside the gov't building is pre-empted. But is there actually a statute that deals with someone going into a private business with a gun specifically where they are not welcome? I haven't found one that deals with that specifically. I know a business owner can turn away ANYONE he wants and ask them to leave. But the point I'm asking is if there is a specific statute that deals with the private buisiness and possession of weapons on others.



Ben
 

JGW

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
15
Location
South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Count me in to do what ever, just let me know where and when, but I work 2nd shift and can not make the meetings, as my employee does not give paid days off. Cheap security Co.
 

Rick Finsta

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
232
Location
Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug, the genius of Shakespeare is that he DID write for the masses, and for the elites, all at the same time. His comedies are especially ripe with crude humor that the elites and highly educated would not understand, but the rabble on the ground floor would find distasteful, and therefore, hilarious.

That said, you do tend to be a bit cryptic.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

BJA wrote:
We have two more common council hearings to go before this may be passed. I believe they may be spaced out every two weeks. I'm hoping on monday when I call up the city attorny that he has freaking realized that he can't pass this ordinance, and drops the whole ordinance.

We know EVERYTHING besides the inside the school, and inside the gov't building is pre-empted. But is there actually a statute that deals with someone going into a private business with a gun specifically where they are not welcome? I haven't found one that deals with that specifically. I know a business owner can turn away ANYONE he wants and ask them to leave. But the point I'm asking is if there is a specific statute that deals with the private buisiness and possession of weapons on others.
Ben
The issue IMO is the fine. Any fine which is more stringent than state law cannot be enforced since it limits the "bearing" of arms in a manner which is more stringent that state law.

I maintain that private businesses cannot stop you from OCing in their store, because of federal law which makes it illegal for any entity to infringe the rights of another person. I can't recall the law, but it exists. Since OC is a right, not a privilege, no one can stop you from doing it on their property, legally. However this is not recognized by the states with unlicensed OC somehow. But for now, it is best to disarm when asked to leave, or better yet shop elsewhere.
 

USAFdude02

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
7
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

smithman wrote:
The issue IMO is the fine. Any fine which is more stringent than state law cannot be enforced since it limits the "bearing" of arms in a manner which is more stringent that state law.

I maintain that private businesses cannot stop you from OCing in their store, because of federal law which makes it illegal for any entity to infringe the rights of another person. I can't recall the law, but it exists. Since OC is a right, not a privilege, no one can stop you from doing it on their property, legally. However this is not recognized by the states with unlicensed OC somehow. But for now, it is best to disarm when asked to leave, or better yet shop elsewhere.
I agree with that statement. But as said before anyone at any time can ask you to leave their property for any reason. If you refuse, you can then be charged with trespassing...kind of their catch 22.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

smithman wrote:
I maintain that private businesses cannot stop you from OCing in their store, because of federal law which makes it illegal for any entity to infringe the rights of another person. I can't recall the law, but it exists.
Sorry, no such law exists.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post


Ifa fine is assessed because someone is OC'ing in a situation where someone else is not subject to the same fine under identical circumstances less the OC, then I see no difference than charging an OC'er with disorderly conduct. Only if the OCer commits a DC or Trespass within the legal definition in WI statutesis conviction under such an ordinance sustainable.
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Bad news guys.. I just got off the phone with South Milwaukee Attorny Mr. Murphy. I reitterated that many items on the proposed ordinance were in confliction with the state statute. Yet he responded "then I guess we disagree". Okay so talking is not going to help anymore.... And from personal conversations it appears the mayor and alderpersons are going to go along with whatever Mr. Murphy declares is legal.

So we should probobly explorer Hubert's strategy of filing with the DA's office. Yet I have contacted the DA's office and was told I would get a call back on several different occasions yet I never did.

WTF!! So who wants togo down there?

I mean seriously the NRA, lawyers, and law makers don't give a shit about upholding the law? :banghead:



Ben
 
Top