Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Signage

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I started this thread because the question and discussion of the legal right of private property owners to post signs, or verbally deny, entry of open carry weapons on or in their property is scattered among many other threads. The following is a statement posted on WILENET by AG Van Hollen. The posting was in response to questions from law enforcement concerning the signage question.

    “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.”


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Yes, this goes back to the old saloon days when the saloon owner would have you check your gun when you came in and then give it back when you left.

    Ha ha, here's a thought, ask the store manager who is asking that you not carry in his store if he will hold the fire arm for you until you are done shopping. Make sure you have a camera with you so you can get a picture of the expression on his face and post it here for a few laughs.

    Any property owner can ask you to leave. Period! If he does then leave immediately.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Yes that appears to be their right.Another interesting fact youshould know in case your locality tries to adress this as mine is now.NO locality may make a specific ordinance in correlation with carrying of firearms in a postednon-firearm businesses.Because there is no specific statute dealing with the above. Which is what I am trying to make the city attorny here in South Milwaukee understand.

    It appears you will only be in violation of tresspass or disorderly conduct laws. As stated above in Lammie's post.



    Ben

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Chapter 943.13

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    943.13(1m)(b)
    (b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    The real question is:

    "Is there a difference under state law between a general posting for 'no trespassing' and a conditional notice for trespassing?"

    I.e., After extending curtiledge by being open to the general public, it was my understanding that the law saysaproperty owner/agenthas to give oral notice for conditional trespass (acting out for example) from the business owner or an authorizedrepresentative (like a manager), and then, the offender has torefuse to leave, before trespass applies. Whereas, with a general"No Trespassing" sign (discounting curtiledge), effective notice has been given before entry onto the property.

    I can't remember if I saw something to that effect in the caselaw, or maybe I'm getting confused with another state now. Thoughts?


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I believe that effective notice must be made and that a sign does not fulfill that absent particular statutes. Otherwise there would be no need to involve a cop/witness to the notice.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    It doesn't get any easier than this:

    If there is a sign.....Leave!
    If you are asked to leave....Leave!

    There that was easy.

    Why argue over the property owners rights? We have bigger wars to win.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    Post imported post

    I second that J Gleason.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    It doesn't get any easier than this:

    If there is a sign.....Leave!
    If you are asked to leave....Leave!

    There that was* easy.

    Why argue over the property owners rights? We have bigger wars to win.
    Absolutely

    We all bitch about our 2A rights being violated, justifiably so in most cases, yet we forget the property owners rights. They OWN the land, they OWN the friggin building.

    The best thing we can do in my humble opinion, is to OC whenever legally possible, be extra polite and courteous when we do and educate the sheeple every time the opportunity presents itself.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Saukville, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Get over yourselves.

    We're discussing the legalpractices behind trespass laws in this state, not property owners' rights. Ask yourself what happens if you don't see a prohibitive sign, and are then charged with trespass. Contribute if you're so inclined, but don't talk to us like children.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Rick Finsta wrote:

    We're discussing the legal*practices behind trespass laws in this state, not property owners' rights.*
    These go hand in hand. Without property owners rights there would be no such thing as a trespass law.

Posting Permissions

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