• 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.

*** FIRE MISSION *** Green Bay Park Committee -Discussion Ban guns Parks

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.:banghead:

I plan on attending you should too.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/mins_agd/


[align=center]AGENDA
PARK COMMITTEE
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
City Hall, Room 310
5:30 P.M.
[/align] MEMBERS: Chairman Jerry Wiezbiskie, Celestine Jeffreys, Amy Kocha and Dan Piton
Approval of the minutes of the meeting of July 28, 2009
Adoption Of The Agenda
1.
Discussion/Action On Prohibiting Firearms And Dangerous Weapons In Parks


2.
Discussion/Action On A Playground Structure Donation Through The NFL And United Way Hometown Huddle Program


3.
Council Communication From Ald. Kocha Re: Request To Look Into Acquiring 212 S. Van Buren Street And 213-215 S. Jackson Street To Extend The Boundary Of The New Navarino Park


4.
Discussion/Action On Developing A Park Donation And Memorial Policy


5.
Discussion/Action On Facility Use Policies For Various User Groups


6.
Director’s Report

Any person wishing to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodation should contact the City Safety Manager at 448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so that arrangements can be made.
Please take notice that it is possible that additional members of the Council may attend this committee meeting, resulting in a majority or quorum of the Common Council. This may constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information gathering relative to this agenda.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Reviewing the on-line minutes of the previous, 28 July, meeting I see no provision for public comments or public comments recorded.

From the open Meetings Law Compliance Guide

Citizen participation
The open meetings law does not grant citizens a right to participate in meetings of a governmental body. There are, however, a number of state statutes which require governmental bodies to hold public hearings on specific matters. See for example, Wis. Stat. § 65.90(4) (requiring public hearing before adoption of a municipal budget) and Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4)(a) (requiring public hearing before creation of a tax incremental finance district). In the absence of such a statute, the governmental body itself is free to determine whether to allow citizen participation at its meetings. Nor does a governmental body violate the open meetings law by limiting the degree to which citizens participate.
1997 Wisconsin Act 123, effective May 2, 1998, created Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2) to allow governmental bodies to receive information from members of the public if the public notice of the meeting designates a period of public comment. That law also allows a governmental body to discuss, but not to act on, any matter raised by the public during a comment period. Although discussion of a general public comment item is permissible, it is advisable to defer extensive discussion and action on such an item until specific notice of the subject matter of the proposed action can be given.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Reviewing the on-line minutes of the previous, 28 July, meeting I see no provision for public comments or public comments recorded......................


Doug, with your vast knowledge of local government procedures and the laws they must abide by. What is your interpretation of what is happening in Green Bay and what exactly are they allowed/disallowed to do under the current regulations?

How can we stop the board from taking action? can the citizens participate in this meeting? What can concerned citizens do to stop the town from moving forwrd with this proposed ordinance and have it get tossed like the proposed ordinances that OCDO members were able to stop in South Milwaukee and Greenfield?

If this proposed ordinance is passed, how could the citizens of that town get it repealed in a timely manner.

Help us out here a little,

I kinda have a sinking feeling that the elected officials in that locale are going to do what they want anyways even if their constituents advise them otherwise. What legal recourse do we have at this point, and in the future?
 

AaronS

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

Glock34 wrote:
The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.:banghead:

I plan on attending you should too.

If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

The Parks Committee cannot pass an Ordinance, that is an action of the Common Council that here at this Committee meeting can only gather information and discuss.

They may try to implement a policy. That will depend on the powers granted the committee by their commissioning resolution/ordinance, as will the potential actions against it.

The best weapon would be an attorney prepared to argue 66.0409 to the Committee first and then the Council. Absent enforcement powers, that's just more than a bluff.

This published agenda does not notice public participation and that is the only way to be recognized. I doubt that credit should be extended too far in the quashing of other such ordinances.

They will do what they want.

The only way to stop future action is to elect a majority of principled (paleo) conservative representatives. Make your candidate take a public blood oath against 'democracy' and for your principles and let him know that you will unseat him at the least false step. Then trust your judgment and give him his head as your representative.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

AaronS wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.:banghead:

I plan on attending you should too.

If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.
can you post the text of 66.0409 for us. Thanks
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
AaronS wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
The Green Bay, Park Committee , will be meeting on Tuesday, August 25th 2009 , at Green Bay City Hall , room 310 at 5:30 pm to Discuss / taking action on Prohibiting firearms & Dangerous weapons in city parks.:banghead:

I plan on attending you should too.

If every one had an ARat your picnic, the bad would be in place.

You have to attend this meeting if you want to stop them. Bring them a copy of 66.0409. At the Greenfield meeting, we were the first peopleto show theboard 66.0409, and it killed the carry ban on the spot.
can you post the text of 66.0409 for us. Thanks

Uhm.... Look UP

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0409 (State preemption law.)
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.
(1) In this section:
(a) “Firearm” has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
(b) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or
county.
(c) “Sport shooting range” means an area designed and operated
for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting
and similar sport shooting.

(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.


(3) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing
a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm
or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components,
sold in the county.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that
is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from
enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the
discharge of a firearm.

(4) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in
effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase,
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, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as
or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance
or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and
that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase
of a handgun.
(b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17,
1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase,
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,
and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar
to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal
effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance
or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision
from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the
new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion
of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and
safety.
(5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution
that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance
or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am)
applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an
ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue
to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am),
except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that
is imposed under subch. V of ch. 77.
History: 1995 a. 72; 1999 a. 150 s. 260; Stats. 1999 s. 66.0409.
This section does not prohibit municipalities from enacting and enforcing zoning
ordinances that apply to sport shooting ranges. Town of Avon v. Oliver, 2002 WI App
97, 253 Wis. 2d 647, 644 N.W.2d 260, 01−1851.
 

GlocksRfun

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
147
Location
Waukesha, ,
imported post

It looks like the Green Bay picnic had the opposite effect there. That's crap. I don't see what's so hard to understand about 66.0409
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

No one is commissioned to enforce it. If an officer commissioned to enforce the speed limit does not see you speed, are you speeding?

We can scream and yell and jump up and down and write letters to the editor - and the tyrant wannabes will just ignore us until next election time - and then they'll lie, dissemble and procrastinate.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

If a city passes an ordinance that prohibits fire arms in city parks, that ordinance is already more stringent then the state statute in that there are more city parks then there are state parks and therefore the ordinance would be creating a larger area of restriction making the ordinance more stringent then state law.

A great example is Sheboygan. Within the city limits lies Kohler Andre State Park.

The city can enforce a fire arms restriction within that state park but not within the other city parks as that would be a larger area of restriction.

The argument is the same as Greenfield. They can not supersede state law.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Who is going to stop them?
The prepared, knowledgeable, determined and relentless voters and constituents of the locality.

As I said before, nothing good comes easy and anything good is worth fighting for.

Be sure to remind them that they can be voted out as easily as they were voted in.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

You/they may not even be permitted to speak at the Parks committee meeting.

The posted agenda does not note if any committee members are elected, they may all be appointed. Those that are elected are not liable until the next election in November or April.

The Parks Committee cannot be stopped by public opinion but only by some legal injunction.

A common council member will act as either a democrat or as a republican. As a democrat the voices against his rule will have to numerically outnumber the voices for the rule. As a republican he should stick to the principles that he was elected to enforce and no public pressure should change his mind.

Common council members are not liable to be unseated until the next election.

You are all bluster. Good hearted blustering but blustering.

From the open Meetings Law Compliance Guide

Citizen participation

The open meetings law does not grant citizens a right to participate in meetings of a governmental body. There are, however, a number of state statutes which require governmental bodies to hold public hearings on specific matters. See for example, Wis. Stat. § 65.90(4) (requiring public hearing before adoption of a municipal budget) and Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4)(a) (requiring public hearing before creation of a tax incremental finance district). In the absence of such a statute, the governmental body itself is free to determine whether to allow citizen participation at its meetings. Nor does a governmental body violate the open meetings law by limiting the degree to which citizens participate.

1997 Wisconsin Act 123, effective May 2, 1998, created Wis. Stat. §§ 19.83(2) and 19.84(2) to allow governmental bodies to receive information from members of the public if the public notice of the meeting designates a period of public comment. That law also allows a governmental body to discuss, but not to act on, any matter raised by the public during a comment period. Although discussion of a general public comment item is permissible, it is advisable to defer extensive discussion and action on such an item until specific notice of the subject matter of the proposed action can be given.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
You/they may not even be permitted to speak at the Parks committee meeting.
I was refering to your earlier post stating that protest would have to be made at the city counsel meeting should the issue make it that far. As the Parks committee does not have the authority to create ordinance or law.

Sorry, I should have included that.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Common council members are not liable to be unseated until the next election.
Unless indicted for unlawful behavior.
Citation please. They may even enjoy immunity for decisions made in the interest of the community.

Only the prosecuting attorney may bring an indictment or a Grand Jury return a true bill.

More good hearted blustering.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

No citation needed. Weren't there a few Mayors recently in this position?

I do believe the mayor of Racine was one. Don't remember off hand who the others were, but even Flynn came close to getting his butt in a ringer over the adultery issue.

How about the Governor of Illinois. (Indicted)

In fact, JB Van Hollen disclosed that the same sex legislation that Doyle let pass violates the State Constitution in that the people voted to ban same sex unions and therefore is was amended to the state constitution.

Van Hollen acknowledged that the state would be sued over the violation of the state constitution and also said he would not be the one to take up the case for the state.
( I may have missed some of the details but I am sure you know of the issue.)

In this case, If Doyle is found to have intentionally violated the State Constitution what are the repricussions? Is he not subject to the law?

Just because they hold a seat does not make them immune to the law.

If they commit a crime while in office they can be arrested and will most likely be unseated.

If they commit a crime while in office and it is related to their job, they can be indicted.
(Something I hope happens to Doyle)

While my comments may be considered good hearted blustering, they in fact can be reality.

My point is they are not all powerful and untouchable.
 
Top