• 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

Doug Huffman

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

Objection. Objected to as argumentative. The witness is drawing inferences from the facts of cases unrelated.

Citation please. Please stay on the point; council members passing legislation that you believe is prohibited.

Is a legal prohibition unenforced 'legal', or moot pandering?
 

J.Gleason

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

So you're saying that if a council member violated the law while in office or even committed an unethical act he could not be removed?

How would passing an ordinance banning fire arms be in the best interest of the city?

Who determines if it is in the best interest of the city? Wouldn't the peoples vote hold more weight on that decision? Therefore, wouldn't it become a referendum?

I find it very hard to believe that a city council member could not be removed by the people.

The Park committee may be able to suggest an ordinance to the city council, however, they have no authority to enact.

the Committee would then have to bring the suggestion to the city council meeting at which time the citizens could be present to argue.
 

Doug Huffman

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

As I said before, what the Park Committee can do depends on their commissioning ordinance from the Common Council. I would guess that they can set policy without approval from the CC.

At the CC the citizens can argue until they're blue in the face. If the CC member is of a 'democratic' bent then the arguing citizens would have to out number his electorate and that's unlikely. If the member's principle of governance is as a republican representative then no argument should sway him from the principles that he was elected to up hold. There used to be a difference between democracy and republicanism. Damn the GOP!

Find mention of recall or referendum in the Wisconsin Statutes and learn the limitations on their use. It'll be in the low numbered chapters, like 5 or 6.

As to banning firearms, read 'Village Powers'. It uses broad general language that I would have no problem arguing to allow only gulag-like life.

The municipality ruling board is elected by the people and presumed to speak for them. The only time that is proven is at election time. Be careful who you elect.
 

J.Gleason

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

So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?

I looked up village powers and the information there tends to apply to the county level more then the village level.

So correct me if I am wrong, you are saying, short of vetting the person you are electing to be sure the candidate is "pro gun" for example. Once the candidate is elected he can only be removed by a vote of the majority by the committee.

Other than that a citizen would have to take legal recourse to argue an ordinance and prove the ordinance invalid.

Is this correct?

And then I am sorry for high jacking the thread. Just wanted the issue to be clear for everyone.
 

Mike

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

J.Gleason wrote:
So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?
OK, look, this is just civics 101 - gunowners need to be engaged in the matter by attending meetings, speaking when they can at the meetings, lobbying the voting council members, and trying to make sure the new ordiance does not pass. Such efforts have been successful elsewhere in Wisconsin and are currently proving soetimes successfull in Tenn. where localities face a deadline to get gun carry in parks banned or their bans will not be grandfatherd.

There is no removing legislators for passing arguably unconstitutional laws - not sure where this kind of idea would arise from - but subsequent elections, especially primaries, are where elephant meory gun owners can cause quite a bit of trouble for olks seeking reelection with an anti-gun record.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
As to banning firearms, read 'Village Powers'. It uses broad general language that I would have no problem arguing to allow only gulag-like life.


As to banning firearms, one only needs to read 66.0409 which calls out Village as one of the political subdivisions explicitly prohibited from enforcing such ordinance or resolution after November 18th 1995 and the Ordinance or Resolution shall "have no legal effect".

The whole of Chapter 66 sets limits on 'Village Powers".....

J.Gleason wrote:
So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?

I believe that this is what Doug is stating. There are places in the State such as Luxemburg and Washington Island where this apparently needs to be done for action to be taken on thepreemptedstatutes which these places have. You would have to be prepared to appeal it to the State which is what Doug is suggesting in the second post quoted below.

Doug Huffman wrote:
I suggest, rather, that referenced thread addresses municipal challenges to 66.0409.

Y'all are the ones discussing challenging the prohibition to municipalities violating 66.0409.

There is no force or enforcement to 66.0409 and there is a presumption in favor of home rule.

When I wrote the ordinance, requested and passed by my Board, I cited village powers and have not been challenged on source or substance.
Doug Huffman wrote:
I have diligently read much of the intervening material and of the statutes preceding Chapter 941. I have found no force or enforcement in this reading of law that gives a citizen or subdivision of the state privilege to enforce 66.0409.
I would have "challenged" Washington Island's ill conceived languagethis past week, but I am out of vacation time for this calendar year.....
 

J.Gleason

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

Mike wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
So the option is, let them pass whatever ordinance and if arrested challenge the ordinance in court?
OK, look, this is just civics 101 - gunowners need to be engaged in the matter by attending meetings, speaking when they can at the meetings, lobbying the voting council members, and trying to make sure the new ordiance does not pass. Such efforts have been successful elsewhere in Wisconsin and are currently proving soetimes successfull in Tenn. where localities face a deadline to get gun carry in parks banned or their bans will not be grandfatherd.

There is no removing legislators for passing arguably unconstitutional laws - not sure where this kind of idea would arise from - but subsequent elections, especially primaries, are where elephant meory gun owners can cause quite a bit of trouble for olks seeking reelection with an anti-gun record.
This was my initial argument in the first place. I said the citizens need to show up at the meeting and argue the issues.

Doug said the committee does not have to let the citizens participate.

I say it never hurts to try.
 

Mike

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

J.Gleason wrote:
This was my initial argument in the first place. I said the citizens need to show up at the meeting and argue the issues.

Doug said the committee does not have to let the citizens participate.

I say it never hurts to try.
Most localities take public comment prior to passing any new ordiance - alternatively, you speak out in other ways andoverwhelm the decision makers in email.

Challenging ordiances after adoption on legal grounds is often expensive and may fail.

Best to focus on stopping themnow.
 

Doug Huffman

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

61.34 Powers of village board. (1) GENERAL GRANT.
Except as otherwise provided by law, the village board shall have
the management and control of the village property, finances,
highways, streets, navigable waters, and the public service, and
shall have power to act for the government and good order of the
village, for its commercial benefit and for the health, safety, welfare
and convenience of the public, and may carry its powers into
effect by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing, taxation,
special assessment, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, and other
necessary or convenient means. The powers hereby conferred
shall be in addition to all other grants and shall be limited only by
express language.

[ ...]

(5) CONSTRUCTION OF POWERS. For the purpose of giving to
villages the largest measure of self−government in accordance
with the spirit of article XI, section 3, of the constitution it is
hereby declared that this chapter shall be liberally construed in
favor of the rights, powers and privileges of villages to promote
the general welfare, peace, good order and prosperity of such villages
and the inhabitants thereof.

History: 1983 a. 192; 1987 a. 395; 1995 a. 27, 378; 1997 a. 27.

Cross−reference: See s. 118.105 for control of traffic on school premises.

When a municipality’s power to contract is improperly or irregularly exercised and
the municipality receives a benefit under the contract, it is estopped from asserting
the invalidity of the contract. Village of McFarland v. Town of Dunn, 82 Wis. 2d 469,
263 N.W.2d 167 (1978).

A village was authorized under ss. 30.77 (3) and 61.34 (1) to enact an ordinance
granting exclusive temporary use of a portion of a lake for public water exhibition
licensees. State v. Village of Lake Delton, 93 Wis. 2d 78, 286 N.W.2d 622 (Ct. App.
1979).

The delegation of village powers to a non−governmental entity is discussed. Save
Elkhart Lake v. Elkhart Lake Village, 181 Wis. 2d 778, 512 N.W.2d 202 (Ct. App.
1993).

The state regulatory scheme for tobacco sales preempts municipalities from adopting
regulations that are not in strict conformity with those of the state. U.S. Oil, Inc.
v. City of Fond du Lac, 199 Wis. 2d 333, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1995), 95−0213.
It was not a violation of this section, s. 236.45, or the public purpose doctrine for
a municipality to assume the dual role of subdivider of property it owned and reviewer of the plat under ch. 236. Town of Beloit v. Rock County, 2001 WI App 256, 249 Wis. 2d 88, 637 N.W.2d 71, 00−1231. Affirmed on other grounds, 2003 WI 8, 259 Wis. 2d 37, 657 N.W.2d 344, 00−1231.

One who deals with a municipality does so at his or her own risk and may be subject
to any provisions of law that might prevent him or her from being paid by a municipality even though the services are rendered. Unless the power to bind the municipality financially has been specifically delegated, the only entity with the statutory authority to contract is the municipality. Holzbauer v. Safway Steel Products, Inc. 2005 WI App 240, 288 Wis. 2d 250, 711 N.W.2d 672, 04−2058.

State statutory enabling legislation is required to authorize enactment of typical
rent control ordinances. 62 Atty. Gen. 276.

Local units of government may not create and accumulate unappropriated surplus
funds. However, a local unit of government may maintain reasonable amounts necessary in the exercise of sound business principles to meet the immediate cash flow needs of the municipality during the current budgetary period or to accumulate
needed capital in non−lapsing funds to finance specifically identified future capital
expenditures. 76 Atty. Gen. 77. Article VIII, section 5 restricts the state from levying taxes to create a surplus having no public purpose. Although the constitutional provision does not apply directly to municipalities, the same limitation applies indirectly to them because the state cannot delegate more power than it has. 76 Atty. Gen. 77.

Conflicts between state statutes and local ordinances in Wisconsin. 1975 WLR
840


ETA after my lunch...

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.
[ ...]
(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)
[ ...]
(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.


Further (yes, I'm piling on), it was explained in my class on construction of ordinances that a judge will tie himself in knots to support the village's position as long as the village's intent, as 'legislative intent, is made clear.
 

Doug Huffman

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

As to the Benighted_Interrupter's empty and self-serving offer, I assure you that Washington Island's ordinance is entirely legal - see my crib of statutes above - and well conceived. Well conceived in that residents are excepted from its firearms restrictions. It would fail on a challenge on equal protection grounds but that ain't likely.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
As to the Benighted_Interrupter's empty and self-serving offer, I assure you that Washington Island's ordinance is entirely legal - see my crib of statutes above - and well conceived. Well conceived in that residents are excepted from its firearms restrictions. It would fail on a challenge on equal protection grounds but that ain't likely.


What part of "no political subdivision" and "...use, keeping,
possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting,
registration or taxation of any firearm..."do you not understand? ;)

You have deliberately contributed to the inevitable financial burded of Washington Island when your ill conceived language is challenged once someone is cited for this obviously preempted language......:cool:


For someone who is claiming that they support "Shall Not be Infringed", your actions on this matter appear to contradict yourself...

Howis eliminating bad statutes which infringe on all of our rights self serving?You not being concerned about the rights of visitors to the island certainly is not in the spirit of serving the interests of all who would visit and wish toOpen Carry without local LEO infringement of rights. You are critical of how others conduct themselves where they live yet you willingly contributed tothe infringement of rights where you live.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
As to the Benighted_Interrupter's empty and self-serving offer,
A man of your mature age has nothing better to respond with than the mocking of a screen name????:lol:

I can assure you that my offer is not empty. During my week on the island I weighed the pros and cons of challenging the invalid statute but chose to save it for another day as enjoying the vacation with my family was a higher priority. The weather was pretty decent most of the week and I was enjoying the scenery and water.
 

Doug Huffman

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

I hope that you'll volunteer your so very effective services in in Green Bay then, because it sounds like they could use them.

Was it you that was told to "take your Chicago attitude back to ...!"? And 'attitude' wasn't the word used. There was and is a shotgun behind the bar.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
I hope that you'll volunteer your so very effective services in in Green Bay then, because it sounds like they could use them.

Was it you that was told to "take your Chicago attitude back to ...!"? And 'attitude' wasn't the word used. There was and is a shotgun behind the bar.

I am not certain if you are aware of this, but WI doesnot have a castle doctrine. Deadly force can not use to defend property including someone who is tresspassing. If someone were to draw a shotgun on me and I were to draw my concealed handgun, I would be the one whom self defense would apply to. ;)

I did notice that "Chicago attitude" is a popularpoint of contentionon the island based on some signage. It is too bad that the businesses feel the need to alienate customers.

Although your story is interesting however contrived, the reality is that I did not set foot in any of the bars nor even the food establishments which served alcohol. I was there to spend time with my family and not to waste it in a tavern without a reason. I would have gone to the establishment of your choice if you had taken me up on my offer of buying you an adult beverage. We could have had a mature adult conversation and found more common ground instead of this silly banter from behind a keyboard hours away from each other. As an alternative I could have stopped by your place instead of just driving by it on our way to climb the tower and othertours of the island or I would have gladly invited you over to the house we were renting but you rejected my repeated offers. Most of our goals are shared and division in the fight for WI gun rights makes no sense.

You have yet to respond to my inquiries regarding why someone who has such strong convictions for the 2nd Amendment would willingly draft language which is to be put in effect to infringe on these rights????
 

Nutczak

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

Am I missing something, (like the key phrase)in the argument between I-K and Doug?

What law on Washington Island prohibits the right to bear arms? Is this over the prohibition of discharging a firearm? Local Govt's can legally regulate that!
I am seeing no problems there. Carrying and shooting are different and not related at all.

The City of St. Germain, and Boulder Junction (along with many others up here) prohibit the discharge of a firearm within city limits and it is fully legal for them to do so.
Now hopefully law enforcement officerswill not try to cite someone for breaking that ordinance while they are just O-C'ing,and not shooting.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Am I missing something, (like the key phrase)in the argument between I-K and Doug?

What law on Washington Island prohibits the right to bear arms? Is this over the prohibition of discharging a firearm? Local Govt's can legally regulate that!

The point of contention is with the quoted "chapter" below regarding "carry a firearm". Because there is an exemption for Washington Island residents, Doug does not seem to take issue with it..... As a fairlyregular visitor to the Island for our summer vacations, I do take issue with it.

Doug Huffman wrote:
There is no such ordinance here. What firearms ordinance we have includes this

Washington Code Chapter 205 Firearms and Weapons
[...]
Section 205-2 Discharge of firearm or weapons.
No person shall carry a firearm or weapon...
[...]
B. This Chapter shall not apply to any person who keeps a handgun or weapon in his or her personal residence or premises, which is owned by said person, authorized agent or lesee.
So, our town cop can't enforce this Code Chapter against any but transients. He can enforce Door County Ordinances but they are not on line (last I looked) and I have not been able to acquire a copy.

And the County PA will likely cite Wisconsin State Statute on Disorderly Conduct and Weapons in the indictment.

The rot starts at the core and extends to just below the surface where the sheeple can see it.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
I assure you that Washington Island's ordinance is entirely legal - see my crib of statutes above - and well conceived. Well conceived in that residents are excepted from its firearms restrictions. It would fail on a challenge on equal protection grounds but that ain't likely.
Doug Huffman wrote:
Again, I prefer my existing incompetent anti-gun ordinance to trying to craft a pro-gun ordinance that I must get passed before I know how to write it.
Doug, you can't have it both ways. Since you have admitted to being the author of the Island's current language, please explain why would you deliberately author something which you admit is incompetent? How can it be well conceived if it is in clear violation of State law? Whydo you not just have the "carry" language eliminated wholesale? All your village needs is a prohibition on discharge with a self defense exception as Green Bay has. Everyone's interests and rights remain intact.
 

GLOCK21GB

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

fepowered wrote:
Nutczak wrote:
Am I missing something, (like the key phrase)in the argument between I-K and Doug?

What law on Washington Island prohibits the right to bear arms? Is this over the prohibition of discharging a firearm? Local Govt's can legally regulate that!

The point of contention is with the quoted "chapter" below regarding "carry a firearm". Because there is an exemption for Washington Island residents, Doug does not seem to take issue with it..... As a fairlyregular visitor to the Island for our summer vacations, I do take issue with it.

Doug Huffman wrote:
There is no such ordinance here. What firearms ordinance we have includes this

Washington Code Chapter 205 Firearms and Weapons
[...]
Section 205-2 Discharge of firearm or weapons.
No person shall carry a firearm or weapon...
[...]
B. This Chapter shall not apply to any person who keeps a handgun or weapon in his or her personal residence or premises, which is owned by said person, authorized agent or lesee.
So, our town cop can't enforce this Code Chapter against any but transients. He can enforce Door County Ordinances but they are not on line (last I looked) and I have not been able to acquire a copy.

And the County PA will likely cite Wisconsin State Statute on Disorderly Conduct and Weapons in the indictment.

The rot starts at the core and extends to just below the surface where the sheeple can see it.
would picketing outside the meeting, a few hours before it startsdo any good ? get the media out there.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

Back to the original topic...


In Washington the Parks Commission could arguably be held in criminal violation of our COERSION statutes since they are issuing a 'threat' to:

(c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person

(RCW 9A.04.110)

Perhaps you folks should search your state laws for similar codes/statutes. Nothing makes a gummint goon sit up and pay attention like the threat of criminal liability.;)
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
would picketing outside the meeting, a few hours before it startsdo any good ? get the media out there.
I have already contacted friends of mine on the City Council. They have pledged support if it makes it to a vote in front of the general council. I have also sent messages to the members of the Parks Committee and am awaiting replies. Tomorrow I will be making more contacts of inquiry. Media coverage has been aquired also. I will be attending the meeting.
 
Top