Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Green Bay General Council set to vote on Park Gun Ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    We need solid data to support the position that a County and City ban on firearms is preempted by WI State Law 66.0409. Right now we have a City Attorney who is of the opinion that it is not preempted and is using the fact that a County ordinance has remained on the books without a challenge to support this position.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    If someone wants to help go through this article, there may be something in here.

    http://www.lcav.org/content/preempti..._authority.pdf


    Haven't had time to go through much of it yet but there are alot of cases noted.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  3. #3
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    It mentions express preemption which is what we have here in WI. There is nodebate active whether or not we have preemption. It single issue at hand is if County and City Park bans are"no more stringent" than a State Park ban. It really is nothing more nor nothing less than this single issue. The State AG's office refuses tooffer an opinion on this or any other interpretation or application of the law unless it comes from the courts.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    It mentions implied preemption which is what we have here in WI. There is nodebate active whether or not we have preemption. It single issue at hand is if County and City Park bans are"no more stringent" than a State Park ban. It really is nothing more nor nothing less than this single issue. The State AG's office refuses tooffer an opinion on this or any other interpretation or application of the law unless it comes from the courts.

    I realize that; but I noted that there were a lot of court cases in the notes in that article. State courts like to cite rulings of other state courts.

    Also, I'd argue that we are express preemption.

    Here is the state law just so we have everything in the same place:

    29.089 Hunting on land in state parks and state fish
    hatcheries.


    (1) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may
    hunt or trap on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries.
    (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may have in his
    or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land
    located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is
    unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.
    (3) A person may hunt deer, elk, wild turkeys, or small game
    in a state park, or in a portion of a state park, if the department has
    authorized by rule the hunting of that type of game in the state
    park, or in the portion of the state park, and, except as provided in
    s. 29.063 (5), if the person holds the approvals required under this
    chapter for hunting that type of game.
    History: 1989 a. 214; 1997 a. 237; 1997 a. 248 s. 599; Stats. 1997 s. 29.089; 2001
    a. 109; 2005 a. 286.
    Cross Reference: See also ss. NR 10.001 and 10.28, Wis. adm. code.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I realize that; but I noted that there were a lot of court cases in the notes in that article. State courts like to cite rulings of other state courts.

    Also, I'd argue that we are express preemption.
    None of the cases were in relation to our scenerio. I agree and meant to say that we are express preemption.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I agree this will be a hard sell. "same or similar to; and no more stringent than" does not seem to obviouslypreempt the city park ordinances.

    We may be better off getting the legislator to change the state law and add this provision:
    (6) Nothing in this regulation prohibits or requiresapprovals for the possession of handguns by persons for personal protection, provided the handguns are not used to hunt or take or to attempt to take wildlife except as otherwise provided by this regulation.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I got to the third paragraph and found an idea in "legislative intent". "Congress may make its intention to preempt an area of state law clear by expressly stating its intent in the language of the statute."

    Is the legislative intent of 66.0409 express in the LRB archives?

    Some pages later the topic of Home Rule arises. Y'all may recall that I have raised home rule issues in re preemption. LCAV cites a Colorado SC case finding that the State unconstitutionally infringed on local gun prohibitions.

    Closer to home, LCAV cites Ohio SC case with muddy language suggesting that the State prevailed over the Cities' appeal on home rule grounds.

    Might there be a Wisconsin SC or Appeals Court case with guidance in this area?

    I am sure that there are powerful friends of some here that will do the research that I don't know how to do.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...n-city-s-parks

    The open carrying of a gun in Green Bay city parks could be banned under a recommendation by the Park Committee.

    The committee voted 3-1 Tuesday in favor of the recommendation as proposed by the city's law department.Alderman Dan Piton cast the dissenting vote; committee Chairman Jerry Wiezbiskie, Celestine Jeffreys and Amy Kocha voted for it.

    The proposal needs approval from the Green Bay City Council, which next meets at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the council chambers of City Hall, 100 N. Jefferson St. An ordinance requires at least two public readings before becoming enacted.

    It's legal in Green Bay to carry a holstered gun in the open, as long as you're not in a school zone or other public building or in a place where alcohol is bought or consumed.

    But the proposed ban would add city parks to the place where those weapons would be prohibited, except as it relates to duck hunting north of the Ken Euers Trail.

    Under the proposal, the gathering of armed people at Ted Fritsch Park earlier this month for a picnic held in celebration of the right to bear arms would not be allowed.
    "I see it as blatantly anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment," said Ed Foral, 41, of Green Bay, who helped organize that picnic.

    Foral said the city's law department proposed the ban as a direct result of the pro-gun picnic. He told the committee such a ban, coupled with the ban against carrying weapons within 1,000 feet of a school, effectively would eliminate zones in the city where open carrying of firearms would be permitted.

    Piton said he didn't see such a ban holding up in court.

    "If this is overturned in court, so be it," Wiezbiskie said. He said he wouldn't be comfortable having his grandchildren seeing guns at Bay Beach Amusement Park.
    Kocha said people have a right to feel safe in city parks. She likened it to unleashed dogs, which the city bans in part to protect people's right to enjoy the parks without feeling intimidated.

    "While I respect the right to bear arms, it has to affect people's right to enjoy the parks," she said.

    The sight of firearms promotes a natural fear in many people, she said.

    "This is about expectations and what people are used to," Piton said. "If people were used to seeing holstered weapons, they wouldn't freak out."

    The common appearance of guns in parks would have the benefit of educating youngsters about their Constitutional rights, he said.

    Assistant City Attorney Tony Wachewicz said the draft ordinance was patterned after a state law that banned guns in state parks. The law has been on the books since 1989, he said.

Posting Permissions

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