Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Elkhorn ordinance against OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    I have emailed an alderman asking for the repeal of the OC prohibition in violation of the state preemption law in the following section.

    http://www.municode.com/Resources/ga...d=14273&sid=49 Chaper 9.2

    Can they prohibit OC in parks?

    http://www.municode.com/Resources/ga...d=14273&sid=49 Chapter 19.01.11


    Everyone should check their local laws and get them fixed.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Got an email back from the alderman:

    Paul,

    Just wanted you to know I received your message The Police Chief is looking into it and it will be on the Legislative/Regulatory committee agenda for later this month.
    I'll keep all of you updated as it proceeds.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Looking forward to the update. My fiance's sister lives in Elkhorn near a park. I never carry down there simply out of respect for them (not hardcore anti's, but definately not on the friendly side), but would be nice to know if I could if I wanted to...

  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    OK. The city's Legislative and Regulatory committee meets 9/24/2009 at 5:30PM. They haven't published the agenda yet but the chairperson has told me the OC regulation will be on it.

    We shall see.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    OK. It's on the agenda for tonight. See item 4 on the agenda. I forgot it was tonight so I didn't attend. We shall see.

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...enda092409.pdf

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    I emailed the alderman. Here is her reply

    Our police chief obtained information from the state Attorney General as well as some samples of ordinances from other communities that they have updated. A first draft of a new ordinance will be developed for next month's meeting.


    Julie Taylor
    Sounds like we are moving forward!

    They haven't posted the minutes for the meeting yet.

  7. #7
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    paul@paul-fisher.com wrote:
    I emailed the alderman. Here is her reply

    Our police chief obtained information from the state Attorney General as well as some samples of ordinances from other communities that they have updated. A first draft of a new ordinance will be developed for next month's meeting.


    Julie Taylor
    Sounds like we are moving forward!

    They haven't posted the minutes for the meeting yet.
    Great job Paul. Sounds like Elkhorn is on the ball. If you get a copy, please post up the new gun law change. I would like to see how it was worded.

    Thanks for the work.

    Carry On

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    The City of Elkhorn may not regulate the carrying of Firearms.

    The discharge ordinance is only partially Legal, and the ordinace outlawing carrying a Firearm into City Parks is illegal.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    .....the ordinace outlawing carrying a Firearm into City Parks is illegal.
    We still have no court ruling to back up this premise regarding the "no more stringent than" language in the State Preemption statute.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I think there is another way to get around not having a court ruling.

    If you consider the numbers, the ordinance would be more restrictive and based on that IMHO most of the other cities that have considered the same type of ordinances have shelved the idea.

    There are clearly more city parks in this state then state or county parks and when you add the area numbers the city parks would create a greater size area. Therefore being more stringent.

    What you need in Elkhorn is more people to show up at the meeting and argue your position. One person may pose an argument but I don't think it will carry as much weight.

    What you could argue for is that the ordinance be changed to read...It is a violation to brandish or discharge your fire arm for unlawful purposes in any city park.

    The Committee may be more favorable to this as they will feel they have won something as well.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    OK. Here's the minutes of the meeting on 9/24/2009.

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...utes090924.pdf

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Keep up the good work Paul, sounds like they may just adopt or rewrite the ordinance to ban unlawful discharge.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Theoretically the new ordinance is being considered tonight. The agenda isn't posted online. I will update when I see the minutes. I couldn't make it to the meeting.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    223

    Post imported post

    I'm from Delavan here and watching this one.

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    OK. Here's the latest.


    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...utes100225.pdf

    Obviously the police chief doesn't have a clue.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Obviously the Chief doesn't mind being sued.

    Carry On! You could always go on vacation with the extra money.

  17. #17
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    I have replied to the chairman of the 'Legislative & Regulatory Committee' and outlined the specific problem (again) and mentioned that we might hold an open carry event in Elkhorn and gave her some links to various monetary damages websites. We shall see how she responds.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Racine, WI
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Way to follow up with this Paul.

    Maybe you could request that Elkhorn just adopt the current state wording as far as discharging of dangerous weapons, since the local municipality can not be any more stringent than that of the state.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197

    Post imported post

    I talked with Chief Christensen a few moments ago. His interpretation of the ordinance is that it does (as worded) allow the open-carry of a firearm in a holster because a holster constitutes "a suitable container"

    His interpretation is because the sentence uses the word "or" it doesn't, in its text as written, a gun in a holster does not have to be unloaded or knocked down. Here is the text:

    is unlawful for any person, except an authorized police officer to fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun of any description or tipped arrow within the City, or to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.
    He interprets the statute as "it is unlawful for any person to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down OR enclosed within a carrying case OR other suitable container.

    The Chief's comment to me was that they viewed a holster as a "suitable container" and that since it is a suitable container it could also be loaded because the ordinance doesn't say it has to be unloaded and knocked down AND in a suitable container but rather it says unloaded and knocked down OR in a suitable container.

    Regardless, I think its a poorly worded ordinance, I think its rife for mis-interpretation, but I DID ask the chief if his officers had been trained that open-carry of a loaded firearm absent any unlawful behavior was completely legal in Elkhorn and he verified that his officers were trained as to the legality of open-carry.

    So Carry-On in Elkhorn!
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Thanks! I still want it changed but I guess as long as the Chief is on board I'll be OK.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Then y'all, Elkhorn, don't need the corporate attorney now, do you? Times are tough, you better stop paying him and maybe make sure that the law enFORCEment department gets more.

  22. #22
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    OK. Here's an update. The city attorney suggested some changes.

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...utes100325.pdf

    Then the agenda for the common council:

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...enda100405.pdf

    Then, they put it off 'till the next meeting:

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...utes100405.pdf

    And then it didn't show up on the agenda!!

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...enda100420.pdf

    Or the next one:

    http://www.cityofelkhorn.org/Agendas...enda100503.pdf

    I guess I need to start lighting a fire under them again.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Plankton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Just north of the Sheeple's Republik of Madistan
    Posts
    414

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
    I talked with Chief Christensen a few moments ago. His interpretation of the ordinance is that it does (as worded) allow the open-carry of a firearm in a holster because a holster constitutes "a suitable container"

    His interpretation is because the sentence uses the word "or" it doesn't, in its text as written, a gun in a holster does not have to be unloaded or knocked down. Here is the text:

    is unlawful for any person, except an authorized police officer to fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun of any description or tipped arrow within the City, or to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.
    He interprets the statute as "it is unlawful for any person to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down OR enclosed within a carrying case OR other suitable container.

    The Chief's comment to me was that they viewed a holster as a "suitable container" and that since it is a suitable container it could also be loaded because the ordinance doesn't say it has to be unloaded and knocked down AND in a suitable container but rather it says unloaded and knocked down OR in a suitable container.

    Regardless, I think its a poorly worded ordinance, I think its rife for mis-interpretation, but I DID ask the chief if his officers had been trained that open-carry of a loaded firearm absent any unlawful behavior was completely legal in Elkhorn and he verified that his officers were trained as to the legality of open-carry.

    So Carry-On in Elkhorn!
    Sun Prairie has the EXACT wording as written above. I'm not sure of how they interpret it.So far, I have had no problems.
    Liberty or death. We're sorry, there are no other options available at this time..........
    "Safety is the new Liberty, and recklessness is the new Freedom, and alcoholism is the new Doug Huffman."

  24. #24
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Post imported post

    Plankton wrote:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman wrote:
    I talked with Chief Christensen a few moments ago. His interpretation of the ordinance is that it does (as worded) allow the open-carry of a firearm in a holster because a holster constitutes "a suitable container"

    His interpretation is because the sentence uses the word "or" it doesn't, in its text as written, a gun in a holster does not have to be unloaded or knocked down. Here is the text:

    is unlawful for any person, except an authorized police officer to fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun of any description or tipped arrow within the City, or to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case or other suitable container.
    He interprets the statute as "it is unlawful for any person to have any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control unless it is unloaded and knocked down OR enclosed within a carrying case OR other suitable container.

    The Chief's comment to me was that they viewed a holster as a "suitable container" and that since it is a suitable container it could also be loaded because the ordinance doesn't say it has to be unloaded and knocked down AND in a suitable container but rather it says unloaded and knocked down OR in a suitable container.

    Regardless, I think its a poorly worded ordinance, I think its rife for mis-interpretation, but I DID ask the chief if his officers had been trained that open-carry of a loaded firearm absent any unlawful behavior was completely legal in Elkhorn and he verified that his officers were trained as to the legality of open-carry.

    So Carry-On in Elkhorn!
    Sun Prairie has the EXACT wording as written above. I'm not sure of how they interpret it.*So far, I have had no problems.*
    That is fine but obviously when they (Elkhorn) showed it to the city attorney he wanted a change.

  25. #25
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Just reading that passage, looks clear to me. You can NOT carry a loaded gun at all. It has to be unloaded, and it needs to be in a case or "knocked down".

    So I can not for the life of me see how this can be taken as "you can carry a loaded handgun on your hip"...

    It sounds like Sun Prairie need to make the change as well.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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