• 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.

Taylor County - County Code

kevlub

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

I found this online, copied and pasted from the Taylor County website. Maybe I'll do a little research and send a letter or email to a few people in the county. http://www.co.taylor.wi.us/


[align=left]26.15 REGULATION OF FIREARMS IN TAYLOR COUNTY.[/align]


[align=left](1) Firearms, Rifles, Shotguns, or Handguns. No firearm, rifle, shotgun, or handgun,[/align]

[align=left]whether cased, holstered, or uncased, shall be in the possession or under the control of[/align]

[align=left]any person while said person is inside a public building or place of business open to the[/align]

[align=left]general public, including but not limited to taverns, packaged liquor stores, grocery stores,[/align]

[align=left]restaurants, financial institutions, and automobile service stations.[/align]

[align=left](2) Repealed.[/align]

[align=left](3) Repealed.[/align]

[align=left](4) Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply to the following:[/align]

[align=left](a) A sheriff, deputy sheriff, warden, constable, U.S. marshal, State trooper,[/align]

[align=left]police officer, or other law enforcement officer.[/align]

[align=left](b) The maintenance and use of rifles, shotguns, or handguns at firing ranges,[/align]

[align=left]shooting galleries, or firearm safety courses.[/align]

[align=left](c) The display of unloaded firearms in public or private premises.[/align]

[align=left](d) A licensed gun dealer.[/align]

[align=left](e) A shopkeeper within his own establishment.[/align]

[align=left](5) Forfeiture for Violation. Any person found guilty of violating this chapter or any[/align]

[align=left]part of this chapter, shall forfeit not less than $10.00 nor more than $500.00 together with[/align]

[align=left]the costs of prosecution; and in willful default of payment of such forfeiture and costs of[/align]

[align=left]prosecution, shall be imprisoned in the County jail until said forfeiture is paid, but not[/align]

[align=left]exceeding ninety (90) days.[/align]

[align=left](6) Severability.[/align]

[align=left](a) The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed severable, and it is[/align]

[align=left]expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other[/align]

[align=left]provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be[/align]

[align=left]declared invalid.[/align]

[align=left](b) Should any section or provision of this chapter be declared[/align]

[align=left]unconstitutional or invalid, or be repealed, the constitutionality or validity of the remainder[/align]

[align=left]shall not be affected thereby.[/align]

[align=left]History: Ordinance 156, 11/82[/align]

[align=left]Amended, Ordinance 171, 9/83[/align]
Cross-Reference: Section 59.07(64), Wisconsin Statutes
 

kevlub

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

This part I don'tfully understand:



[align=left]"it is expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be declared invalid".
[/align]

[align=left]Is that what you mean too?[/align]
 

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

kevlub wrote:
This part I don'tfully understand:





[align=left]"it is expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be declared invalid".
[/align]



[align=left]Is that what you mean too?[/align]
From that point down they seem to be saying they don't care about the Constitution and if they could have gotten away with more they would have. Although since preemption the entire law is invalid.
 

Doug Huffman

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

26.15 REGULATION OF FIREARMS IN TAYLOR COUNTY.
(1) Firearms, Rifles, Shotguns, or Handguns.
No firearm, rifle, shotgun, or handgun, whether cased, holstered, or uncased, shall be in the possession or under the control of any person while said person is inside a public building or place of business open to the general public, ...
[align=left]B_I wrote this?
[/align][align=left]No firearm ... shall be in the possession or under the control of any person while said person is inside a public building or place of business open to the general public, ...[/align]
 

kevlub

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

OK, so who's attention does this need to be brought to? Board of Supervisor members? I'm not up to speed at all on this kind of thing but I am willing to learn. I see off the list of the actual board members there is one for each township. Talk to that person? The whole board? I could use a little direction here. (I'll do some research first to make sure I have my p's and q's in line before any email or letter will go out).
 

AaronS

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

Well, once again, thanks for showing this to me. Letter will go out today, and e-mail has been sent. I have found that most places will remove the old laws, but it can take some time. My fear is that if it is still on the books, the local police might "fall back" on it, and use the old law to harass people.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

or place of business open to the general public


There is no exemption in this statute for armed gaurds or any employee other than the shopkeeper either. Clearly beyond their lawful scope of regulation.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

kevlub wrote:
OK, so who's attention does this need to be brought to? Board of Supervisor members? I'm not up to speed at all on this kind of thing but I am willing to learn. I see off the list of the actual board members there is one for each township. Talk to that person? The whole board? I could use a little direction here. (I'll do some research first to make sure I have my p's and q's in line before any email or letter will go out).

Typically, there is a county supervisor for each "district." You would need to contact the supervisor for YOUR district first, I would also contact the county board chairman.

Once this is done, see if they will act on it.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Hillmann wrote:
kevlub wrote:
This part I don'tfully understand:





[align=left]"it is expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be declared invalid".
[/align]



[align=left]Is that what you mean too?[/align]
From that point down they seem to be saying they don't care about the Constitution and if they could have gotten away with more they would have. Although since preemption the entire law is invalid.
I think you're interpreting that line incorrectly. I believe it is simply another way of saying that if portions of the law are invalidated it is their will to continue to enforce any portion that is still valid.

The entire ordinance is not invalid. Most of it is! But not the portion that prohibits handguns in taverns or restaurants serving alcohol. (The long gun portion of that is invalid.) Nor is the "public building" prohibition invalid insofar as it relates to those public buildings that are government owned. But the bulk of the ordinance? The county board can wipe its butts with it.
 

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
Hillmann wrote:
kevlub wrote:
This part I don'tfully understand:






[align=left]"it is expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be declared invalid".
[/align]




[align=left]Is that what you mean too?[/align]
From that point down they seem to be saying they don't care about the Constitution and if they could have gotten away with more they would have. Although since preemption the entire law is invalid.
I think you're interpreting that line incorrectly. I believe it is simply another way of saying that if portions of the law are invalidated it is their will to continue to enforce any portion that is still valid.

The entire ordinance is not invalid. Most of it is! But not the portion that prohibits handguns in taverns or restaurants serving alcohol. (The long gun portion of that is invalid.) Nor is the "public building" prohibition invalid insofar as it relates to those public buildings that are government owned. But the bulk of the ordinance? The county board can wipe its butts with it.
The way it was written makes it look like they passed it knowing it was unconstutional with the intent of using it untill it was challanged in court.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I can see how one might read it that way, but I don't think it's unusual at all for there to be similar language in local ordinances. They want to preserve any portion of their ordinances that doesn't run afoul of a new statute or court ruling. Otherwise an entire ordinance would be thrown out for just a small portion that is invalidated. In this case, there is only a small portion that hasn't been invalidated. Basically it says "if we screwed up and did something we can't legally do, fine, but we stand behind the rest." That's all.
 

AaronS

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

Hillmann wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
Hillmann wrote:
kevlub wrote:
This part I don'tfully understand:








[align=left]"it is expressly declared that the County Board of Supervisors would have passed the other provisions of this chapter irrespective of whether or not one or more provisions may be declared invalid".
[/align]






[align=left]Is that what you mean too?[/align]
From that point down they seem to be saying they don't care about the Constitution and if they could have gotten away with more they would have. Although since preemption the entire law is invalid.
I think you're interpreting that line incorrectly. I believe it is simply another way of saying that if portions of the law are invalidated it is their will to continue to enforce any portion that is still valid.

The entire ordinance is not invalid. Most of it is! But not the portion that prohibits handguns in taverns or restaurants serving alcohol. (The long gun portion of that is invalid.) Nor is the "public building" prohibition invalid insofar as it relates to those public buildings that are government owned. But the bulk of the ordinance? The county board can wipe its butts with it.
The way it was written makes it look like they passed it knowing it was unconstutional with the intent of using it untill it was challanged in court.
So it is a good money maker for the local law...? Sounds a lot like Greenfield's ideas are not so rare... Milk the people for all we got...
 
Top