Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Ashwaubenon, WI village council prepares to repeal open carry ban

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I think they are incorrect on the notion that city park bans are OK caus the state bans gun cary at state parks - I think a civil action is eeded to quash these under both preemption and the lawful purpose argument from hamdan.

    --

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...arry-ordinance

    Ashwaubenon considers open carry ordinance

    By Patti Zarling • Pzarling@greenbaypressgazette.com • October 7, 2009

    ASHWAUBENON — Village leaders seem poised to adopt a rule allowing the open carry of firearms in most of the community, though they may continue to ban guns in community parks.

    The Public Works and Protection Committee on Tuesday recommended the village reverse its ordinance forbidding the open carry of firearms to comply with state law. De Pere also changed its code after Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a statement saying state statutes did not indicate that openly carrying a firearm is illegal and that the state constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

    The rule means guns can be carried in public within municipal limits, as long as they meet a number of guidelines. They must be holstered and in plain view and cannot be taken into a school zone, public building or a place where alcohol is bought or consumed.

    However, in a separate ordinance, Ashwaubenon forbids people from bringing firearms into parks.

    Public Safety Chief Eric Dunning said he hasn't been directed to change that. He referenced an opinion from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities arguing such rules are permissible because they're not more stringent than the state statutes forbidding firearms in state parks.

    That pleased at least one village trustee.

    "I don't think people should be able to carry loaded rifles in the village … but I was really worried about our parks," Trustee Ken Bukowski told the committee. "I feel somewhere (in the revised firearms ordinance) it should be referenced they can't be in parks."

    Trustee Ken Seidel warned the rule could be challenged at the national level by gun owners' rights advocates.

    The Green Bay City Council recently rejected a proposal to ban firearms from parks. It never had an ordinance making the open carry of firearms illegal.

    The Village Board likely will vote on the ordinance change at its Oct. 13 meeting.

    In other action, the committee referred to staff a proposed ordinance that would require pawn shop and resale store owners to record transactions electronically.

    Resale store owners now are required to be licensed and to record transactions on paper. The new rule would require them to electronically record transactions and download them to a dedicated Web page at the end of each day. The Green Bay Police Department then, at no cost to the village, would download the information into a database that could help identify stolen items.

    The idea is to have all Brown County communities join the system, Dunning said. Ashwaubenon has at least nine resale stores and no pawnshops, he said.

    Mike Hendricks, who owns Play It Again Sports on Ridge Road, said he's not opposed to the rule, but is worried about downloading to police information on the 20,000 items he expects to handle this year.

    Authorities said they're not interested in books, clothing or other items people aren't likely to steal and resell, and that an ordinance could exempt items Hendricks sells that reflect that idea, such as hockey pucks.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    However, in a separate ordinance, Ashwaubenon forbids people from bringing firearms into parks.

    Public Safety Chief Eric Dunning said he hasn't been directed to change that. He referenced an opinion from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities arguing such rules are permissible because they're not more stringent than the state statutes forbidding firearms in state parks




    Well it seems ignorance is bliss! ^

    This has been argued again and again in south milwaukee, greenbay, and correct me if I'm wrong Greenfield. First off firearms are NOT forbidden in state parks. Secondly it is obviously more stringent due to the range the statute covers and the enforcibilaty by the state. Leave it to a ""Public Safety Chief"" to be so ignorant.

    Hopefully we got some activists near Ashwaubenon that can go and challenge this! Maybe I'll have to give them a call too.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Feigned ignorance. You don't get to be in government by actually being such, just pretending.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318

    Post imported post

    What the? You cannot go into a place that sells alcohol while armed? I've never had a problem with purchasing alcohol at Pick n Save in my home town.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Green Bay (Ashwaubenon), Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I believe the author of the article did not read the law closely enough. I'm fairly certain state law does not allow carrying where alchohol is sold for the purpose of consumption (any establishment with a bar, sporting events, etc.).

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    lol Protias remember the premises has to be a class B liquer liscense holder for you not to be able to OC handguns there (bars, resturaunts) places that serve alcohol for consumption on premises. Pickn'save and liquer stores are all fine they are probobly class A but I know there not class B. It would be kind of funny to go grocery shopping and get drunk at pick'nsave at the same time LMAO. Mightt have to borrow the cart for the walk home :P.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    In other action, the committee referred to staff a proposed ordinance that would require pawn shop and resale store owners to record transactions electronically.

    Resale store owners now are required to be licensed and to record transactions on paper. The new rule would require them to electronically record transactions and download them to a dedicated Web page at the end of each day. The Green Bay Police Department then, at no cost to the village, would download the information into a database that could help identify stolen items.

    The idea is to have all Brown County communities join the system, Dunning said. Ashwaubenon has at least nine resale stores and no pawnshops, he said.
    This part is just as disturbing as the gun ban.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    Again, another article has also failed to mention that the previous law was illegal and thereby unnenforceable, well before the now infamous memo.

    Ashwaubenon's ordinance in particular outright bans the possession of a loaded firearm in the village limits regardless of location. That is alarming in itself.
    So this isn't just a win for OC, its a win for anyone who keeps a firearm in their home as well.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    RugerMan wrote:
    Again, another article has also failed to mention that the previous law was illegal and thereby unnenforceable, well before the now infamous memo.

    Ashwaubenon's ordinance in particular outright bans the possession of a loaded firearm in the village limits regardless of location. That is alarming in itself.Send

    So this isn't just a win for OC, its a win for anyone who keeps a firearm in their home as well.
    What's that URL again?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    RugerMan wrote: What's that URL again?
    Sorry, my blackberry is apparently feels the need to insert random hyperlinks. He'll have a talking to about his behavior. ;-)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    lol Protias remember the premises has to be a class B liquer liscense holder for you not to be able to OC handguns there (bars, resturaunts) places that serve alcohol for consumption on premises. Pickn'save and liquer stores are all fine they are probobly class A but I know there not class B. It would be kind of funny to go grocery shopping and get drunk at pick'nsave at the same time LMAO. Mightt have to borrow the cart for the walk home :P.
    "They must be holstered and in plain view and cannot be taken into a school zone, public building or a place where alcohol is bought or consumed."

    That is why I made my comment. This is an either/or, not an and.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    BJA wrote:
    However, in a separate ordinance, Ashwaubenon forbids people from bringing firearms into parks.

    Public Safety Chief Eric Dunning said he hasn't been directed to change that. He referenced an opinion from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities arguing such rules are permissible because they're not more stringent than the state statutes forbidding firearms in state parks




    Well it seems ignorance is bliss! ^

    This has been argued again and again in south milwaukee, greenbay, and correct me if I'm wrong Greenfield. First off firearms are NOT forbidden in state parks. Secondly it is obviously more stringent due to the range the statute covers and the enforcibilaty by the state. Leave it to a ""Public Safety Chief"" to be so ignorant.

    Hopefully we got some activists near Ashwaubenon that can go and challenge this! Maybe I'll have to give them a call too.
    The manor of carry is restricted in State Parks. They must be unloaded and in a case. They have a basis for their claim since no one has challenged in court whether a City or County Park ban is more stringent than a State Park ban.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    The manor of carry is restricted in State Parks. They must be unloaded and in a case.
    Which, when within reach, are arguably unklawfully concealed. See Alloy.

    Best litigation strategy is a frontal attack on two grounds: (1) Violates preemption as city ordiance does not pertain to state parks and (2) unconstitutonal as applied to lawful purposes under Hamdan.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Which, when within reach, are arguably unklawfully concealed. See Alloy.
    Which no one has yet been charged with so ithas yet to be argued in court. Alloy is irrelevant to carrying an encased firearm. Irrelevant. He was not merely carrying an encased handgun. The lawfully encased handgun was then concealed when it was placed within the metal box between the seats of his vehicle. It was clearly concealed and not discernable by someone within the vehicle let alone someone outside of the vehicle and within the immediate vicinity.

    Mike wrote:
    Best litigation strategy is a frontal attack on two grounds: (1) Violates preemption as city ordiance does not pertain to state parks and (2) unconstitutonal as applied to lawful purposes under Hamdan.
    Which has yet to be argued in court. "Their" lawyers say it is not more stringent than. The IANAL crowd claims that it is. The burden of proof by default is placed on someone who is charged. The prosecutor will say that the law allows it and the jury will pay attention to them unless successfully argued otherwise.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Which, when within reach, are arguably unklawfully concealed. See Alloy.
    Alloy is irrelevant to carrying an encased firearm. Irrelevant. He was not merely carrying an encased handgun. The lawfully encased handgun was then concealed when it was placed within the metal box between the seats of his vehicle. It was clearly concealed and not discernable by someone within the vehicle let alone someone outside of the vehicle and within the immediate vicinity.
    Um, no. Alloy's holding is that encasing = concealment. That's the part that counts - the holding that compliance with an encasement law is really irrelevant to any charge of carrying concealed.

    When you read cases, you need to focus on the holding.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Best litigation strategy is a frontal attack on two grounds: (1) Violates preemption as city ordiance does not pertain to state parks and (2) unconstitutonal as applied to lawful purposes under Hamdan.
    Which has yet to be argued in court. "Their" lawyers say it is not more stringent than. The IANAL crowd claims that it is. The burden of proof by default is placed on someone who is charged. The prosecutor will say that the law allows it and the jury will pay attention to them unless successfully argued otherwise.
    The preemption claim is not going to be submitted to a jury even in a criminal case as it is a matter of law - the preemption argument is simply that there is no similar state law against gun carry in local parks, and as the legislature has clearly made its choice, the cities are preempted.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    The preemption claim is not going to be submitted to a jury even in a criminal case as it is a matter of law - the preemption argument is simply that there is no similar state law against gun carry in local parks, and as the legislature has clearly made its choice, the cities are preempted.
    There simply is a similar law. A park ban is similar to a park ban. The only thing in question is whether a city park ban is more stringent than a state park ban.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Um, no. Alloy's holding is that encasing = concealment. That's the part that counts - the holding that compliance with an encasement law is really irrelevant to any charge of carrying concealed.

    When you read cases, you need to focus on the holding.
    No one has been found guilty of concealment simply because of complying with the letter of the law of being "encased". Read the case again.... AND read Walls. Clearly the courts aresupporting the actof making a firearm "encased". And placing that "encased" firearm in your trunk which is a legal form of transportation.

    Besides...... Alloy Appeal
    While complying with WIS. STAT. § 167.31 might provide a defense to a person who possessed a concealed weapon immediately after it was encased for purposes of transporting it, those facts are not present here.


    andWalls

    FN2. We are mindful “that there is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership




    by private individuals in this country.”
    Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 1799, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994). Thus, our conclusion in this case in no way limits the lawful placement, possession, or transportation of, unloaded (or unstrung) and encased, firearms, bows, or crossbows in vehicles as permitted by § 167.31(2)(b), Stats., which provides in part: (b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case. (Emphasis added.)




  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    No one has been found guilty of concealment simply because of complying with the letter of the law of being "encased". Read the case again.... AND read Walls. Clearly the courts aresupporting the actof making a firearm "encased". And placing that "encased" firearm in your trunk which is a legal form of transportation.
    Again, if the encased firearm is within reach, and the encased firearm is not readily discernable as a firearm, then one is arguably guilty of illegally concealing a gun. The note in Alloy deals with the interesting question of how to transition from encased cary out of reach, and open carry.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    The preemption claim is not going to be submitted to a jury even in a criminal case as it is a matter of law - the preemption argument is simply that there is no similar state law against gun carry in local parks, and as the legislature has clearly made its choice, the cities are preempted.
    There simply is a similar law. A park ban is similar to a park ban. The only thing in question is whether a city park ban is more stringent than a state park ban.
    In a civil suit for declaratory and injuntive relief, this is what the City Defendants would be arguing, not us - we would argue that a local park ban is not "silimlar to" a state park gun ban because the legislature made a policy choice to ban gun carry in state parks and preserve it in local parks.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    112

    Post imported post

    :Ahem:

    Back to news on Ashwaubenon's firearms ordinance:

    The Agenda for tonight's village board meeting includes action on the new ordinance. I assume this means a vote. And it only took 4 months of prodding...

Posting Permissions

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