• 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.

Ashwaubenon, WI village council prepares to repeal open carry ban

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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/article/20091007/GPG0101/910070530/1207/GPG01/Ashwaubenon-considers-open-carry-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.
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

jeff9980

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Green Bay (Ashwaubenon), Wisconsin, USA
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.).
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Hillmann

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

RugerMan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
112
Location
, ,
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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

Interceptor_Knight

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

Mike

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

Interceptor_Knight

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

Mike

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

Mike

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

Interceptor_Knight

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

Interceptor_Knight

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




[align=left]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.)
[/align]
 

Mike

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

Mike

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