Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 102

Thread: First letter - Saukville ban on assembled firearms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    I just wrote my first letter reguarding local ordinances and thought I would post it for your reference. If I hear back, I will post that as well.

    Have a good one
    Geoff



    <Addressee>,

    I recently came across village ordinance 140-2 which prohibits residents (and non-village LEOs) from possessing an assembled firearm within village limits. This ordinance has been made void and unenforceable by State Statute 66.0409. To avoid any confusion, I believe this ordinance should be removed. I would be greatly appreciative if you would see to it that this issue is addressed at the next village hall meeting.

    Thank you,
    Geoff



    Village ordinance 140-2
    No person except an authorized police officer shall[/b] discharge any firearm within the Village or have any firearm in his possession within the Village unless it is unloaded and knocked down and enclosed in a carrying case[/b] or other suitable container, provided that the Board may issue permits to an organized gun club to engage in target practice within the Village at times and places designated by the Chief of Police.

    State Statute 66.0409(2)[/b]
    Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm[/b], including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    (4) (a)[/b] Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

    (b)If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution[/b] that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.[/b]





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    The police chief just replied, saying that my request has been forwarded to the village atorney. Hopefully there will be good news to come.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    Wow, you are extremely patient, waiting 14 years to challenge that ordinance.

    Looks like a slam-dunk, though.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    14 years? I've only lived here 2 months. I say shame on the rest of the Saukville residents for waiting so long though.



    geoff

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Anubis wrote:
    Wow, you are extremely patient, waiting 14 years to challenge that ordinance.

    Looks like a slam-dunk, though.
    What did you wait for?

    I had to edit this again to ask... What were you waiting for? Geoff? Well thank God for Geoff. He cut your wait time down to ... Well this year!

    And to think he just started with a simple letter...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    What did you wait for?

    I had to edit this again to ask... What were you waiting for? Geoff?
    Since you asked twice, this must be important to you. I am not sure what you mean... I commend Geoff for his action; the first sentence of of my comment was a jest based on the fact that the village ordinance has been illegal since 1995 (stated in Geoff's first post) and was not challenged by anyone until 2009. Of course I did not really think Geoff knew of it in 1995 and sat on a response till now. If you took offense at my gibe, I apologize; I didn't intend to give offense.

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

    Post imported post

    Anubis wrote:
    AaronS wrote:
    What did you wait for?

    I had to edit this again to ask... What were you waiting for? Geoff?
    Since you asked twice, this must be important to you. I am not sure what you mean... I commend Geoff for his action; the first sentence of of my comment was a jest based on the fact that the village ordinance has been illegal since 1995 (stated in Geoff's first post) and was not challenged by anyone until 2009. Of course I did not really think Geoff knew of it in 1995 and sat on a response till now. If you took offense at my gibe, I apologize; I didn't intend to give offense.
    Oh no, no offence at all... I just thought it was funny for you to say that you were waiting for 14 years to see this old law removed. Geoff got it done on his first try.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Well, at least I'll be on par with the rest of the state now. If only I didn't have that school right across the street from me. Once the 'broken down' law is removed, I'll have to ask the chief how I get this permit to which the GFSZ statute referrs.



    Geoff

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

    Post imported post

    There is no foundation for it in Wisconsin Statutes Functions and Government of Municipalities Chapters 59 - 68.

    Any ordinance would then be more 'stringent' than allowed by Wisc. Stat ss 66.0409.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Doug,

    I agree with you that he can't provide a permit, but I just want to point it out to the Chief. Word around town is that he is a fairly Pro-2A guy, but I'm not sure in what sense. The more LEO's we can get on our side the better.



    geoff

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    I finally heard back from the chief, and they have an amendment prepared that will remove the ban on assembled, uncased, loaded firearms, but adds a ban to public parks.

    What municipalities have we had success with in having them remove bans from city parks? I would like to reference this in my follow up letter. I will also argue that a ban in village parks is more stringent than the state's ban in state parks.



    Thanks much,

    Geoff

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Geoff wrote:
    I finally heard back from the chief, and they have an amendment prepared that will remove the ban on assembled, uncased, loaded firearms, but adds a ban to public parks.

    What municipalities have we had success with in having them remove bans from city parks? I would like to reference this in my follow up letter. I will also argue that a ban in village parks is more stringent than the state's ban in state parks.



    Thanks much,

    Geoff
    Green bay recently discussed banning in public/city parks and then decided against. Please post when the council/committee meeting is when they will discuss this.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    He said it will be discussed at the Nov 12th Public safety meeting. I will confirm this, and try to find a time and location.



    geoff

  14. #14
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Geoff wrote:
    I finally heard back from the chief, and they have an amendment prepared that will remove the ban on assembled, uncased, loaded firearms, but adds a ban to public parks.

    What municipalities have we had success with in having them remove bans from city parks? I would like to reference this in my follow up letter. I will also argue that a ban in village parks is more stringent than the state's ban in state parks.



    Thanks much,

    Geoff
    Green bay recently discussed banning in public/city parks and then decided against. Please post when the council/committee meeting is when they will discuss this.
    A copy of the minutes (from the Green Bay meeting) might be helpful to look at. I would like to know the reason that Green Bay turned down the ban bill. The same reasons might also work for Saukville.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    The meeting is Nov 12 at 6:00 pm. Saukville police station, 649 E. Green Bay Ave Saukville, Wi.

    I will be able to make it there.

    Geoff

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote
    A copy of the minutes (from the Green Bay meeting) might be helpful to look at. I would like to know the reason that Green Bay turned down the ban bill. The same reasons might also work for Saukville.
    Do you recall when Green Bay voted on the ban? That may help me find it more quickly.

    Thanks,
    Geoff

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Here is a link to an OCDO thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=57

    The thread has several articles.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the link BNH.

    The last article is the only one still available, but at least it helped me determine that the vote was on 9/1.

    Green Bay's search functionality isn't the greatest, so I'm still trying...



    geoff

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Discussion/Action On Prohibiting Firearms And Dangerous Weapons In Parks



    Atty. Wachewicz addressed the Committee regarding this issue. The request is for the Park Committee to adopt an additional subsection to the municipal code in the Parks Chapter, 25.04 Conduct in Parks and Greenways in the City of Green Bay. The proposed subsection (13) states that no person can possess a firearm in any park unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. In addition, the proposed ordinance asks for the same qualification for a dangerous weapon and provides an exemption for peace officers. He believes this is consistent with State Statute, Chapter 29.089, which prohibits the possession of firearms unless they are unloaded and enclosed in a case in State parks.



    Ald. Wiezbiskie asked how this relates to the right to bear arms. Atty. Wachewicz said people still have the constitutional right to bear arms, but that right is not absolute. They can openly carry the firearm in public, but regulations are in existence, i.e., people cannot possess a firearm in a public building. A parallel to that would be a City park as well. The County has a similar ordinance (8.07) which prevents the possession of firearms in a park.



    Ald. Jeffreys asked Atty. Wachewicz why he didn’t just put a period after parks in the proposed ordinance. She understands the hunting of migratory birds at Ken Euers. Atty. Wachewicz responded that essentially the State Statute contains that additional language. This mirrors the State Statue to make sure we have the same or similar language as the State Statute which is what is required under Chapter 66.0409, which talks about local political subdivisions being able to regulate firearms.

    Ald. Kocha asked about the need for this when we already have a State Statute. Atty. Wachewicz said we need to have an ordinance to apply to City parks, where the State Statute applies to State parks.



    Ed Foral, 2219 Jamesford Ave., said he had already e-mailed the committee and wanted to address some issues. Other municipalities had similar statutes taken off the books because they were considered more stringent than their State Statutes. This statute would not protect the City parks, because people openly carrying firearms are not a danger to the public. The Brown County ordinance will be challenged in the courts. He was at the gathering at Fritsch Park, and it was held in an orderly fashion. There were no concerns from the Police Department. It is unfortunate the City would take such an action. It was a group of people celebrating the right to bear arms. They want to educate people that carrying firearms in this manner is a legal act.



    Ald. Piton asked who brought this forward. Atty. Wachewicz said it was a request from the Law Department to the Park Committee. Ald. Piton felt this statute would be overturned in court. He didn’t think carrying a holstered sidearm is dangerous, and he would not support this.



    Ald. Kocha said she respected the right to bear arms. She was concerned about how this would affect the right of people to enjoy the park. We talked about the fear some people may have if dogs were allowed in the park. Parks are there for people to enjoy. Ald. Jeffreys also supported this ordinance.



    There was further discussion on whether education was needed to make people comfortable with seeing someone carrying firearms. Ald. Kocha questioned why this statute would be overturned when the County and State statutes have not been. Atty. Wachewicz said the State statute has been in effect since 1989. Ald. Piton said the Federal Supreme Court is shifting on this issue. Atty. Wachewicz said the District of Columbia case a little over a year ago focused on the right to bear arms in their residence. The distinction here is we are talking about a public place as opposed to a private residence. There are a number of statutes that have prohibitions with respect to firearms. That lends credibility to the rationale that this regulation is reasonable. Ald. Wiezbiskie had concerns about how people carrying arms in public places would affect families gathering there. If this ordinance gets overturned, so be it.



    Ald. Jeffreys made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance, which was seconded by Ald. Kocha and carried with Ald. Piton voting no.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    So argument I would like to present will be based on:'

    State law bans carry in state parks, not local municipalities.

    66.0409 says local ord. may be no more stringent than state.

    Stringent = restrictive. Banning firearms on any park not state owned would increase the 'banned' area, therfore being more restrictive.

    Green Bay didn't pass their proposed parks amendment because they don't believe a holstered firearm is dangerous.



    What else can I add?

    Thanks,
    Geoff

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Maybe you could bring up that prohibiting firearms in parks makes it a zone for criminals to absolutley know for sure they will find no resistance from law abiding citizens and it will make it easier for them to rape, rob, and murder their victims.

    We see everyday that criminals already disobey the law, what this proposed ban would be doing is offering criminals easy targets since they know they will be the only that is armed.

    Lets use a page out of the anti's book and bring fear and emotion into the equation too, Bring up Columbine and VT-Tech. By them making sure no law abiding citizen was armed, it set them up for a successful massacre with absolutley no resistance.

    if you want to go farther, bring up the 9/11 hijackers, and how the passengers refused to resist and how far it got them.

  22. #22
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    I was thinking... You know that we can hunt in most state parks? Yep, I just looked, and wow most have some hunting of small yummy animals. Can you do this at any local parks? I know hunting is out in Milwaukee parks. Yet we have the same ban as a state park...?

    I think that the state has a gun ban in state parks due to the DNR, and not a public safety issue. I feel that this is why this "local" park ban could be overturned. We can never take game from our parks, so the local ban is not the same as the state ban.


  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post



    It would take me almost 4 1/2 hours to get there tomorrow. We need some of the Milwaukee folks to show up and speak against this!



  24. #24
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Geoff wrote:
    The meeting is Nov 12 at 6:00 pm. Saukville police station, 649 E. Green Bay Ave Saukville, Wi.

    I will be able to make it there.

    Geoff
    Just thought it was worth posting again.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the thoughts all.

    Every park within Saukville is also in a school zone, so banning firearms from the parks would accomplish absolutely nothing new. Us reputable folks can't carry there anyways :-(

    Geoff

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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