-
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.
-
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.
Private Business Prohibitions
- Thread starter Master Doug Huffman
- Start date
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I believe the DA is incorrect on his interpretation of s941.237. The statute title reads "sold and consumed" not "sold or consumed" meaning the alcohol must meet both conditions. It must be sold on the premisis and it must be consumed on the premisis.The statutealso contains an exceptionto part of thepremisis if it contains more than one business. For example: If a premisis contains a combinaton tavern and hotel, handguns are prohibited by 941.237 only in the part of the premisis that is considered a tavern.
See 941.237 3(i) and also the definition of tavern 942.237 1(fm).
I believe the DA is incorrect on his interpretation of s941.237. The statute title reads "sold and consumed" not "sold or consumed" meaning the alcohol must meet both conditions. It must be sold on the premisis and it must be consumed on the premisis.The statutealso contains an exceptionto part of thepremisis if it contains more than one business. For example: If a premisis contains a combinaton tavern and hotel, handguns are prohibited by 941.237 only in the part of the premisis that is considered a tavern.
See 941.237 3(i) and also the definition of tavern 942.237 1(fm).
M
McX
Guest
imported post
we should pervert this idea to the other extreme, and put up a sign saying; persons entering this business must be armed, or management may refuse service.
no shirt/no shoes/ no gun/ no service
we should pervert this idea to the other extreme, and put up a sign saying; persons entering this business must be armed, or management may refuse service.
no shirt/no shoes/ no gun/ no service
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Yes, Lammie, that has been noted elsewhere. I was addressing the limitations on Constitutional rights (contra inherent natural rights).
Yes, Lammie, that has been noted elsewhere. I was addressing the limitations on Constitutional rights (contra inherent natural rights).
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
imported post
Lammie wrote:
The DAwrote, quote "...whether sold to be consumed on the premises or not..."
If hereferencedestablishments with a Class B licsense, it would be clear.
Although he was not clear enough, this is what I got from what he wrote. I does not matter if I intend to consume it there OR consume it eslewhere, IF it can be consumed there, then to go armed is illegal.
Back when I drank, I would see customers come into a bar, buy a twelve pack and go. This is more common in rural areas when convience and grocery stores are sparse.
Lammie wrote:
The DAwrote, quote "...whether sold to be consumed on the premises or not..."
If hereferencedestablishments with a Class B licsense, it would be clear.
Although he was not clear enough, this is what I got from what he wrote. I does not matter if I intend to consume it there OR consume it eslewhere, IF it can be consumed there, then to go armed is illegal.
Back when I drank, I would see customers come into a bar, buy a twelve pack and go. This is more common in rural areas when convience and grocery stores are sparse.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
"I am aware that the vast majority of people who choose to own firearms recognize the deadly potential of guns
and are highly responsible in their storage and use. But I am also aware that all it takes to own a firearm is to
clear a background check and pay for it, with no mandated training of any kind including no mandated
instruction on Wisconsin’s legal restrictions, the “open carry” right not withstanding. I am publicizing these
restrictions to help eliminate misunderstandings of wellmeaning
gun owners who may inadvertently violate
them."
DATED THIS 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2009.
Joe DeCecco
District Attorney
Sheboygan County
Hmm. and just where did he publish this memo for all of the general public to read?
Seems to me his intentions are nothing more than to remind all Police Officers just what to watch for so you can nail those suckers!
Make no mistake, there isn't a DA in this state that is on our side, period.
Though I do not remember the law stating you could not carry in a Technical College, I do suppose they could claim "Public Building" as just another way to extend the GFSZ BS.
"I am aware that the vast majority of people who choose to own firearms recognize the deadly potential of guns
and are highly responsible in their storage and use. But I am also aware that all it takes to own a firearm is to
clear a background check and pay for it, with no mandated training of any kind including no mandated
instruction on Wisconsin’s legal restrictions, the “open carry” right not withstanding. I am publicizing these
restrictions to help eliminate misunderstandings of wellmeaning
gun owners who may inadvertently violate
them."
DATED THIS 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2009.
Joe DeCecco
District Attorney
Sheboygan County
Hmm. and just where did he publish this memo for all of the general public to read?
Seems to me his intentions are nothing more than to remind all Police Officers just what to watch for so you can nail those suckers!
Make no mistake, there isn't a DA in this state that is on our side, period.
Though I do not remember the law stating you could not carry in a Technical College, I do suppose they could claim "Public Building" as just another way to extend the GFSZ BS.
imported post
J.Gleason wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Waukesha County Technical College has a rule saying no firearms are allowed on campus. I would assume they would be covered under "public buildings," but I'm sure that could be challenged. Hopefully all these restrictions on law abiding people will be lifted so people can defend themselves where and when they please.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
protias wrote:
It seems to me quite clear, the prohibition on such carry is quite clear.
941.235 Carrying firearm in public building. (1) Any
person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
Some here have touted other states' accomplishments as what should be initiated in Wisconsin. In my limited experience, most states, even those with liberal gun carry laws, prohibit carry in government buildings.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.
protias wrote:
On what basis in law, please?
It seems to me quite clear, the prohibition on such carry is quite clear.
941.235 Carrying firearm in public building. (1) Any
person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
Some here have touted other states' accomplishments as what should be initiated in Wisconsin. In my limited experience, most states, even those with liberal gun carry laws, prohibit carry in government buildings.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
"I am aware that the vast majority of people who choose to own firearms recognize the deadly potential of guns
and are highly responsible in their storage and use. But I am also aware that all it takes to own a firearm is to
clear a background check and pay for it, with no mandated training of any kind including no mandated
instruction on Wisconsin’s legal restrictions, the “open carry” right not withstanding. I am publicizing these
restrictions to help eliminate misunderstandings of wellmeaning
gun owners who may inadvertently violate
them."
DATED THIS 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2009.
Joe DeCecco
District Attorney
Sheboygan County
You may be well meaning and you may have "inadvertently" violated a law but he will still prosecute the crap out of you.
If you notice he doesn't suggest that police look the other way.
"I am aware that the vast majority of people who choose to own firearms recognize the deadly potential of guns
and are highly responsible in their storage and use. But I am also aware that all it takes to own a firearm is to
clear a background check and pay for it, with no mandated training of any kind including no mandated
instruction on Wisconsin’s legal restrictions, the “open carry” right not withstanding. I am publicizing these
restrictions to help eliminate misunderstandings of wellmeaning
gun owners who may inadvertently violate
them."
DATED THIS 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2009.
Joe DeCecco
District Attorney
Sheboygan County
You may be well meaning and you may have "inadvertently" violated a law but he will still prosecute the crap out of you.
If you notice he doesn't suggest that police look the other way.
imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
MT, ND, NV, NM, OK, MO, WI, OH, ME, NC, SC, GA, and FL
Source:
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/prohibited-places/
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Actually most states do not prohibit carry in government buildings if you exclude courthouses and are talking about where people with licenses can carry. The ones that prohibit government building carry generally are:
MT, ND, NV, NM, OK, MO, WI, OH, ME, NC, SC, GA, and FL
Source:
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/prohibited-places/