imported post
Dear Mr. Kaplan
There where a couple city ordinances I wanted to bring to your attention.
Sec. 66-58. Possessing dangerous weapon. Unless otherwise provided by law, no person, except a bona fide peace officer, shall be found at or upon any public place in the city carrying or having within his reach any dangerous weapon, whether concealed or in plain view. "Plain view" within the meaning of this section does not include weapons carried in a case which does not permit immediate access to such weapons. Uniformed private security guards approved by the chief of police and while on duty are exempt from the prohibition against carrying weapons in plain view. This section shall not apply to persons engaged in the manufacturing of firearms under authority of a federal firearms license. Also, this section shall not apply to persons who are acting in accordance with the provisions of a plan approved by the chief of police under conditions which the chief has determined require the possession and discharge of specified weapons for a particular purpose in the interest of public safety. Also this section shall not apply to retired law enforcement officers licensed under HR 218 (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act).
This ordinance clearly prohibits the open carry of a firearm. This seems to be null and void in part by Wisconsin Statute 66.0409
Wisconsin Statute 66.0409 in part reads “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, 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.”
I also want to bring to your attention
Sec. 66-107. Prowling and blocking. (a)No person shall loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such a claim is warranted is the fact that the actor takes flight upon the appearance of a police officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the actor or other circumstances makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this subsection, afford the actor an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this subsection if the peace officer did not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.
As I am sure you know, the City just payed $10,000 in a lawsuit over someone who was arrested for refusing to identify himself. It could get very expensive if our cops keep arresting people for the ordinances that are law in our city.
I also found the difference in the wording of 66-107(a) and 66-107(b) a little troubling.
Sec. 66-107. Prowling and blocking. (a)No person shall loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals...
(b)No person shall loiter, loaf, wander, stand or remain idle either alone or in consort with others in a public place so as to...
The wording in 66-107(a) seems to me to mean that I can be cited for loitering or prowling on my own property. This does not seem right.
I understand that you are currently up for re-election and understand if currently you don't have the time to look into these items. If sometime after the election you could please look into this and email me back about it I would greatly appreciate it.
Dear Mr. Kaplan
There where a couple city ordinances I wanted to bring to your attention.
Sec. 66-58. Possessing dangerous weapon. Unless otherwise provided by law, no person, except a bona fide peace officer, shall be found at or upon any public place in the city carrying or having within his reach any dangerous weapon, whether concealed or in plain view. "Plain view" within the meaning of this section does not include weapons carried in a case which does not permit immediate access to such weapons. Uniformed private security guards approved by the chief of police and while on duty are exempt from the prohibition against carrying weapons in plain view. This section shall not apply to persons engaged in the manufacturing of firearms under authority of a federal firearms license. Also, this section shall not apply to persons who are acting in accordance with the provisions of a plan approved by the chief of police under conditions which the chief has determined require the possession and discharge of specified weapons for a particular purpose in the interest of public safety. Also this section shall not apply to retired law enforcement officers licensed under HR 218 (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act).
This ordinance clearly prohibits the open carry of a firearm. This seems to be null and void in part by Wisconsin Statute 66.0409
Wisconsin Statute 66.0409 in part reads “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, 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.”
I also want to bring to your attention
Sec. 66-107. Prowling and blocking. (a)No person shall loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such a claim is warranted is the fact that the actor takes flight upon the appearance of a police officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the actor or other circumstances makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this subsection, afford the actor an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted, by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this subsection if the peace officer did not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm.
As I am sure you know, the City just payed $10,000 in a lawsuit over someone who was arrested for refusing to identify himself. It could get very expensive if our cops keep arresting people for the ordinances that are law in our city.
I also found the difference in the wording of 66-107(a) and 66-107(b) a little troubling.
Sec. 66-107. Prowling and blocking. (a)No person shall loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals...
(b)No person shall loiter, loaf, wander, stand or remain idle either alone or in consort with others in a public place so as to...
The wording in 66-107(a) seems to me to mean that I can be cited for loitering or prowling on my own property. This does not seem right.
I understand that you are currently up for re-election and understand if currently you don't have the time to look into these items. If sometime after the election you could please look into this and email me back about it I would greatly appreciate it.