Walk a parade Saturday to support J.B. Van Hollen

Motofixxer said:

I know for a fact that many officers don't even know where people can and can't carry, and many don't know they can't legally carry in a school zone. I have asked, they pretty much say, I don't worry much about it.
So anyone have some video hiding???

Click to expand...

I had an ex-leo challenge me on tjis very subject and I showed him the email between the deputy chief of police of Greenfield and someone at MPD stating exactly that the off duty LEO can't carry. Shut him up right away.

Motofixxer said:

Yea I'm interested to know the outcome of this letter

Click to expand...

I'll keep you posted. I"m not expecting a speeding reply.

Shotgun said:

Well I sent off a quick inquiry to my local police asking who issues GFSZ licenses locally. I expect they will reply, "nobody." Which will force me to ask them how they avoid their off-duty officers who carry from committing a felony?

It should be fun.

Click to expand...

Off duty officers would be covered under LEOSA as long as they are ccw.

J. Gleason:

You may be correct in your assumption but I think the question that would have to be answered in a court of law is: Are law enforcement officers that are off-duty and not acting in official capacity, still considered peace officers by definition or are they ordinary citizens? The GFSZ, trespassing, and vehicle carry statutes imply that when off duty they are ordinary citizens.

From the LEOSA law:

However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.

The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.


Note: Schools are state or local property. One would suspect that the GFZ would be considered included. Also the GFSZ is also federal law.

The stupidity of the GFSZ statute is that an off duty law enforcement officer can not open carry a loaded firearm in a school zone (948.605(2)(b)(6)), nor can an off duty law enforcement officer discharge his firearm in a GFSZ(948.605(3)(b)(4)). So even if it was found under the LEOSA that an officer could carry a concealed weapon in a school zone technically he/she can't discharge it if off-duty.

However, if a person is conducting a school sanctioned activity, such as firearms training, that person is allowed to possess a loaded uncased firearm (948.605(2)(b)(4)) and that person is allowed to discharge the firearm 948.605(3)(b)(3)).

Go figure

Stupid is as stupid does -- Forrest Gump

Another example of the GFSZ stupidity:

(2) POSSESSION OF FIREARM IN SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Any individual
who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone is
guilty of a Class I felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm:

3. That is not loaded and is:
a. Encased; or
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

The word "or" implies an option. The fiream must be unloaded in all cases but there is option 1; that the firearm be encased or option 2; that the firearm be placed in a locked firearm rack.

Wisconsin law does not allow any alternate way to transport a firearm in or on a vehicle. It MUST be unloaded and encased. (167.31)

If one were to follow Wisconsin law the firearm would need to be unloaded, encased and then placed in the rack. (Note that the GFSZ statute doesn't say the firearm must be locked in the rack. It says "locked firearm rack" implying that the rack is locked). Locked to the vehicle?

I suspect this paragon of stupidity is a result of copying the federal law which necessarily had to make provision for those Western state that allow uncased firearms to be carried in the fiream rack you commonly see attached accross the rear cab window. In its haste our legislature did a poor job analyzing the federal law. That is what happens when an anti-gun congress and legislature react out of fear and panic instead of reason and common sense.

Finally if one were to encase an unloaded firearm and then put it in a locked rack attached to the vehicle the question of "out of reach" rears its ugly head. State v Asfoor.


My opinions IANL

Doug Huffman said:

The police do not determine legality, certainly not the paramilitarized-police, the gendarmerie(!).

Click to expand...

Never said they did.

(Don't misuse an unfamiliar word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gendarmerie)

Click to expand...

The word is not unfamiliar to me at all, especially when used as idiom.

Upon review, at first I thought the question was too difficult to understand. Now I'm simply curious if you actually read it. (I think BROKENSPROKET got my intent.) I know you're really good at retrieving statutes so let me try again, with a hypothetical, pretending for the sake of discussion that there is NO SCHOOL ZONE at issue.

The local quasi-military organization which is charged with enforcement of existing laws over a civilian population recognizes that open-carry of one's firearm is legal. They didn't adjudicate the matter, they recognize it as fact.

My curiosity is: Does the holder of a parade permit have the legal latitude to censor the message of someone they've invited to the parade? (I'm not talking about conduct which would otherwise be in violation of laws said quasi-military organization is already sworn to enforce.) I'm asking, having never had a parade permit. For the time of the parade, does the permit holder now become the temporary private property owner of the public street? I ask because, from the foregoing, it appears as if the Pepperfest organizers' "issue" with the carrying of firearms censors or diminishes "the message." What level of authority is granted via issuance of a parade permit? Does this typically vary from one municipality to the next, or is the more correct view that it simply varies based on the agenda of the organizer?



Fireball357: I would indeed be interested to read of anything AG Van Hollen publishes outlining his views on what he regards as true Constitutional carry.

WIG19:
That is an interesting question. I doubt that the courts would determine that a parade organizer's permit gives him/her temporary private ownership over a public street. However, the court may rule that the permit gives the holder private control of the complexion of the parade. Nothing in Wisconsin law says private property must be stationary. Therefore the courts could rule that the parade itself becomes private property of the permit holder for the duration of the parade. After reading dozens of court Wisconsin court cases the only concrete decision I have come to is that it is impossible to second guess the wisconsin court system. That is only my opinion IANAL

Captain Nemo said:

WIG19:
...the only concrete decision I have come to is that it is impossible to second guess the wisconsin court system.

Click to expand...

In that sir we are in complete agreement; thanks for playing anyway, as your musings show you understand the question. Probably an examination that requires alot of aspirin.

Shotgun said:

Well I sent off a quick inquiry to my local police asking who issues GFSZ licenses locally. I expect they will reply, "nobody." Which will force me to ask them how they avoid their off-duty officers who carry from committing a felony?

It should be fun.

Click to expand...

Update--

I received this response today:

"Auric,

I have checked with city staff and have found that there is no city ordinance that provides for the issuance of such permits.

The common council would need to adapt this statute and create an ordinance to provide the authority of a city official to issue this type of permit.


Carl Gloede

Executive Captain of Support Services/City of Madison Police"

I replied with my follow-up question asking how area LEO's avoid committing school zone violations while off-duty.

ooooohhhh baby, i'm down for one of them permits! Look good with my penn. non-res. and probably be about as useful as the penn. in this state.

I should mention that I also wrote to my city council "alderperson" who normally responds very quickly to constituent contacts. Dead silence.