Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Information Needed...Please?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Grafton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    172

    Exclamation Information Needed...Please?

    With the recent onset of ordinances being adjusted locally to remove the OC restriction but adding the public parks restriction, I'm working on a more aggressive approach to resolve this issue than just going from local to local.

    However, in order to proceed down this path, I need to assemble a presentation that will highlight most, or all, communities that have adopted the public park restriction.

    I am aware of a few that I'm working on, but certainly am not aware of all the communities across the state that have done this.

    What I'm hoping, is that some of you can shed some light on the communities that have done this.

    I need this information rather quickly also, as I need to assemble this presentation for a meeting on the 18th of this month. Yes, that's next Saturday.

    What I need to know is this.

    1. Which community has added this public park restriction or just has it already on their books.
    2. When did they add it to the books. (If it was added recently)
    3. Who wrote/added it? (City attorney, Administrator, Etc...)
    4. Any other info that you think will be helpful.

    I would like to use this opportunity to say Thank You to everyone who may offer information for me. I will not have the time to Thank each of you individually.

    I will of course keep this board posted on the progress once I have information available that I can share.

    Thank you!!!

    Jay

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ozaukee Co., Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    180
    Have you already contacted the Village of Saukville about this? If not I can get a hold of the Chief.

    Geoff

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Grafton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    172
    I have contacted Saukville about this. The reply I received is in the Saukville thread. Basically says the city attorney feels it's similar to state statute, therefore it's ok for them to have this restriction.

    I'm simply compiling a list of communities that have enacted a public park ban that applies to parks not state owned.

    I just need input from people to get this list together.

    I do not need names of who gave me this information, simply the info of where this has happened.

    There is enough people on this forum, that if everyone just checked their local community ordinances and reported on any that restrict the carry in public parks, my list could get completed much easier than me searching every community in the state.

    Hoping everyone will take a few moments to help me.

    Thanks!

    Jay

  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    City of Elkhorn:

    Has conflicting ordinances.

    9.045(a) reads "While in any municipal park, unless unloaded and in a carrying case, (Wis. Stats., §29.089);"

    This ordinance was added 7/19/2010 when they made open carry legal in the city. It conflicts with 19.01.11

    19.01.11 says "No person in any park shall:

    (1)
    Carry onto, possess or discharge a shotgun, rifle, pistol, air rifle, sling shot, air gun, archery equipment, firearms or any other weapons or device that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This shall not apply to those law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity; "

    So, one ordinances allows unloaded and encased, the other doesn't.

    I told them this at the time they proposed the ordinance but obviously it fell on deaf ears.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Walworth County:

    No restrictions on carry. Just cannot discharge or hunt. Section 42-1.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    Dane County:

    53.03 (2) (a) No person may take, catch, kill, hunt, trap, disturb or pursue any wild animal or bird, discharge any firearm, or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm or air gun as defined in s. 932.22, Wis. Stats., unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow, slingshot or springloaded device designed for shooting a projectile unless the same is unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case while in any park except in connection with a hunting activity or event where specifically allowed by written permit issued by the parks director or designee, and then only in strict conformity with the conditions stated in the written permit, or as authorized by sub. (b);

    http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/web...ces/ord053.pdf

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

  8. #8
    Regular Member littlewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    349

    Waupaca co.

    Waupaca Co. 19.25 (c) Firearms,No person except law enforcement shall have in there possession or under his control any firearm or air gun as defined by the Wisconsin Statutes unless the same is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case or any bow unless unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case in any County Park except if such bow or gun is within the confines of any designated gun or archery range or in those parks where hunting is authorised.

    This ORD. was revised on Mar 17 2009
    Owner Little Wolf Firearms , US ARMY RETIRED 101st Airborne & 84th DIV TRNG Small arms instructor.
    Remember , Gun Control is " USING BOTH HANDS!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Grafton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipper View Post
    Thanks for the link. I do have it already, but many here perhaps don't.

    I'm simply trying to avoid having to go to every communities website to research this. While I can do that, it will take a lot more time than if everyone just checked the local communities they live in.

    I still need to have time to put together this presentation for the 18th.

    Thanks again!

  10. #10
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Thumbs up Some cities did not enact park restrictions

    Both Janesville and Whitewater changed their ordinances in August to allow open carry and neither one of them enacted a park restriction. Janesville even removed a subsection that allowed confiscation of your firearm if you violated an ordinance. Responsive government in action.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the boonies
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by davegran View Post
    Both Janesville and Whitewater changed their ordinances in August to allow open carry and neither one of them enacted a park restriction. Janesville even removed a subsection that allowed confiscation of your firearm if you violated an ordinance. Responsive government in action.
    i just looked up whitewaters as i only live about 10 minutes from there and there is nothing about oc in whitewater in fact its says only leo's may carry a dangerous weapon in the city....

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Grafton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    172
    Good info, please keep it coming in.

    I've got a few more days to gather info, then on to making the presentation.

    Thanks again everyone!!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Shorin21 View Post
    i just looked up whitewaters as i only live about 10 minutes from there and there is nothing about oc in whitewater in fact its says only leo's may carry a dangerous weapon in the city....
    From the August 3, 2010 Whitewater Common Council Meeting Minutes:
    http://www.ci.whitewater.wi.us/image...010-080397.pdf
    Page 23
    :


    SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE REPEALING CH. 7.72.030, CARRYING DANGEROUS
    WEAPONS. As a result of a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Whitewater’s code relating to carrying of dangerous weapons must be repealed.

    SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING WHITEWATER MUNICIPAL CODE
    SECTION 7.72.030 – CARRYING DANGEROUS WEAPON.

    The Common Council of the City of Whitewater, Walworth and Jefferson Counties, Wisconsin, do hereby ordain as follows:

    SECTION 1. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions and a Wisconsin Attorney General opinion that indicate that Whitewater Municipal Code Section 7.72.030 is unenforceable, Whitewater Municipal Code Section 7.72.030, Carrying Dangerous Weapon, is hereby repealed.

    Ordinance introduced by Councilmember Olsen, who moved its adoption. Seconded by Councilmember Stewart. AYES: Olsen, Binnie, Singer, Kienbaum, Stewart. NOES: None. ABSENT: Winship.
    ADOPTED: August 3, 2010.

    Kevin M. Brunner, City Manager Michele R. Smith, City Clerk

    I just received an email from Councilman Binnie advising me that the Whitewater Chief of Police and his officers are up to speed on the ordinance change.
    Last edited by davegran; 09-12-2010 at 05:49 PM.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Grafton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    172
    Bump....

    I had a very productive conversation with some people this weekend.

    The information collected already, and hopefully any collected today and early tomorrow will be used when this information is presented to J.B. Van Hollen at a personal meeting between someone who is helping me out and J.B.

    Please continue to give me as much info on communities that have enacted this park restriction, it will help, I promise.

    Getting closer to a resolution, but I need all the help I can gather.

    Thanks!

    Jay

  15. #15
    Regular Member Krusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    281

    LaCrosse County Parks

    FIREARMS, HUNTING, TARGET PRACTICE and DEER FEEDING. (1) No person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm unless the same is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. (2) No person shall trap or disturb any wild animals or birds within any County Parks, but any person may use a County Park for access to public hunting areas and grounds. (3) No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, any missile from any firearm, airgun, slingshot, bow and arrow or other weapon in any County park, except in property designated areas or ranges. (4) No person in Goose Island Park shall feed deer, even for recreational viewing purposes. (5) Exception: The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee may approve deer management plans, allow special deer hunts in County parks, and grant exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in subsections 1 through 4 above, subject to County Board approval.

    Updated 12/09

  16. #16
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338

    I'm confused...

    I realize this thread has been dormant for over a month and this info is probably too late to help the OP, but thanks for the link to the public records search, and here's Kenosha County's ordinance:
    10.04 PERMITS
    The following actions are prohibited in any county park without a written permit describing conditions, rules and limitations of the activity from the County Highway and Parks Committee or its duly authorized agent: (11/14/00)

    <snip>

    (11) No person shall have in his or her possession an uncased firearm, air gun, bow, crossbow, spring operated weapon, cannon, explosive, fireworks, sword, lance, spear or any dangerous weapon as defined in section 939.22 of the Wisconsin Statutes, without a written permit. (12/4/01)
    A few days ago I was in Brightondale Park and saw a sign stating "no firearms allowed." But wait a minute - I was under the impression that state preemption nullified these ordinances, or made them unenforceable? What am I missing?
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Have Gun - Will Carry View Post
    But wait a minute - I was under the impression that state preemption nullified these ordinances, or made them unenforceable? What am I missing?
    Read 66.0409 for what it says and not for what someone wishes it said.

    The only ordinances made unenforceable by 66.0409 are the grandfathered ones. All the others addressed by 66.0409 merely shouldn't have been written and 66.0409 has no enforcement authority.

    Read it yourself.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Here we go again...

    In 1995, Wisconsin enacted 66.0409. I will include the entire thing here for reference.
    66.0409 Local regulation of firearms.

    66.0409(1)
    (1) In this section:

    66.0409(1)(a)
    (a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).

    66.0409(1)(b)
    (b) "Political subdivision" means a city, village, town or county.

    66.0409(1)(c)
    (c) "Sport shooting range" means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.

    66.0409(2)
    (2) 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, 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.

    66.0409(3)
    (3)

    66.0409(3)(a)
    (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.

    66.0409(3)(b)
    (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.

    66.0409(4)
    (4)

    66.0409(4)(a)
    (a) 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.

    66.0409(4)(am)
    (am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.

    66.0409(4)(b)
    (b)If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution 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.

    66.0409(4)(c)
    (c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.

    66.0409(5)
    (5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am) applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am), except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that is imposed under subch. V of ch. 77.
    66.0409(4)(a) says that they can continue to enforce their ordinance as long as it is "no more stringent than" state law.

    66.0409(4)(b) is the part that Doug talks about, IF they HAD an ordinance before November 1995, that ordinance is no longer enforceable unless it is similar to state law.

    66.0409(2) is the part that says they CANNOT ENACT.

    If one actually reads it, then one understands they cannot enforce the ordinances existing BEFORE 1995, and they cannot enact any after that are "more stringent" but as Doug points out, 66.0409 has no teeth so it has to be settled by an individual civil suit.

    The issue with parks, is that the League of Municipalities has mistakenly advised the counties, cities, villages, and towns that the can enact park ban ordinances because they are the same as or similar to state law. The "League" conveniently left out the "no more stringent than."

    The only way to settle this will be to directly challenge these local park ordinances in court. As a civil challenge is "preferred" over a criminal or citation challenge, you would much prefer to challenge the legality of ordinance without being cited for violating it, rather than challenging after receiving a citation.

    Such a challenge is prepared and should be served within the next few days to one of WI counties.

    In the meantime, some municipalities ban carry in parks, some do not. Should you choose to carry in a park where a ban is in place prior to this being settled in court, you do so at your own risk.

    Hope that helps and doesn't confuse anybody even more.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post

    If one actually reads it, then one understands they cannot enforce the ordinances existing BEFORE 1995, and they cannot enact any after that are "more stringent"
    Thank you, that is exactly what I thought 66.0409 said.


    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    In the meantime, some municipalities ban carry in parks, some do not. Should you choose to carry in a park where a ban is in place prior to this being settled in court, you do so at your own risk.

    Hope that helps and doesn't confuse anybody even more.
    My intention is not to buck the system and risk a ticket (in a county park.) I was simply asking for clarification on a point I didn't understand, because I'm new here and I saw what seems to be an inconsistency in the law - and we all know that doesn't happen in Wisconsin, right?

    Thanks again, bnh.
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Have Gun - Will Carry View Post
    Thank you, that is exactly what I thought 66.0409 said.

    My intention is not to buck the system and risk a ticket (in a county park.) I was simply asking for clarification on a point I didn't understand, because I'm new here and I saw what seems to be an inconsistency in the law - and we all know that doesn't happen in Wisconsin, right?

    Thanks again, bnh.
    That is EXACTLY what the forum is for, asking questions and getting answers.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    The only way to settle this will be to directly challenge these local park ordinances in court. As a civil challenge is "preferred" over a criminal or citation challenge, you would much prefer to challenge the legality of ordinance without being cited for violating it, rather than challenging after receiving a citation.
    Cowboyridn's lawsuit against the state parks prohibiting firearms should do the same thing. If the state laws fall, the local laws must folllow. Unless you use the "no teeth" argument for preemption. I just don't buy that argument myself. The localities, advised by their attorney's have not tried to enact laws that fly in the face of the preemption statute.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Fitchburg

    http://www.city.fitchburg.wi.us/city_clerk



    Adapted State laws: 14.001(12) Carrying Firearm in a Public Building. (This is just a pointer to the state law 941.235 adopting it locally.) Same with 14.001(13) (carrying where alcohol is sold)


    14.02 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
    (1) Restrictions on Use of Firearms. No person, except a sheriff,
    constable, police officer, or other deputy, shall fire or discharge any
    pistol, firearm, rifle, spring or air gun within the City or have any pistol,
    firearm, rifle, spring or air gun in his possession or under his control
    unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying
    case or other suitable container
    , except as follows:
    (a) Firearms may be discharged at skeet or trap shooting courses or
    at dog training or field trials, but in such cases permission must
    first be obtained in writing from the City Board of the City and
    the owner of the land.
    (b) Firearms may be discharged by a person at his home or in his
    premises in the defense of his life or of his property.
    (c) Firearms may be discharged for hunting purposes during lawful
    hunting seasons and within the provisions and rules of the
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and with written
    permission of the land owner.
    (d) Firearms may be discharged with cause by a private detective or
    private security person while going in accordance with the rules
    promulgated by the State Department of Regulation and
    Licensing. Provided, however, that any private detective or
    private security person, who has his or her principal place of
    business located in the City, must first obtain written
    authorization to discharge firearms from the City Chief of Police
    after providing documentation to the City Chief of Police
    pertaining to policies, procedures, qualifications and training.
    (e) Firearms may be discharged with cause by armored car carriers
    licensed by the State Department of Regulation and Licensing,
    while actually employed in the shipment, transportation or
    delivery of any money, bullion, bonds or any other thing of value
    within the City. Such individuals must be completely attired in
    18
    uniform of their employer. Provided, however, that any armored
    car carrier, who has his or her principal place of business located
    in the City, must first obtain written authorization to discharge
    firearms from the City Chief of Police after providing
    documentation to the City Chief of Police pertaining to policies,
    procedures, qualifications and training.
    (f) Firearms may be discharged with cause by a correctional officer
    while in conformance with the officer’s duties.

    ===========

    Not sure if the part in bold for "suitable carrying case" includes a holster or not. It certainly does rule out open carry of any long arms. Note this is for the entire city, including parks. It appears they have tried to make open carry completely illegal.
    Last edited by RR_Broccoli; 11-02-2010 at 09:53 AM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    No. Enclosed has been taken to mean completely enclosed by the courts and constructed for the purpose of enclosing a gun rather than makeshift.

Posting Permissions

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