• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Vernon County Fair IS POSTED, NO GUNS

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
So tonight, woodchuck and I are at the table unarmed. We notice a Vernon County Sheriff deputy and he is carrying. Woodchuck goes to discuss the fact that the sign says, NO GUNS. There isn't an exception for LEO so woodchuck says he has to go.

The response was something to the affect of, "But I'm certified LEO."

After woodchuck left, I had opportunity to talk to two Viroqua officers. They too felt they were entitled to violate the sign. The Viroqua officers told me they don't want concealed or open carry.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
So tonight, woodchuck and I are at the table unarmed. We notice a Vernon County Sheriff deputy and he is carrying. Woodchuck goes to discuss the fact that the sign says, NO GUNS. There isn't an exception for LEO so woodchuck says he has to go.

The response was something to the affect of, "But I'm certified LEO."

After woodchuck left, I had opportunity to talk to two Viroqua officers. They too felt they were entitled to violate the sign. The Viroqua officers told me they don't want concealed or open carry.

IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive. There is age old saying that one should choose their battles wisely. Picking fights like that are too radical and hurt WCI's image

This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I wonder if these county fairs have the legal authority to ban a constitutionally protected behavior?
Are the county fairs ban similar to this story? http://www.clickondetroit.com/community/24570609/detail.html

If it is private property (not owned by the government) they do. Walworth County Fair, for example, is owned by a non-profit group called the Walworth County Fair Association.

Reading the story in the link, that event was/is held on public streets.
 
Last edited:

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive. There is age old saying that one should choose their battles wisely. Picking fights like that are too radical and hurt WCI's image

This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.

Right on. LEO does not set the policy for the fair, the Vernon Co. ag. society does. It is my understanding the grounds are private and owned by the ag. society, they made it clear that they don't want anyone oc'ing. LEO's guns are welcome ours are not. We should not be challenging the local LEO, we should be having conversations with the ag. society to see if they are willing to change there policy. Just my opinion.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
A policy is a policy and should be equally applied

Food for thought:

There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.

42 U.S.C. § 14141
§ 14141. Cause of action
(a) Unlawful conduct
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil action by Attorney General
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."

The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.

A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.

Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.

If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.

Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
A: No, hadn't thought of that.

Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
A: Yes.

Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...

These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.

A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.

I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?

Done with the personal soap box now....
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
Food for thought:

There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.



In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."

The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.

A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.

Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.

If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.

Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
A: Yes.

Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
A: No, hadn't thought of that.

Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
A: Yes.

Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...

These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.

A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.

I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?

Done with the personal soap box now....

Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.

Respectfully:

Only "licensed" retired LEO, and there are only a FEW in WI that are licensed. Many I have talked to say their local departments where they worked won't license them for FEAR of liability.

Also, http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ords-Request-Gun-Free-School-Zone-information

From the email:

(2.) This felony offense also applies to off-duty coppers per Wis. Stat.
948.605 (2)(b)6 which requires that the copper is "acting in his or her official capacity;"

If I go to watch my kid at the playground or for an athletic event on a school field, I cannot lawfully carry a firearm while doing so off duty because I am not really acting in my official capacity as a cop, only as a parent. This is something I have tried to change for several sessions of the legislature but to no avail. I am trying again in this session through the Waukesha County delegation.

So it appears that Milwaukee PD are saying they cannot carry "off duty" in a school zone.

My point was/is these "No Carry" zones DO AFFECT us all (LEO and non LEO).
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
Respectfully:

Only "licensed" retired LEO, and there are only a FEW in WI that are licensed. Many I have talked to say their local departments where they worked won't license them for FEAR of liability.

Also, http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ords-Request-Gun-Free-School-Zone-information

From the email:


So it appears that Milwaukee PD are saying they cannot carry "off duty" in a school zone.

My point was/is these "No Carry" zones DO AFFECT us all (LEO and non LEO).

Those who are having issues with their former departments should contact the AG's office as all liability has been removed from the departments as per the AG.
Federal law super cedes all state laws and therefore the unconstitutional GFSZ law in Wisconsin would not apply to officers under LEOSA.
If you know someone who is having problems getting qualified let me know, I know an instructor who has helped other retired officers

And I agree on your point, these zone do affect us all
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Those who are having issues with their former departments should contact the AG's office as all liability has been removed from the departments as per the AG.
Federal law super cedes all state laws and therefore the unconstitutional GFSZ law in Wisconsin would not apply to officers under LEOSA.
If you know someone who is having problems getting qualified let me know, I know an instructor who has helped other retired officers

And I agree on your point, these zone do affect us all

Gleason, Have you received a 'permit'?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.
It is a privilege, the same as any other CCW permit. It requires annual training where many CCW permits only require it every 3 years, etc... It is forced national reciprocity. It does not have an enforcement clause should a State refuse to provide the training.
`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit 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.
d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I believe that the bill implementing LEOSA in Wisconsin failed. Just like the federal GFSZA must be implemented in state law, so must the LEOSA. They're common scofflaws.
Citation please...
According to the text of HR 218, the laws of a State may restrict possession on School Property but not within the GFSZ.
 
Last edited:

grinner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pewaukee, WI
IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive.

IMO, I don't think it's counterproductive. What if a private property owner posts "No Trespassing"? Does that mean it doesn't apply to cops? I need to do more research on this, but I'd like to know what rights cops have that are universal, despite the wishes of private property owners.

For example, cops frequently "drop into" bars around here just to make sure the law is being followed (nobody underage, capacity, bartender licensing, etc.). Bar owners hate this because customers get uneasy. Is it legal for cops to drop-in on private property without a warrant?
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
232
Location
Green Bay
IMO, I don't think it's counterproductive. What if a private property owner posts "No Trespassing"? Does that mean it doesn't apply to cops? I need to do more research on this, but I'd like to know what rights cops have that are universal, despite the wishes of private property owners.

For example, cops frequently "drop into" bars around here just to make sure the law is being followed (nobody underage, capacity, bartender licensing, etc.). Bar owners hate this because customers get uneasy. Is it legal for cops to drop-in on private property without a warrant?

Its open to the public. Solves that question. Secondly, many of these bars have agreements with the city for police to patrol. They do here in GB.
 

grinner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pewaukee, WI
The more I think about this, it's total BS. Why would a cop need to carry a gun in a no-carry area? It's not like anyone would be able to attack him with a gun there, right? So why would he need a gun for self defense?

The same answers apply to why we should be allowed to carry everywhere. Because a no-carry sign doesn't guarantee that nobody will carry, and some of us rely on a firearm to even the odds against a stronger attacker.

The only possible argument I can come up with is that the LEO is assigned to patrol there, and I can choose not to be there in the first place if I don't like the no-carry policy.
 

grinner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Its open to the public. Solves that question.

I'm not questioning whether police have the right to be there. I'm questioning whether they have the right to carry a gun if a sign is posted "No Firearms."

That seems to be a condition under which the property owner is allowing people to be on the property. Like saying, "nobody under 18 after 10pm" or "members only" or any other legal criterion.
 
Top