Stopped by Representatives Nass and Gunderson, Senator Kedzie

BROKENSPROKET said:

No, it means that they have no way to preclude what they cannot see. In other words, it would leave private property owners without effeicient means to exercise thier right.

Click to expand...

That brings up an interesting point. I know we have had our disagreements in this area in the past Brokensproket and won't get into that but:

What would stop a private property owner from installing a metal detector? I agree it may not be efficient but as staunch a private property rights supporter as I am I don't see any reason they can't preclude it.

For example, as private property owner I should be able to disallow anyone with herpes coming into my store and trying on clothes, or sitting on my toilet seats (You know, where everyone seems to catch STD's :lol but I have no efficient way of checking that either.

This might be borderline but it's an interesting argument. That all being said, I don't disagree that a person choosing to conceal when a private property owner disallows it is in the wrong.

BROKENSPROKET said:

No, it means that they have no way to preclude what they cannot see. In other words, it would leave private property owners without efficient means to exercise their right.

Click to expand...

I am fine with that.

Sounds like he's not "for guns" at all.

1. Tort laws would apply to open carry, and it's MY CHOICE about what risks I take or not. Not his or anybody else's. I do stuff that could get me sued every day (so does everybody else, drive today?) Is he going to ban driving too? This point is just a lame excuse.

2. Precluding guns is not an option anyway. Anybody, can say "leave now" to anybody for any reason (including none) with a few very small and well defined protected classes on business property, and on private there are no restrictions on precluding people aside from lawfully signed warrants and rights of way.

Both of these are made up excuses that follow from "I don't like guns" rather being built on sound premises followed to logical conclusions.

The guy should have kept his mouth shut about it, he just damaged the reputation of the politician he works for.

Paul, was Gunderson the same one that looked like he just graduated high school that we met at your first get together in Delavan? If so, he was very supportive of our cause and was receptive to unlicensed carry.

Oh wait, I forgot you have me on ignore. Oh well. Somebody quote me please so his highness can read my question?

Spartacus said:

Paul, was Gunderson the same one that looked like he just graduated high school that we met at your first get together in Delavan? If so, he was very supportive of our cause and was receptive to unlicensed carry.

Oh wait, I forgot you have me on ignore. Oh well. Somebody quote me please so his highness can read my question?

Click to expand...

There ya go.

Spartacus said:

Paul, was Gunderson the same one that looked like he just graduated high school that we met at your first get together in Delavan? If so, he was very supportive of our cause and was receptive to unlicensed carry.

Oh wait, I forgot you have me on ignore. Oh well. Somebody quote me please so his highness can read my question?

Click to expand...

Since Oak quoted this I took you off of ignore for a moment.

I believe the person you are talking about was Tyler August, the newly elected Representative from the 32nd district, which included the Starbucks we were at.

http://www.tyleraugust.com/

Gunderson is an incumbent Representative from the 83rd district.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Assembly&district=83

Back to ignore for you...

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Since Oak quoted this I took you off of ignore for a moment.

Click to expand...

I feel so warm and fuzzy... oh wait, thats my cat.

in re: "private" property rights v. Constitutional rights
I think that a person's natural rights trump a business wanting to discriminate.
That's why businesses aren't allowed to prohibit certain colors of people from entering.

I ran into an interesting display of "stay out (well, we sorta mean it)" in KS a few weeks back.

Kansas has a very specific law about what a "no guns allowed" sign looks like - the size, the colors, white space around it, where / how high it must be posted, etc. So someone putting up a generic gunbuster decal from a catalog is probably SOL as far as the law is concerned, but has made his position clear and many armed customers will stay away.

That being said... I was cc ('cause I was out w/ Mom & I don't want to worry her) ((yes, I have a permit good in KS)), & went to a business (major international corporation) where their front lobby door had a gunbuster sign & some verbiage, but was not the KS-legal keep-out sign. So I went in, asked my question, & left.

When I went around the block to the customer service area (which is what I was looking for in the first place!), their door had none of that nonsense, and no KS-legal sign either. So which door do I believe?

When I asked on the KS forum, someone there pointed out that the non-legal lobby sign is probably a sap to the anti self-defense people, so they think the company is protecting them, while people who carry for self-defense aren't affected at all. (I don't know what their personnel policies are, but their sign doesn't stop visitors who are legally carrying.)


Slightly more on-topic, I wrote my reps several weeks back & haven't heard a peep from either of them.
They're both Democrats, both long-time incumbents, but I was hoping they'd've been sweating just a bit at the sweeping changes that came about early in NOV. It might be time to call their offices.

There are several states that have specifications for size, placement and verbiage on the signs that keep all guns out I know SC is another state. I think WI should have specifications as well. It would suck to get arrested because they put a 1" sign on the door that no one can read.

Spartacus,
Not speaking for Paul But Gunderson has not been at any oc event to my knowledge.

Thank you Paul for your dedication.

MKEgal said:

in re: "private" property rights v. Constitutional rights
I think that a person's natural rights trump a business wanting to discriminate.
That's why businesses aren't allowed to prohibit certain colors of people from entering.

Click to expand...

*buzzer* Nope, an unconstitutional power grab by the federal govenment due to extreme interpretation of the commerce clause is why privately owned businesses aren't allowed to prohibit "protected classes" from entering. What are rights derived from?

Anyway, in an attempt to avoid a hijack see the stickied thread on buisinesses that infringe for quite a discussion on the matter.

I know Gunderson owns a Gun Store in the town he is from....Gunderson has owned Gundy’s Sport – which sells hunting and fishing items in Wind Lake in southeastern Wisconsin . Stop in and let him know what you want.....if he gives you the wrong answer..don't buy anything. OC into his gun store see what reaction you get.

apjonas said:

There is a difference between specific signage being required by law and signs having "no weight." All signs have weight, it is just a question of how much. The canard about signs having no weight and that personal notice is required is brought up in discussions about carrying in business in just about every state. Utah law says:

76-6-206. Criminal trespass. /edited for space/
(1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body.
(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary.......
........
(b) knowing his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(ii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or
(iii) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
... (3) (a) A violation of Subsection (2)(a) or (b) is a class B misdemeanor unless it was committed in a dwelling, in which event it is a class A misdemeanor.
(b) A violation of Subsection (2)(c) is an infraction.
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

Click to expand...

Please see UCA 76-10-530(1). In doing so, please note that the private property reference is to a "private residence". Likewise, in your own post, see 76-6-206(4)(a) and (b). This section begins: "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and (b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owners use of the property." That English seems pretty clear.

It is interesting to me that you have cited the Utah statute on criminal trespass rather than the more relevant firearm statutes. To carry open or concealed in a business open to the public that has posted a sign asking that people not enter with firearms is not "criminal trespass" in Utah. It is simple trespass. (Except and unless that trespass is onto a Federal Building, the secure area of an airport, a Mormon House of Worship, a non-Mormon house of Worship that has clearly communicated their prohibition under UCA 76-10-530 (2) (1)-(e), a privately owned institute of learning with a clearly communicated prohibition against firearms, or any secure area of a Utah Law Enforcement Building, a State of Utah Courthouse or Federal Courthouse, or any other governmental building that has signage prohibiting firearms.)

Thus, I have a suggestion sir. The intention of my original post was to show that market forces will ultimately affect those business owners who post "no guns" signs and that this is particularly true in the more gun friendly states. I have endured a lot of "keyboard Kommando" attacks on this forum, but this one caused me to stand up for myself.

I am a former Wisconsin resident but a current Utah resident and a Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Instructor. So, in the spirit of wishing all law abiding citizens to be lawfully armed and thus able to defend themselves, their families, and their homes, and to assist others who might improperly cite Utah law, I will teach you the required Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Course the next time I visit WI (if you come where I hold the course) - entirely free of charge. Those who have followed my posts on the WI Forum know that the next time I visit WI, I will be conducting the Utah CFP course "for costs".

MKEgal said:

in re: "private" property rights v. Constitutional rights
I think that a person's natural rights trump a business wanting to discriminate.
That's why businesses aren't allowed to prohibit certain colors of people from entering.

Click to expand...

Respectully..
Well you could argue that they are discriminating against your gun, but you would not be able to successfully argue that you are being discriminated against. Even the most conservative judge wouldn't allow you to make that leap.

Dont get me wrong, I don't like "no guns" signs either. but... a property/ business owner should be able to decide who/what he allows on his property, IMHO. What if a guy runs a business at his house, like many small tax accountants for instance or some guy who fixes cars..computers in his garage? Should you be allowed to carry a gun in his home?

I dont like being told I can't carry in location X... but I don't know of a better way to allow it yet respect property rights.

Edit: To me, at least on commercial property like a restaurant, a "no guns" sign means: "No visible guns allowed". I'm not condoning this type of behavior for others, however.

Happy Holidays.