GFSZ? Government building? OR NOT???

GlockRDH · Dec 20, 2010

A friend of mine in Madison used to attend his church on Sunday mornings in a part of Madison East High school that was rented out to his group....What rules apply here? Since it was rented out to another entity. I think that this church has since built their own building.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Dec 20, 2010

I believe the GFSZ law doesn't have exceptions for times of day or if the school is in session or not.

As for the government building, I have no information on what happens when they are leased out.

__ · Dec 20, 2010

School District Board owns the grounds and buildings

The School Board is regulated by the 'government', by state statute.

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 20, 2010

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
I believe the GFSZ law doesn't have exceptions for times of day or if the school is in session or not.

As for the government building, I have no information on what happens when they are leased out.

It is still "owned" by a political subdivision of the State... A school need not be in session or children within 1000 feet of you in order to be in violation of the GFSZ Statute.

GlockRDH · Dec 20, 2010

Im just wondering if its leased to a church, might that make for an entire DIFFERENT set of circumstances?

__ · Dec 20, 2010

The word used in the statute does not differentiate between 'leased to' (lessee) or 'leased by' (lessor). This ground is well plowed as the search function will show.

When the phrase "political subdivision" is used in a statute chapter it is typically defined therein and typically as "village, town or county". If a school board is a "political subdivision" of the state then a citation demonstrating that would seem appropriate.

Motofixxer · Dec 20, 2010

I don't know of any exemptions in the statutes either. That church has now merged with another well established church that did have a building on the East side of Madison. I'm not sure about the faculty and their views on the issue though.

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 20, 2010

GlockRDH said:
Im just wondering if its leased to a church, might that make for an entire DIFFERENT set of circumstances?

No it is not different. The fact that it is on school grounds makes OC forbidden. It is irrelevant that the Church is leasing the space it is utilizing. Leasing does not change ownership. The actual owner retains rights and obligations. The lesee only has limited rights of use none of which are exceptions to the GFSZ Statute. It does not magically become "Private Property"...

GlockRDH · Dec 21, 2010

..if its 'not different'...then where are the 'seperation of church and state' people... IF its still a school/government building, and government rules apply, then a church CANT exist on said property...it seems to me that something MUST be overlooked for this to happen. The owner only retains certain rights/priveleges when it gets leased. If you lease rental property you dont retain the right to walk into it anytime you want...there are some other landlord/tenant issues im sure, none of which come to mind right now.

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 21, 2010

GlockRDH said:
..if its 'not different'...then where are the 'seperation of church and state' people... IF its still a school/government building, and government rules apply, then a church CANT exist on said property...it seems to me that something MUST be overlooked for this to happen. The owner only retains certain rights/priveleges when it gets leased. If you lease rental property you dont retain the right to walk into it anytime you want...there are some other landlord/tenant issues im sure, none of which come to mind right now.

The 1st Amendment does not guarantee freedom from religion. You will find no phrase "Seperation of Church and State" within the US Constitution. It simply affirms a right to the free expression of it. Since leasing a building does not equate to establishing a religion, your premise is simply rhetoric.....

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__ · Dec 21, 2010

Interceptor_Knight said:
It is still "owned" by a political subdivision of the State.

This bald assertion is equally empty.

Please cite to Wisconsin Statutes establishing a School Board as a "political subdivision" of the state.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Dec 21, 2010

Interceptor_Knight said:
The 1st Amendment does not guarantee freedom from religion. You will find no phrase "Seperation of Church and State" within the US Constitution. It simply affirms a right to the free expression of it.

Right, so, for example, the school needs to lease it at market rates or the same rates it would rent its facilities to a secular organization.

GlockRDH · Dec 21, 2010

Im well aware that 'seperation of church and state' is merely rhetoric...not found in hte constitution...but often cited by the left as justification for the removal of Christmas items from public areas. SO, id think that the lease would make the 'school' no longer a 'school' if its leased to a church. Because if it is a school, the state cant allow Sunday services....not sure if im making this any clearer...

apjonas · Dec 21, 2010

First - It is s-e-p-A-r-a-t-i-o-n

Second - There was a brilliant post (by me) on the what "leased by" means not too long ago. I will excerpt it here for the benefit of all.

If the state "owns" a building but then leases it to a private entity, it (like any other landlord) temporarily gives up certain aspects of ownership. The police do not have the right to enter a public housing apartment at will. Likewise, if the state leases a building from ABC Management for office space, the building takes on the characteristic of a government building even though it is "owned" by a private company. The key is who has the right to exclude not who can sell the physical structure. If the meaning of "leased by" included state as lessor (implies owner) then the phrase would be superfluous.

Third - Renting space for a very short period of time only minimally implicates the nature of ownership. For example if the state rented a ballroom at a local hotel for some function, the ballroom is not turned thereby into a government "building."

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 22, 2010

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Right, so, for example, the school needs to lease it at market rates or the same rates it would rent its facilities to a secular organization.

If it did not, that would not infer creating a State Religion not infringing on the free expression of.. It may be a separate legal issue but not a Constitutional one.

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 22, 2010

Don Quixote said:
This bald assertion is equally empty.

Please cite to Wisconsin Statutes establishing a School Board as a "political subdivision" of the state.

I don't have time right now. This line of debate is irrelevant. It is still not private property. The "church" would not own it. It is still within a GFSZ (felony violation) and likely still considered within a school building which would fall under other local ordinances or codes regarding weapons.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_12.pdf

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0120.pdf

I would not want to be the one facing a citation ffor 941.235 and having my only defense be that a School Board is not a "Political Subdivision" of the State and therefore a building owned by them is not a "public" building...

Interceptor_Knight · Dec 22, 2010

apjonas said:
If the state "owns" a building but then leases it to a private entity, it (like any other landlord) temporarily gives up certain aspects of ownership. ......

Which means that it would still be owned by a political subdivision of the State for the purposes of the firearms Statute.

apjonas said:
Renting space for a very short period of time only minimally implicates the nature of ownership. For example if the state rented a ballroom at a local hotel for some function, the ballroom is not turned thereby into a government "building."

Which means that renting a ballroom would not make it a building owned or leased by a political subdvision of the state.

Shotgun · Dec 23, 2010

Interceptor_Knight said:
I don't have time right now. This line of debate is irrelevant. It is still not private property. The "church" would not own it. It is still within a GFSZ (felony violation) and likely still considered within a school building which would fall under other local ordinances or codes regarding weapons.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/gw/gw_12.pdf

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0120.pdf

I would not want to be the one facing a citation ffor 941.235 and having my only defense be that a School Board is not a "Political Subdivision" of the State and therefore a building owned by them is not a "public" building...

School districts are not political subdivisions, which consist of cities, villages, towns and counties. School districts are, however, "local units of government"-- which includes all political subdivisions plus special purpose districts such as school districts, sewage districts, baseball stadium districts, et al.

In the case of school buildings, the GFSZ doesn't make any distinction between publicly and privately-own schools; a school is a school, and the law applies the same in either case. I don't think renting or using part of a school building for a non-school purpose, such as church, would change a thing. The school still owns it.

I imagine a different case could be made if you found a building that was partially owned by a school and partially owned by a private non-school owner. Perhaps the non-school owned portions would be regarded as any other private property within 1000' feet of school grounds.

I doubt we'd find an instance of such a building in Wisconsin, and if there is, then I can only think it's quite rare.

apjonas · Dec 27, 2010

No and Maybe Yes

Interceptor_Knight said:
Which means that it would still be owned by a political subdivision of the State for the purposes of the firearms Statute.

I think not. Yes, the plain language of the statute says that and the plain language rule usually triumphs. However, in this case you have no substantial governmental interest in the daily activities of the building beyond that the government would have in any commercial activity. Again the police cannot enter the premises at will simply because the brick and mortar is "owned" by the state. Lessors (landlords) given up certain aspects of ownership for the duration of a lease. When a government chooses to undertake a commercial activity, it takes on a different character. At least that's what I think a judge would say.

Which means that renting a ballroom would not make it a building owned or leased by a political subdvision of the state.

It depends. If the government leased a building (or portion of a building) for an extended period of time, for governmental functions, that facility would take on the characteristics of a "governmental building" - note that "building" doesn't necessarily mean a entire structure.

Given the purpose of the statute and the realities of a leasehold, simply looking at whose name is on the title isn't sufficient to determine if the location falls under this law.

GlockRDH · Dec 27, 2010

apjonas said:
I think not. Yes, the plain language of the statute says that and the plain language rule usually triumphs. However, in this case you have no substantial governmental interest in the daily activities of the building beyond that the government would have in any commercial activity. Again the police cannot enter the premises at will simply because the brick and mortar is "owned" by the state. Lessors (landlords) given up certain aspects of ownership for the duration of a lease. When a government chooses to undertake a commercial activity, it takes on a different character. At least that's what I think a judge would say.

It depends. If the government leased a building (or portion of a building) for an extended period of time, for governmental functions, that facility would take on the characteristics of a "governmental building" - note that "building" doesn't necessarily mean a entire structure.

Given the purpose of the statute and the realities of a leasehold, simply looking at whose name is on the title isn't sufficient to determine if the location falls under this law.

THATS I guess where i was going with this...!

GFSZ? Government building? OR NOT???

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Regular Member