• 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.

Dane County Anti's Up To Their Old Tricks Again!

P

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Drakon said:
So now you guys have me confused. Can Dane County ban weapons from its buildings under the current bill? If so will they have to provide storage and metal detectors?
Click to expand...
Only court houses (unless you have permission from a judge) and police stations (perhaps more, but these are the ones I remember) are the only ones off limits. Public buildings are open to the public. They cannot ban firearms under SB93/AR10.
 
davegran

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
protias said:
Only court houses (unless you have permission from a judge) and police stations (perhaps more, but these are the ones I remember) are the only ones off limits. Public buildings are open to the public. They cannot ban firearms under SB93/AR10.
Click to expand...
Here is the section that applies:
175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.

(16) PROHIBITED ACTIVITY. (a) Except as provided in par. (b), neither a licensee
nor an out−of−state licensee may knowingly carry a concealed weapon, a weapon that
is not concealed, or a firearm that is not a weapon in any of the following places:
1. Any portion of a building that is a police station, sheriff ’s office, state patrol
station, or the office of a division of criminal investigation special agent of the
department.
2. Any portion of a building that is a prison, jail, house of correction, or secured
correctional facility.
3. The facility established under s. 46.055.
4. The center established under s. 46.056.
5. Any secured unit or secured portion of a mental health institute under s.
51.05, including a facility designated as the Maximum Security Facility at Mendota
Mental Health Institute.
6. Any portion of a building that is a county, state, or federal courthouse.
7. Any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom if court is in session.
8. A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.
(b) The prohibitions under par. (a) do not apply to any of the following:
1. A weapon in a vehicle driven or parked in a parking facility located in a
building that is used as, or any portion of which is used as, a location under par. (a).
2. A weapon in a courthouse or courtroom if a judge who is a licensee is carrying
the weapon or if another licensee or out−of−state licensee, whom a judge has
permitted in writing to carry a weapon, is carrying the weapon.
3. A weapon in a courthouse or courtroom if a district attorney, or an assistant
district attorney, who is a licensee is carrying the weapon.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
They can post:

Enters or remains in any part of a building that is owned, occupied, or controlled by the
state or any local governmental unit if the state or local governmental unit has notified the person not to
enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or a type of firearm. This provision does not
apply to the governmental buildings in which a licensee is otherwise prohibited from carrying a
concealed weapon under the substitute amendment. In addition, this provision does not apply to a
person who leases residential or business premises in the building or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven
or parked in a parking facility, to any part of a building used as a parking facility.
Click to expand...
 
D

Drakon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Madison
rcav8r said:
That's a good question. Currently, it would not be legal. When the bill takes effect, they can put in signage, but I believe an actual law would be against the preemption statute.
Click to expand...

I don't know how I missed this because it answers my question to a "T".
 
A

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
If You Look at It This Way:

Assuming the county has the authority to post, they could pass a resolution/ordinance whatever saying that they don't want concealed carry in Building X and instructing the appropriate office to post in compliance with state law. Simply expressing an opinion does not violate preemption. Now SB93 makes specific mention of the sterile area as being off limits so an argument could be made that the intent was to allow carry elsewhere (needed for people to check firearms with the airlines). Is carrying (unloaded in suitcase) permitted now for purposes of check in? Is it not a violation of 941.23 as well as 941.235?

One option would be to form a partnership that leases a spot for a shoeshine stand in the terminal. :)
 
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
apjonas said:
One option would be to form a partnership that leases a spot for a shoeshine stand in the terminal. :)
Click to expand...
I like the way you think... wonder how long that business license would be in force before being revoked?

And yeah, if the county posts the airport, how can people transport their unloaded, uncased, locked guns to the airline desk??
SB93 doesn't say anything about 'partial posting', or 'conditional posting'.
It's all or nothing.
That would affect hunters as well as normal people ;), so maybe they'll help kill this resolution or stop Dane Co. from posting the airport.
 
bigdaddy1

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
BROKENSPROKET said:
First of all, a Resolution has no legal force of law. An ordinance does have force of law, but that would be preempted under SB93.

All they have the legal right to do is POST SIGNS. Then it becomes a trespass violation.

ETA: What he said;
Click to expand...

I think public buildings cant, due to state ownership. I may be wrong but.....
 
S

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Yes they can.
Click to expand...

Dane County can post county buildings under their control. They cannot post a govt building other than one owned by Dane County. State owned buildings in Dane County can be posted... but not by Dane County officials. Only State officials can post State owned buildings. Buildings owned by the City of Madison can be posted by Madison officials. Dane County can't stick their noses in other govt's business.
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
safcrkr said:
Dane County can post county buildings under their control. They cannot post a govt building other than one owned by Dane County. State owned buildings in Dane County can be posted... but not by Dane County officials. Only State officials can post State owned buildings. Buildings owned by the City of Madison can be posted by Madison officials. Dane County can't stick their noses in other govt's business.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I stand corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top