• 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.

Exisiting County and City Park Bans

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
It has been talked about on here quite a bit in the past about how they are in violation of 66.0409. If it was not clear enough to us already, the point should be very clear under SB93. While the State will now allow handugns to be carried in state parks with a permit, it also prohibits Counties, Cities, Villages, Townships from probiting handguns in thier parks.

If is was not clear enough for the League of Municipalities before, it should be definitive now.
 

Stauffer

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
4
Location
WI
Reference

What is the reference for that? I would like to pass it along to the local parks department.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Well they might still believe that they can prohibit firearms in parks by non-permitted people.

But here's the language that allows permit-holding people to have handguns in state parks:

29.089 (2) of the statutes is renumbered
29.089 (2) (intro.) and amended to read:
29.089 (2) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (3), no
person may have in his or her possession or under his or
her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state
fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and
enclosed within a carrying case. This subsection does not
apply to any of the following:

....29.089 (2) (d) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(g), if the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(bm).
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Has anyone thought about getting a legislator to introduce some "teeth" to 66.0409? Something to keep tyrants like Soglin at bay?

I think that it should be taken up by the co-sponosrs of SB93, not just one. We can work on Galloway over the summer.

I want it to go so far, that it forces counties and cities to remove all the unenforcable ordinances that have been left on the books just because they are not being enforced.
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Well they might still believe that they can prohibit firearms in parks by non-permitted people.

But here's the language that allows permit-holding people to have handguns in state parks:

29.089 (2) of the statutes is renumbered
29.089 (2) (intro.) and amended to read:
29.089 (2) (intro.) Except as provided in sub. (3), no
person may have in his or her possession or under his or
her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state
fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and
enclosed within a carrying case. This subsection does not
apply to any of the following:

....29.089 (2) (d) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(g), if the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(bm).




If it's a handgun, permit or not, it's gtg, is my read on that.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Shotgun said:
29.089 (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.

This subsection does not apply to any of the following:
....29.089 (2) (d) A licensee,... an out−of−state licensee,... if the firearm is a handgun...
xenophon said:
If it's a handgun, permit or not, it's gtg, is my read on that.
No, firearms are still prohibited unless:
a1) it's a handgun
a2) in possession of a licensee
OR
b) unloaded & encased
 
Last edited:

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
To be honest, I don't think we'll be able to get anything changed until next year, or maybe even next legislative season (2013-2014?), and that is if we keep the majorities and governors mansion.
Won't hurt to try though.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
To be honest, I don't think we'll be able to get anything changed until next year, or maybe even next legislative season (2013-2014?), and that is if we keep the majorities and governors mansion.
Won't hurt to try though.

OR it can be a civil lawsuit. Who wants to join me in Portage County for a samll Open Carry Picnic?
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
[/B]



If it's a handgun, permit or not, it's gtg, is my read on that.


The formatting is goofing you up. That's one long clause, not 2 separate pieces of code.

You're reading it as:
...does not apply:
- to a licensee or out of state licensee
or
- if the firearm is a handgun as defined .....

That's not the wording, it's all 1 statute...
29.089 (2) (d) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g), if the firearm is a handgun, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (bm).

It doesn't apply "to a licensee or out of state licensee if the firearm is a handgun"
 

grinner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pewaukee, WI
It doesn't apply "to a licensee or out of state licensee if the firearm is a handgun"

Correct.

The "any of the following" was referring to subs (a), (b), (c), etc. This is a single exception to the rule, (d). Permit required.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Shotgun said:
Well they might still believe that they can prohibit firearms in parks by non-permitted people.
BROKENSPROKET said:
In State Parks.
The preemption statute says that local gov't can't have a law that's more restrictive than state law.
So as Auric says, a locality may still decide that it can ban non-licensees from carrying in a local park,
just like the state bans them from a state park.

I can see a judge reading the law that way.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Edited Quote: Has anyone thought about getting a legislator to introduce some "teeth" to 66.0409? Something to keep tyrants like [draft dodging] Soglin at bay?

Hope you don't mine the edit. Solgin is considered a hero in Madison, hiding out and living the good life there while [mostly poor] Americans were dying. He's a perfect example along with Barrett, Doyle, Flynn and Jeri B. of an anti-Constitutional elitist. Well maybe not Jeri B., she's in it for the $$$$.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Hope you don't mine the edit. Solgin is considered a hero in Madison, hiding out and living the good life there while [mostly poor] Americans were dying. He's a perfect example along with Barrett, Doyle, Flynn and Jeri B. of an anti-Constitutional elitist. Well maybe not Jeri B., she's in it for the $$$$.

Yeah, I do kind of mind the edit. At least take my name off of the quote.

Not that Soglin isn't a piece of garbage for any number of reasons but I'm not so sure the draft doesn't violate the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude. Not only that but it makes for a worse military than an all volunteer force. I'm anti-draft.
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
The formatting is goofing you up. That's one long clause, not 2 separate pieces of code.

You're reading it as:
...does not apply:
- to a licensee or out of state licensee
or
- if the firearm is a handgun as defined .....

That's not the wording, it's all 1 statute...


It doesn't apply "to a licensee or out of state licensee if the firearm is a handgun"

Damn wording, that for clearing it up. AND vs OR is a big difference.
 
Top