• 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.

City of Madison thinking of posting signs

JJC

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
283
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Wouldn't that mean that Mad town would be giving up immunity when posting all gov building? Not sure if they could post since I thought I read that citys couldn't do that. Not sure if I'm correct in this assumption.

JJC
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
http://www.conservativecommune.com/...veraging-property-rights-to-facilitate-crime/

According to the article, the mayor of Madison, Paul Soglin, wants to post signs on all of the government buildings, which got me thinking, is this possible since the decision of McDonald vs Chicago?

Until futher court cases; probably. AFAIK, Heller and McDonald were about keeping handguns in the home and the resulting decisions were fairly narrow around that. More cases will need to come up to flesh out the "reasonable restrictions".
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Wouldn't that mean that Mad town would be giving up immunity when posting all gov building? Not sure if they could post since I thought I read that citys couldn't do that. Not sure if I'm correct in this assumption.

The only immunity a business owner is priviledged to is from liability should they choose to not post. There is nothing to give up by posting. They are in no way more liable for anything by posting.
 

XD40-OD

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
154
Location
Central WI
I've been boycotting Madison since I realized it's the California of Wisconsin, years ago
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Private businesses may well give up some immunity by posting

The only immunity a business owner is priviledged to is from liability should they choose to not post. There is nothing to give up by posting. They are in no way more liable for anything by posting.

Busnesses are specifically give immunity if they allow customers or employees to be armed on their property. Nothing is said that grants businesses immunity if they post their property.

A clear argument can be made that if a business posts their property, and someone is injured or killed as a result, they do not have immunity.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Until further court cases; probably. AFAIK, Heller and McDonald were about keeping handguns in the home and the resulting decisions were fairly narrow around that. More cases will need to come up to flesh out the "reasonable restrictions".

In the home the decision is undeniable, but for outside the home the lower courts must look to the reasoning and cites in the dicta to determine how to apply McDonald vs Chicago to outside the home. Since the finding in McDonald did not foreclose otherwise. If the lower courts are true to the Majority opinion published by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald there is no room for prohibition or restrictive regulation outside of "sensitive locations". Sensitive locations is where the debate on right to carry will shift.
 

Deadscott

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
56
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Busnesses are specifically give immunity if they allow customers or employees to be armed on their property. Nothing is said that grants businesses immunity if they post their property.

A clear argument can be made that if a business posts their property, and someone is injured or killed as a result, they do not have immunity.


Immunity shields a business only from the actions of people legally carrying on their property. If you post, immunity is irrelevant as there will be no one LEGALLY carrying on your posted property.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Immunity shields a business only from the actions of people legally carrying on their property. If you post, immunity is irrelevant as there will be no one LEGALLY carrying on your posted property.

The bills language is that a business who decides to allow carry: "is immune from any liability arising from its decision."

A business who decides to prohibit carry is NOT immune from any liability resulting from it's decision. Therefore, immunity is relevant. If a person who could carry normally but isn't allowed to carry based on your decision is hurt or killed by someone on your property you may be sued. You could be sued for this before, but now you've made a conscious decison that is relevant to the situtation.

Not saying I like this, but the immunity granted by this legislation is NOT irrelevant to a business that decides to prohibit firearms.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
protias said:
...the mayor of Madison, Paul Soglin, wants to post signs on all of the government buildings, which got me thinking, is this possible since the decision of McDonald vs Chicago?
SB93 says that gov't buildings may post, just like any other building. :mad:
And as someone else pointed out, that court case was pretty narrow, about guns in homes.
Chicago won't even allow someone on her porch or in her yard with a gun!
 
Top