City as Property Owner banning Open Carry by non-permittee

IcrewUH60 · Sep 15, 2011

Shotgun said:
That's of uncertain legality right now. As of November 1st it will be absolutely illegal, except for posted buildings.

If a city can ban carry in public parks (legally) then why hasn't Madiston banned Open Carry on ALL city "owned" "public" property?
Doesn't make sense that the state preemption laws prevent political subdivisions from making more restrictive laws, but yet the political subdivisions can do it anyway?

BROKENSPROKET · Sep 15, 2011

IcrewUH60 said:
Verona, WI - Fireman's Park is posted.
Love to have ya. I'll cook the burgers.

Is it just Firearm's Park, and not all of them?

IcrewUH60 · Sep 15, 2011

BROKENSPROKET said:
Is it just Firearm's Park, and not all of them?

great question. Research is in order. I will go to Veteran's Park tomorrow and advise. [sarcasm] I wouldn't imagine a place named "Veteran's Park" would be posted..... [/sarcasm] Neither park is within 1000' ft of a school - just to get that out there.

i'll try to get pictures of the signs at the different parks. I have a Zombie hunter shotgun (IAC Hawk 12ga with Ghost Sights) being delivered to my FFL tomorrow, so these tasks will be prioritized, of course.

Shotgun · Sep 15, 2011

BROKENSPROKET said:
Are you saying to be patient as WCI would be unsympathetic with an incident right now?

Not saying that, because WCI has been looking at park bans with a very critical eye for a long time. I'm just saying that any hope of legality on the part of a local municipality for banning firearms in their parks is dead in the water as of November 1. They can only choose to, stupidly, post buildings.

safcrkr · Sep 15, 2011

Do any of these local elected idiots employ any attorneys for their city/town boards? If they want to ban CC in their buildings, all they have to do is post signs. A local ordinance banning carry anywhere that Act 35 does not specifically list as prohibited isn't worth the paper it's written on. Act 35 and statute 66.0409 spells out what they can, and more importantly, what they cannot do... and they cannot enact any ordinances more stringent than state statutes, that are enforcible. State statutes do not (as of Nov. 1st) prohibit any person with a CC permit from carrying in state parks (and nothing in Act 35 requires concealment). If the state does not prohibit licensed carry in it's parks, neither can any city/town/county. But because the state statutes (will) only allow carry in state parks by licensed people, as far as they can legally go is banning open carry by unlicensed persons in local parks.

Shotgun · Sep 15, 2011

IcrewUH60 said:
If a city can ban carry in public parks (legally) then why hasn't Madiston banned Open Carry on ALL city "owned" "public" property?
Doesn't make sense that the state preemption laws prevent political subdivisions from making more restrictive laws, but yet the political subdivisions can do it anyway?

Ha, probably because Madison already had a (preempted) ordinance banning open carry everywhere, they probably never felt the need to single out parks. Although they do have a specific ban on firearms in parks designated "conservation parks." And they're trying to get a ban at the zoo. As I understand it, the county owns the zoo and the county wants the City of Madison to also pass a zoo ban ordinance because the county figures the city police would be the ones called upon to enforce the ordinance and it would be simpler if the city had it's own ordinance. (I think the county really just wants to pass the lawsuits onto the city by saying "Hey, the city wrote that illegal ticket, not us!")

My advice, don't try to apply the concept of "making sense" to the Madison city council.

IcrewUH60 · Sep 15, 2011

Shotgun said:
Ha, probably because Madison already had a (preempted) ordinance banning open carry everywhere, they probably never felt the need to single out parks. Although they do have a specific ban on firearms in parks designated "conservation parks." And they're trying to get a ban at the zoo. As I understand it, the county owns the zoo and the county wants the City of Madison to also pass a zoo ban ordinance because the county figures the city police would be the ones called upon to enforce the ordinance and it would be simpler if the city had it's own ordinance. (I think the county really just wants to pass the lawsuits onto the city by saying "Hey, the city wrote that illegal ticket, not us!")

My advice, don't try to apply the concept of "making sense" to the Madison city council.

There's a Dane County owned dog park just down the road from my place. We visit it often, and while I don't think it's posted at "the entrance" it is posted along one of the main trails, but just there. And by posted, I mean a simple sign that reads "No Firearms".

So the county and the city think they can pass more restrictive laws than the state?

Shotgun · Sep 15, 2011

safcrkr said:
But because the state statutes (will) only allow carry in state parks by licensed people, as far as they can legally go is banning open carry by unlicensed persons in local parks.

But here's the problem with that: Under the revised trespass statute, they cannot post public lands. So even while they might argue that a ban on unlicensed gun carriers is "similar and no more stringent" than the state park restriction, they can't also argue that it is no more stringent than the trespass law that specifically excludes granting them the authority to post public lands.

Shotgun · Sep 15, 2011

IcrewUH60 said:
There's a Dane County owned dog park just down the road from my place. We visit it often, and while I don't think it's posted at "the entrance" it is posted along one of the main trails, but just there. And by posted, I mean a simple sign that reads "No Firearms".

So the county and the city think they can pass more restrictive laws than the state?

Some of them have been thinking that, based largely on the questionable legal reasoning presented to them by the Wisconsin League of Municipalities.

IcrewUH60 · Sep 15, 2011

Shotgun said:
Some of them have been thinking that, based largely on the questionable legal reasoning presented to them by the Wisconsin League of Municipalities.

Will a "handgun" carried for self protection still be considered a "firearm" under Act 35?

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 16, 2011

IcrewUH60 said:
There's a Dane County owned dog park just down the road from my place. We visit it often, and while I don't think it's posted at "the entrance" it is posted along one of the main trails, but just there. And by posted, I mean a simple sign that reads "No Firearms".

So the county and the city think they can pass more restrictive laws than the state?

IcrewUH60 said:
Will a "handgun" carried for self protection still be considered a "firearm" under Act 35?

Yes, a hangun is a firearm and some municipalities believe they have a green light for banning firearms except for permittees with firearms on land outside of buildings.

Grant Guess · Sep 16, 2011

The WI League of Municipalities has coordinated the attack on Act 35 within this state. If you notice, all of these communities did not jump on this at the same time. Only one or two communities per week have been keeping this in the news constantly. It is coordinated and with purpose. They get a FOI request on their communications and heads would roll.

LaBomba · Sep 16, 2011

Grant Guess said:
The WI League of Municipalities has coordinated the attack on Act 35 within this state. If you notice, all of these communities did not jump on this at the same time. Only one or two communities per week have been keeping this in the news constantly. It is coordinated and with purpose. They get a FOI request on their communications and heads would roll.

Roll with laughter, you mean? It's not a unit of government so FOI = SOOL.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Sep 16, 2011

LaBomba said:
Roll with laughter, you mean? It's not a unit of government so FOI = SOOL.

Just a question, wouldn't the communication from the city side be FOIA able?

It would be more tedious filing the FOIA request with each municipality but that would contribute to building the mosaic of what the league has put out.

Captain Nemo · Sep 16, 2011

Lots of confusion in 943.13. Such as the definition of premisis v land. The legal definition of premisis includes both land and buildings. It apprears that 943.13 is saying that you can not remain on land if the owner or occupant has asked you to leave but the owner or occupant can not ask you to leave if the sole reason is you are licensed to carry and are carrying a firearm. This appears to me the signage restrictions in Act 35 is in direct contradiction to this statute if the intent of premisis is to include buildings as well as land. In any event it is a contradiction if applied to parks and recreational areas. The horse is getting to look more like a camel every day.

I see law suits looming. I wonder if local officials have even had any legal impact done. Probably not in that they are acting obviously out of the emotion of gun paranoia. They best get their checkbooks out.

My opinion

IcrewUH60 · Sep 16, 2011

Captain Nemo said:
Lots of confusion in 943.13. Such as the definition of premisis v land. The legal definition of premisis includes both land and buildings. It apprears that 943.13 is saying that you can not remain on land if the owner or occupant has asked you to leave but the owner or occupant can not ask you to leave if the sole reason is you are licensed to carry and are carrying a firearm. This appears to me the signage restrictions in Act 35 is in direct contradiction to this statute if the intent of premisis is to include buildings as well as land. In any event it is a contradiction if applied to parks and recreational areas. The horse is getting to look more like a camel every day.

My opinion

has a city ever been deemed "an owner" of the land within its limits? The city represents the people, not the land. The land belongs to the collective residents of the city.

I'd like to learn more about any case law that has come about or near this topic.

Also,l on public lands, wouldn't I be the "occupant" (of the land or picnic table) too?

Captain Nemo · Sep 16, 2011

The issue on ownership of public property can be argued ad infinitum. Certainly the city would by definition be considered an occupant.

My opinion

IcrewUH60 · Sep 16, 2011

Captain Nemo said:
The issue on ownership of public property can be argued ad infinitum. Certainly the city would by definition be considered an occupant.

My opinion

Then surely by definition, the residents would be also, no?

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 16, 2011

BROKENSPROKET said:
Did you just realize that I was right about you being right? That's funny.

But if they use 943.13 instead of an local ordindance or resolution, then they get around 66.0409, but they still have the problem that nothing in 943.13 applies to public land, only public buildings only if you are armed.

I realized that I was mistaken in my analysis. The city may not use 943.13 (1m)(b) to prevent anyone from carrying firearms on City owned property which is not a "park" (park bans have not been tested in court regarding if they are more stringent). 66.0409(2) preempts them from regulating the carry of firearms unless their Ordinance is similar to and no more stringent than a State Statute. As an example, there is no State Statute regulating carry in parking lots.

IcrewUH60 · Sep 16, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
I realized that I was mistaken in my analysis. The city may not use 943.13 (1m)(b) to prevent anyone from carrying firearms on City owned property which is not a "park" (park bans have not been tested in court regarding if they are more stringent). 66.0409(2) preempts them from regulating the carry of firearms unless their Ordinance is similar to and no more stringent than a State Statute. As an example, there is no State Statute regulating carry in parking lots.

so, unloaded and encased in a city park still violates a "No Firearms" City ordinance, but does not violate current state park laws. Then what do we do?

City as Property Owner banning Open Carry by non-permittee

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member