Appleton city parks

Snake161 · Sep 24, 2011

So we are having a birthday party in a city park later this week, and I wanted to know if it is legal to open carry there. This is the only topic I guess I never thought of before. I decided to check with appleton pd and was told no weapons allowed in the park. Im not sure if i believe this, I think she may have just said it to be safe. Does anybody know if this is true.

xd40 neenah · Sep 24, 2011

I did some quick looking on the city website and found nothing noting weapons in a park. Unless someone finds a specific ordinance banning firearms in a park in the city and you are not within 1000' of a school, you should be good to go.

Make sure you are not impaired.

Have a good time and stay safe!

phred · Sep 24, 2011

Go here first

http://wilawlibrary.gov/topics/ordinances.php

Then here
http://www.appleton.org/municipal_code/

Download the Municipal Code and perform a search.

I tried "firearm", "gun", and "weapon"

this is what I found.

Sec. 10-3. Adoption of state law regarding carrying of

weapons.

W.S.A. §939.22(10) and §941.23 regarding weapons,

exclusive of the penalty, is hereby adopted and made an

offense punishable as a violation of this Code.

(Code 1965, §8.01(2))

Cross reference(s) – Citation for violation of certain

ordinances, §1-17; schedule of deposits for citation, §1-18.

Ask the police dept to give you the source for their statement.

oops, found this

Sec 13-4. Prohibited items or uses.
In addition to otherwise illegal activities, the following
shall be prohibited within the boundaries of any park:
(a) Building of fires other than cooking fires provided
such cooking fires are limited to City provided grills or
commercially produced barbeque grills or kettles located
within parks under the jurisdiction of the Parks and
Recreation Department. No fires of any kind shall be
permitted on trails or on or adjacent to stormwater
management facilities.
(b) Possession of any firearm or weapon of any kind
except for archery as part of an authorized recreation
program or at the archery range in Appleton Memorial
Park.

protias · Sep 25, 2011

While they have a ordinance against it, it cannot be enforced due to preemption.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Sep 25, 2011

xd40 neenah said:
I did some quick looking on the city website and found nothing noting weapons in a park. Unless someone finds a specific ordinance banning firearms in a park in the city and you are not within 1000' of a school, you should be good to go.

Also, make sure you are well away from alcohol while carrying, police will not find that as a good situation and will take the liberty of giving you new jewelry for a time.

Have a good time and stay safe!

Please, let's not start this again. I can drink and carry if I want. I just cannot be 'materially impaired'.

xd40 neenah · Sep 25, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Please, let's not start this again. I can drink and carry if I want. I just cannot be 'materially impaired'.

Sorry, corrected

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 25, 2011

protias said:
While they have a ordinance against it, it cannot be enforced due to preemption.

Unfortunately I have not found a single lawyer who shares this opinion and I have talked to several. The State has a similar Statute (State Park Ban) so counties/municipalities are free to ban firearms from parks.

Grant Guess · Sep 26, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
Unfortunately I have not found a single lawyer who shares this opinion and I have talked to several. The State has a similar Statute (State Park Ban) so counties/municipalities are free to ban firearms from parks.

That will be challenged and the counties/municipalities will lose...without question.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 26, 2011

Grant Guess said:
That will be challenged and the counties/municipalities will lose...without question.

If you say so. Go ahead and see how it works out for you...
Come November 1st if you possess a license, you are golden. Without a license, not so much. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, the facts remain that the State Statute banning carry in Parks without a license is still there and a municipal Park ban has never been ruled to be preempted.

HandyHamlet · Sep 26, 2011

If you and your lawyers say so.

I mean has any ban been preempted? Since, you know, the law hasn't even gone into effect yet...

Grant Guess · Sep 26, 2011

I cannot wait to read about the first flatfoot that is dumb enough to write a citation for that and get nailed with a fine...per the rules within Act 35.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 26, 2011

HandyHamlet said:
If you and your lawyers say so.

I mean has any ban been preempted? Since, you know, the law hasn't even gone into effect yet...

Grant Guess said:
I cannot wait to read about the first flatfoot that is dumb enough to write a citation for that and get nailed with a fine...per the rules within Act 35.

Act 35 only allows a licensee or an out-of-state licensee to carry in a State Park. It only explicitly prohibits a municipality from banning carry on land by a licensee or OOS licensee. If a municipality has a Park ban on carry and they see someone Open Carry, a LEO may ask to see a permit (and ID) and not be in violation of Act 35.
Knock yourself out and try your luck.

943.13 (1m) (b) Enters or remains on any land of
another after having been notified by the owner or occupant
not to enter or remain on the premises. This paragraph
does not apply to a licensee or out−of−state
licensee if the owner’s or occupant’s intent is to prevent
the licensee or out−of−state licensee from carrying a firearm
on the owner’s or occupant’s land.

DOJ FAQ

Can a business or property owner limit or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on its
premises?
Yes. The law permits certain owners and occupants of property to prohibit persons from
carrying a concealed firearm in or on the property. A person may be subject to a Class B
forfeiture if he or she carries a firearm on the property after being notified not to remain
on the property or remain with a specific type of firearm. In the latter case, a property
owner can prohibit a person form possessing a specific type of firearm on their property
or any firearm. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(b)

We got screwed. There is no doubt about it. There were alot of promises regarding unlicensed Open Carry which were not honored. The reality is that if you want to carry Openly or Concealed and you are in an urban area, you will need a license in order to make it practical.

HandyHamlet · Sep 26, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
We got screwed. There is no doubt about it. There were alot of promises regarding unlicensed Open Carry which were not honored. The reality is that if you want to carry Openly or Concealed and you are in an urban area, you will need a license in order to make it practical.

Actually we need Constitutional Carry, we need to recall Walker, and vote Pam Galloway for Gov to make it all practical.

But by all means, keep posting. You'll get it right eventually.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 26, 2011

HandyHamlet said:
Actually we need Constitutional Carry, we need to recall Walker, and vote Pam Galloway for Gov to make it all practical.

But by all means, keep posting. You'll get it right eventually.

Walker would not have vetoed Constitutional Carry. It does not matter who the Governor is. We have timid Republicans in the WI Assembly and Senate who fought FOR a permit system with mandatory training.

HandyHamlet · Sep 26, 2011

... How soon we forget.

They wanted a so-called “constitutional carry” system that allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry it without a permit. After it gained some legislative support, Gov. Scott Walker sank such a proposal by saying he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t require permitting and training.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_8729ec02-9c46-11e0-91ec-001cc4c002e0.html

Just last week, Governor Walker showed his true colors and the state legislature fell in lockstep by turning SB93 — the nopermit Constitutional Carry bill — into one requiring permits and training, at Walker’s insistence.

Instead, the governor harpooned Constitutional Carry against the wishes of gun owners when he went public on June 3, 2011 with a demand for the legislature to bring him a permit bill.

Walker refused to comment on Constitutional Carry until late last week when WEAU-13 news Eau Claire reported, “Walker issued a statement Friday saying any bill that reaches his desk should include a permit and training” (Walker: Concealed carry needs permit, training 6/3/11).

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/07/01/constitutional-concealed-carry-derailed-by-wisconsin-republicans/

Walker: Concealed Carry Needs Permit, Training
Some Police Call For Permits, Database

Updated: 1:14 pm CDT June 3, 2011

MADISON, Wis. -- Gov. Scott Walker said any concealed carry bill that emerges from the state Legislature should require permits and training provisions.

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/28123270/detail.html

I've also posted the video interview of Walker betraying Constitutional Carry in his own words here on the forum before.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 26, 2011

If the only public quote is him stating "should", then that is weak evidence. Should is a far cry from "must".

HandyHamlet · Sep 26, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
If the only public quote is him stating "should", then that is weak evidence. Should is a far cry from "must".

My apologies. I did not know of your inability to read till know. Once again I apologize.

Grant Guess · Sep 26, 2011

They cannot ban them because the entire point of having a preemption law was so that municipalities could not have laws greater than state law AND so that laws would be uniform.

ACT 35 calls for gov't buildings to be posted against CCW and those not posted are presumed to allow lawful carrying. ACT 35 doesn't say anything about lands owned by the cities, counties or townships. To imagine that the prohibition on state parks somehow translates into city, county or town parks is a stretch.

HandyHamlet · Sep 26, 2011

Grant Guess said:
....

Whatever guy. Until you can back up what you say with the opinions of multiple unnamed lawyers basing their comments on preemptions of laws not yet in place... Well then Sir, you got nuthin'.

Interceptor_Knight · Sep 26, 2011

Grant Guess said:
ACT 35 calls for gov't buildings to be posted against CCW and those not posted are presumed to allow lawful carrying. ACT 35 doesn't say anything about lands owned by the cities, counties or townships. To imagine that the prohibition on state parks somehow translates into city, county or town parks is a stretch.

What Act 35 did was leave the existing 943.13(1m)(b) (trespassing statute) intact and simply added an exemption to licensees only. The municipality may issue a trespassing citation if they post a park indicating that you may not carry a firearm without a license. The State Park Statute is similar and no less stringent therefore, the municipality may ban firearms from their parks. This is fact until someone is found guilty of a violation and they appeals it.

943.13 (1m) (b) Enters or remains on any land of
another after having been notified by the owner or occupant
not to enter or remain on the premises. This paragraph
does not apply to a licensee or out−of−state
licensee if the owner’s or occupant’s intent is to prevent
the licensee or out−of−state licensee from carrying a firearm
on the owner’s or occupant’s land.

Appleton city parks

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member