• 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.

Village of Sussex

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
In Chapter 9.01, the village prohibits the carrying of firearms, which is unenforceable due to state preemption 66.0409, Article 1, Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose," as well as when Act 35 goes into law on November 1, 2011.

I ask you please update the Village of Sussex's ordinance to reflect state law.

Good morning Joseph,

Thank you for your email regarding our ordinances, the current state law and the changes relating to Act 35. We have been working with our attorney to update these ordinances as required by Act 35.

I am going to follow up this week with our attorney on the other state law that you reference and will email you when I have more information. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. I will get back to you on this item as soon as possible.

Have a nice day.

Please review 175.60(b)(c). If the Village decides to post, they can be held liable for the person's injury or death because the person was prohibited from having the means of self defense.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you for sharing this information. I have again provided it to our Village Attorney to ask for an opinion and I will forward it to you when I receive it.

Hopefully they don't post the buildings and remove the unenforceable ordinance.

Edit: Committee passed ordinance, goes to the Board on the 25th.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
[FONT=&quot]Good morning, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have heard back from our Village Attorney. I had forwarded your two questions (in black below) and he has provided responses to both, which are below in blue. I have also added some comments in red from me which outline what steps the Village is taking that may be of interest to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT]In Chapter 9.01, the village prohibits the carrying of firearms, which is unenforceable due to state preemption 66.0409, Article 1, Section 25, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose," as well as when Act 35 goes into law on November 1, 2011. [FONT=&quot]Comments from our Village Attorney:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Section 66.0409 of the Wisconsin Statutes do not prohibit the Village from regulating the carrying of firearms outright. Instead the relevant provisions of Section 66.0409 prohibit the Village from adopting or enforcing an ordinance or resolution concerning the “sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation” of firearms “unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.” Under currently existing provisions of Wisconsin Statute 941.235, it is a crime for a person to go armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision in the state (which includes the Village of Sussex) unless the person is a law enforcement officer, military personnel or has been authorized by the local sheriff or chief of police. Section 941.235 of the Wisconsin Statutes has been amended by Act 35 to also include an exception for persons who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. That amendment, however, cannot be viewed in isolation. Section 943.13 of the Wisconsin Statutes has also been amended by Act 35 to permit the Village to post written notice to persons that they may not “enter or remain in a part of that building, or on the grounds of that building, while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm.” Since the Village’s proposed ordinance would be adopted pursuant to the aforementioned State statutes, a constitutional challenge to the Village’s ordinance would also necessitate a challenge of the constitutionality of the State statutes. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Comments from Melissa Weiss, Assistant to the Administrator:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The Village’s Public Safety and Welfare Committee has requested that staff provide a draft revision of ordinance Section 9.01 of the Village Code so that it will remain compliant with the provisions of Section 66.0409 of the Wisconsin Statutes as amended by Act 35, and prohibit people from entering or remaining in Village buildings/grounds while carrying a firearm. This draft language will be reviewed by the Public Safety and Welfare Committee on October 5, 2011 at 7pm at Village Hall in the Board Room and it is possible that the Committee will take action on the item at that time. If they make a positive recommendation, the item will go to the October 25 Village Board meeting for action. A copy of the draft ordinance is available on our website by selecting Boards & Commissions and then Agendas & Minutes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT]Please review 175.60(b)(c). If the Village decides to post, they can be held liable for the person's injury or death because the person was prohibited from having the means of self defense. [FONT=&quot]Comments from our Village Attorney:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Act 35 does not create liability or increase the liability for persons or employers who prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons under the statutory terms created by that Act. Instead, Section 175.60(21)(b) and (c) of the Wisconsin Statutes, as created by Act 35, establish immunities from liability for persons and employers who do not prohibit the carry of concealed weapons. In other words, the mere fact that two classes of individuals receive immunity for not acting to limit weapons does not equate to additional liability exposure for persons who do act to limit weapons. Act 35 does not otherwise affect the negligence laws or laws regarding governmental immunity. In the scenario you present, a claimant would need to be able to prove that the Village was somehow “negligent” by availing itself of its express rights under State law to limit the carrying of firearms in Village buildings by persons other than law enforcement and military personnel. Significantly, such a claimant would also need to overcome existing laws regarding immunity and liability limits that pertain to municipalities.



Needless to say, I will be attending tonight.
[/FONT]
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
[FONT=&quot]Good morning, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Comments from Melissa Weiss, Assistant to the Administrator:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ... prohibit people from entering or remaining in Village buildings/grounds while carrying a firearm. ...[/FONT]

Be sure to point out that they may not prohibit a licensee from carrying on village grounds except for at special events and never in parking lots.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Be sure to point out that they may not prohibit a licensee from carrying on village grounds except for at special events and never in parking lots.

And the special events are less than 3 weeks, enclosed (so a gate or a building), and has a entrance fee, correct?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I think Melissa accidentally told me the wrong date. It is tomorrow, it was not tonight.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I was just at the meeting tonight and the Public Safety committee passed the ordinance to post public buildings. This will now go to the board on Tuesday, 7PM in the Village Hall basement.

I'm at my wits end because after myself and Resdon spoke, there was lots of talk about some of the public employees (mostly just the Village Hall employees and library employees) how they FELT uncomfortable with the idea of someone carrying. I'm not sure we'll be able to convince the board, but we need ideas more than just crime rates. It was interesting though, after we spoke, the committee asked Lt. Gumm about the investigation on the armed robbery that happened at the Walgreens. He said there was some evidence and the investigation is continuing. How can they think a sign is going to stop a crime? I just don't get it.
 

Resdon111

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
48
Location
Sussex, WI
This is a really tough one. I wish we had more time to figure something out. What I'd like to do is write letters or have a face to face discussion with the village employees, but there isn't enough time for that. On Tuesday I'm going to go back more prepared and try and do more convincing. What seemed to really hit it home for the board to vote in favor was that the employees want it (cold hard case of false security).
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Please do not construe this as a direct criticism as I wasn't there, I am just trying to impart what has seemed to be effective for me.

1. Don't hammer the "it's my right" argument. They don't care. Bring up the WI Constitution, mention it was voted for by over 75% of WI voters and that it passed in 1998 and then leave it alone. This fixes any argument they may have that it is an old document (Federal Constitution) and only applied to militias.
2. Use examples of times when the sign didn't work. Try to use something recent. I mentioned the NV IHOP where the nutjob walked past the 'no firearms' sign and shot 11 people. I also used Columbine as an example that crazy people don't care about felonies or signs.
3. Be empathetic. If you hear a concern, try to tailor the response to that particular concern. One example was the City of Elkhorn administrator mentioned he didn't think guns in the library was a good idea because of the children. :banghead: Before I could answer, a Sheriff's deputy, who is also a city councilman said "There are plenty of kids in Wal-Mart and 'they' allow open carry an no kids have been shot there". I almost clapped. Back to the empathy. Even though you may be thinking 'that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard', don't say that and don't show that. You can be forceful and insistent without demeaning someone. At the City of Delavan meeting, a lady spoke quite passionately about one of her friends/acquaintances who was shot at a school. I started my remarks after that directed to her saying I was sorry for her loss and then explained that if that were to happen in WI, the person would of broken a minimum of 2 felonies and a sign at the door wouldn't of stopped it from happening and that I agreed these tragedies shouldn't be condoned. She stopped objecting after that.

That being said, sometimes you just got to vote the jerks out of office.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Please do not construe this as a direct criticism as I wasn't there, I am just trying to impart what has seemed to be effective for me.

1. Don't hammer the "it's my right" argument. They don't care. Bring up the WI Constitution, mention it was voted for by over 75% of WI voters and that it passed in 1998 and then leave it alone. This fixes any argument they may have that it is an old document (Federal Constitution) and only applied to militias.
2. Use examples of times when the sign didn't work. Try to use something recent. I mentioned the NV IHOP where the nutjob walked past the 'no firearms' sign and shot 11 people. I also used Columbine as an example that crazy people don't care about felonies or signs.
3. Be empathetic. If you hear a concern, try to tailor the response to that particular concern. One example was the City of Elkhorn administrator mentioned he didn't think guns in the library was a good idea because of the children. :banghead: Before I could answer, a Sheriff's deputy, who is also a city councilman said "There are plenty of kids in Wal-Mart and 'they' allow open carry an no kids have been shot there". I almost clapped. Back to the empathy. Even though you may be thinking 'that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard', don't say that and don't show that. You can be forceful and insistent without demeaning someone. At the City of Delavan meeting, a lady spoke quite passionately about one of her friends/acquaintances who was shot at a school. I started my remarks after that directed to her saying I was sorry for her loss and then explained that if that were to happen in WI, the person would of broken a minimum of 2 felonies and a sign at the door wouldn't of stopped it from happening and that I agreed these tragedies shouldn't be condoned. She stopped objecting after that.

That being said, sometimes you just got to vote the jerks out of office.

1. I will bring up the Constitutional Amendment on Tuesday. Now that I know what I'm up against and not being so naive, I will be much better prepared.
2. Yes, and I had forgotten my example of doing the hokey pokey as well.
3. Unfortunately, the only time we had to speak was at the beginning, there was no discussion between the committee and us after that (which is stupid because I can answer questions/concerns much better than addressing it before hand). I will bring up how I can go shopping all over town with families and children (words used by one of the committee members to describe the library). I will also bring up the armed robbery at Walgreens and how a sign would not have stopped that. Lt. Gumm would not make any recommendation one way or another, which is good and bad. Good that he is going to enforce the law and not playing politics, but bad because I'm sure he knows the crime rate better than anyone else in the Village.

Thanks Paul, I appreciate the help. I'm more surprised that in such a conservative area, they implementing bad, and in my opinion, unenforceable ordinances. They have to make an ordinance more restrictive than the state in order to post the doors.

Edit: Yes, after last night, I am tempted to move into the Village of Sussex (Town of Lisbon now) just to run for office and fix these things.
 
Last edited:
M

McX

Guest
i sincerely hope you are successful in your efforts to have them hear reason. lest the town of sussex becomes the town of suss-sucks.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
i sincerely hope you are successful in your efforts to have them hear reason. lest the town of sussex becomes the town of suss-sucks.

Or the Village of Suckarse?

I am very disappointed with the committee. I am going to have to play on the emotion side of things because they did not listen to the facts.
 
M

McX

Guest
Or the Village of Suckarse?

I am very disappointed with the committee. I am going to have to play on the emotion side of things because they did not listen to the facts.

tell them it's for the children, one cant argue with that.
 
Top