Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Concealed carry violations carry $213 Baraboo City fine.

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Concealed carry violations carry $213 Baraboo City fine.

    Concealed means concealed, only constitutional open carry is prohibited in Baraboo. Invest in surveillance device providers.

    http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsr...cc4c03286.html

    "The Baraboo City Council has approved rules prohibiting guns on all city property. Last week it adopted the state statute allowing property owners and occupants to forbid the presence of weapons as a city ordinance. That allows city police to enforce the rules by issuing a citation, without have to depend on the Sauk County prosecutor.

    Violations of the ordinance can result in a fine of $213.10, said Baraboo Police Lt. Rob Sinden."

  2. #2
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    i thought you could only post the public buildings not the public property
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  3. #3
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    sounds to me that that ordinance is stricter than state statute....anyone wanna go to baraboo and sit on the court house grounds..?

  4. #4
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    sure is tempting
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  5. #5
    McX
    Guest
    $213? Revenue-ing!

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Good luck enforcing the property. Baraboo is a pretty area. I would like to see it before the winter hits.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Dumb Reporting.....

    I think this is just another case of a reporter who can't comprehend the English language.

    Resolution No. 11-90


    The concealed carry of weapons is prohibited in all City of Baraboo buildings, except by peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty. Signs in compliance with Wisconsin State Statute 943.13(2)(bm) 1 & 2.b, shall be placed at entrances to all buildings.
    Still, we've got to get on this; in the very least to keep them from posting bathrooms and such stupid junk as that. Oh, and I'm pretty sure "peace officers" don't exist anymore so they must mean law enforcement officers.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 10-19-2011 at 09:36 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    This whole paranoia spawned posting thing will certainly end up in higher court. That is how it should be. Too much he said she said going on in local goverments. Too many city lawyers playing supreme court justice. Hopefully the legislature will enact true constitutional carry and modify Act 35 to eliminate the confusion but I don't think we will see constitutional carry any time soon. The State has committed too much time and money establishing a shall issue law that scrapping it too soon would be a bad political action. It would take courage for any legislator to suggest it be abolished. The resolution will lay with the courts and that is a crap shoot based on the case law we have discussed on this forum. The bottom line is that Article I section 25 of our state constiitution gives every qualified Wisconsin resident the right to use firearms to provide for their own personal protection. The WSC, the AG, the governor have all ruled that as a minimum that constitutional right protects visible carry. The erroneous WSC decision in Hamdan that concealed carry is still lawfully prohibited because we have the alternate manner of visible carry by which we can exercise our rights, is what put us in the position we are today. If the WSC is going to make that distinction between concealed carry as a privilege and visible carry as a right. Then in my opinion the application of Act 35 must be done in accordance. We need the higher courts to make that same proclamation.

    The demotion of visible carry from a right to a privilege as done in Act35 is unconstitutional. The intent of Act 35 was to provide a means to allow us the privilege to carry a concealed weapon. The inclusion of visible carry into any of the controls applied to concealed carry is in my opinion, without question, unconstitutional. That includes postage of signs to restrict our right to provide for our personal protection by use of visible firearms in public places. How on earth can the legislature or some lower political unit justify that a law intended to provide for a privilege, can also restrict the exercise of a state constitutional right? In Hamdan the WSC did say that the State may not evicerate Art I section 25. It ruled that the State must provide a means for us to exercise the activities contained in Art I sec 25. That is now constitutional law and as such part of our constitution. It applies to all levels of state goverment.

    The "State" is not necessarily an independent body but a conglomeration of a number of sub divisions of political units. Each and every official of each of those units swears on the day they take office to protect and support the constitutions of the U.S. and the State of Wisconsin, so help them God. Increasingly those words are soon forgotten at all levels of government. Local govermnets are more frequently divorcing themselves from the community of the "State" and building cocoons around their enterprises. Even to the point, as we see in the DoJ rules on training, ignoring the rule of the legislature. Somehow the message that we live in a state that is governed by "rule of law" and more specifically constitutional law, needs to be heraled. We have to convince the legislators that any controls on visible carry do not belong in Act 35. The tiltle of the concealed carry statute is

    175.60  License to carry a concealed weapon.

    End of rant and only my opinion.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 10-19-2011 at 10:27 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    I hope that within a year we can get some very 2A senators like maybe Glen Grothman to introduce legislation that removes the ability for cities to ban weapons in public/government buildings. The one that pisses me off the most is the zoo. I can walk around the zoo all I want armed, but to go into a building I have to disarm?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    I would also question the validity of the higher fines for violations. Since the state law only specifies $25, are the local ordinances null and void because of state preemption?

    Another AG opinion or court case will be necessary here.

  11. #11
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    Another AG opinion or court case will be necessary here.
    "Another"? Wisconsin state firearms preemption is fifteen years old and no one has ever gained standing to bring it to court or enforce it. Obviously we are not attorneys but no one has cited a case on point.

    Added - Older than Wisconsin Constitution Article I Section 25!
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 10-19-2011 at 01:05 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    I hope that within a year we can get some very 2A senators like maybe Glen Grothman to introduce legislation that removes the ability for cities to ban weapons in public/government buildings. The one that pisses me off the most is the zoo. I can walk around the zoo all I want armed, but to go into a building I have to disarm?
    You never know when youll have to take out an attacking giraffe... :-)

  13. #13
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    What we need to do it lobby our legislators to do what Florida did. Florida had a statute preempting local firearms regulations as we do but it did not have an enforcement mechanism, or 'teeth'. The Florida Legislature this year ammended said statute to include a $5,000 fine, among other things, like removal from offfice or duty by the Governor.

    66.0409 is being trampled on our only recourse is a lawsuit. I contest that it is the Duty of our Legislators to ammend 66.0409 to include an enforcement mechanism. Give it some teeth.

    Local muncipalties have the lawful authority to pass resolutions to ban from and to post all governmental buildings. They cannot be passing ordinances to do so.

    Also, if 66.0409 included an enforcement mechanism, all theses unenforceable ordinances that are still lingering around would have to come off the books.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by rcav8r View Post
    I would also question the validity of the higher fines for violations. Since the state law only specifies $25, are the local ordinances null and void because of state preemption?

    Another AG opinion or court case will be necessary here.
    Where are you getting $25? Trespass is a class b forfeiture, which is up to $1000 fine so $223 is quite 'reasonable'

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    What we need to do it lobby our legislators to do what Florida did. Florida had a statute preempting local firearms regulations as we do but it did not have an enforcement mechanism, or 'teeth'. The Florida Legislature this year ammended said statute to include a $5,000 fine, among other things, like removal from offfice or duty by the Governor.

    66.0409 is being trampled on our only recourse is a lawsuit. I contest that it is the Duty of our Legislators to ammend 66.0409 to include an enforcement mechanism. Give it some teeth.

    Local muncipalties have the lawful authority to pass resolutions to ban from and to post all governmental buildings. They cannot be passing ordinances to do so.

    Also, if 66.0409 included an enforcement mechanism, all theses unenforceable ordinances that are still lingering around would have to come off the books.
    That's the way I figure it. If we are going to go the route of FL for "training," perhaps we should also do it for personal protection (AB69) and preemption.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  16. #16
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Paul is right.




    939.52 (3) Penalties for forfeitures are as follows:
    (a) For a Class A forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $10,000.
    (b) For a Class B forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000.
    (c) For a Class C forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $500.
    (d) For a Class D forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $200.
    (e) For a Class E forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $25.


    I think were people are getting the $25 from is the fine for being licencsed, but not having the license on you when you carry concealed.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 10-19-2011 at 02:03 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Paul is usually, more often than not, mostly all the time, almost awlays.... right

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (18911970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  18. #18
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    About state firearms preemption

    Which has weightier consequences hanging, state firearms preemption or municipal home rule, Wisconsin Statutes subsection 66.0409 or Wisconsin Constitution Article XI Section 3? The bureaucratic mass/mess dependent on XI, 3 is surely weightier.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    "Another"? Wisconsin state firearms preemption is fifteen years old and no one has ever gained standing to bring it to court or enforce it. Obviously we are not attorneys but no one has cited a case on point.

    Added - Older than Wisconsin Constitution Article I Section 25!
    But there have been municipalities that have backed down or changed ordinances when confronted with 66.0409. Several years back I got Milwaukee to agree to not try to enforce the portion of their ordinance that require special licensing and fingerprinting of gun sellers. I decided to sic the attorney general's office on them. I wrote to the AG (this was when Lautenschlager was AG I believe) and basically said "state law is being violated and as the state attorney general you have a duty to stop it." They did.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  20. #20
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    But there have been municipalities that have backed down or changed ordinances when confronted with 66.0409.
    Still no citation of an on point case. With Wisconsin Constitution Article XI Section 3 in corporate counsel briefs, they should not back down.

    Municipal home rule; debt limit; tax to pay debt. SECTION 3.
    [As amended Nov. 1874, Nov. 1912, Nov. 1924, Nov. 1932, April 1951, April 1955, Nov. 1960, April 1961, April 1963, April 1966 and April 1981]
    (1) Cities and villages organized pursuant to state law may determine their local affairs and government, subject only to this constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village. The method of such determination shall be prescribed by the legislature.

    There is no prescribed affect and no prescribed uniformity by the legislature. You are in an is/ought corner; ought's got naught for teeth.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 10-19-2011 at 05:42 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Yes, this is what I was remembering. I didn't want to take the time to look it up properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    Paul is right.

    939.52 (3) Penalties for forfeitures are as follows:
    (a) For a Class A forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $10,000.
    (b) For a Class B forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000.
    (c) For a Class C forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $500.
    (d) For a Class D forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $200.
    (e) For a Class E forfeiture, a forfeiture not to exceed $25.


    I think were people are getting the $25 from is the fine for being licencsed, but not having the license on you when you carry concealed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    i just remembered there is a church school about 3 blocks mabe 4 from the courthouse in baraboo so an OC event would more than likely be out of the question (all street parking)
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  23. #23
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclotheshoff View Post
    i just remembered there is a church school about 3 blocks mabe 4 from the courthouse in baraboo so an OC event would more than likely be out of the question (all street parking)
    i DIDNT hear you type that. :-)
    Did you measure the distance? :-)
    How do i know your measurement is accurate? :-)
    How do i know youre telling me the truth about said 'school' ? :-)

    Its still an unknown/unproven to me :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •