• 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.

Concealed carry violations carry $213 Baraboo City fine.

H

Herr Heckler Koch

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

http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/article_4bda5a9c-fa01-11e0-b0d0-001cc4c03286.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."
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Good luck enforcing the property. Baraboo is a pretty area. I would like to see it before the winter hits.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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:

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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:

bmwguy11

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
461
Location
wisconsin
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?
 

rcav8r

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
252
Location
Stoughton, WI
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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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:

GlockRDH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
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... :)
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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' :cuss:
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
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:
H

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.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
"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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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:
Top