time for an OC meet at UW madison campus grounds

ksks said:

University or college, public or private
a) Can not carry in bldgs if posted.
b) Can carry on grounds without restriction.

Subject to class B
Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeitureWhoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeitureWhoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture2. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresidential building, or land that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the building, grounds, or land, if that part of the building, grounds, or land has not been leased to another person, or the occupant of that part of the building, grounds, or land has notified the actor not to enter or remain in that part of the building, grounds, or land while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental unit, to a privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, or to the grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university or college, or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds, or land used as a parking facility.

943.13 (1m) (c) 2

Click to expand...

Yes, that is 11/1. Today, that isn't in effect.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

I replied: 66.049 would pre empty that since that would be more stringent than state law.

Click to expand...

66.0409 doesn't preempt the UW, since it only applies to "political subdivisions" of the state, i.e., counties, cities, villages and towns. State agencies, e.g., the University System are not preempted by 66.0409.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Yes, that is 11/1. Today, that isn't in effect.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed the "now" above.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Yes, that is 11/1. Today, that isn't in effect.

Click to expand...

In that case, the new law made things more restrictive, did it not? Poop.

bmwguy11 said:

Admin rules?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Administrative Rule in effect on UW System campuses is UWS 18.10(3) which reads:

DANGEROUS WEAPONS. (a) No person may carry, possess
or use any dangerous weapon on university lands or in university
buildings or facilities, except with the written approval of the chief
administrative officer or for law enforcement purposes.

The forfeiture for violation of this rule is $500, and it authorizes the police to confiscate any weapons from violators.

When Act 35 takes effect, it certainly will allow licensed people to conceal or open carry on UW grounds because it says licensed people can carry anywhere in the state that isn't prohibited by statute. The statute allows for posting of private and government-owned property, but it doesn't allow for posting of government lands that aren't otherwise subject to statutory restrictions. It doesn't mean that there are NO restrictions on state lands however: for example, state parks can still restrict non-licensed individuals to keeping their firearms unloaded and encased, which is the current restriction. With the usual exceptions for LEOs, beginning November 1, only licensed individuals may possess loaded and non-cased handguns in the parks.

Whether unlicensed OC on UW grounds can be prohibited is a question. Certainly the UW has no authority to post the land because the portion of the statute that pertains to government-owned property [943.13(1m)(c)(4)] omits land and only mentions posting of buildings. Places only need to be posted when it is optional to restrict carry there. Places such as jails, prisons, courtrooms and 1-12 school grounds don't need to be posted because those restrictions are already contained elsewhere within the statutes and everyone is expected to be familiar with those restrictions without the benefit of a sign telling them.

So the way I read it, whether the UW can continue to ban unlicensed carry on their grounds without having authority to post such a restriction is an interesting question. I think the legislative intent is to not allow any sort of prohibition on UW grounds, but whether the language of Act 35 absolutely supports that intent I'm not sure.....

Thanks shotgun. Learn something new every day.

oak1971 said:

In that case, the new law made things more restrictive, did it not? Poop.

Click to expand...

No it overrode the administrative rules and made it illegal for a rule to prohibit carry on the grounds.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

No it overrode the administrative rules and made it illegal for a rule to prohibit carry on the grounds.

Click to expand...

Could you, or someone, please include a citation for which portion of Act 35 makes it illegal to prohibit carry on the grounds for non-licensed individuals? I can cite the portion that allows licensed people to carry on the grounds, which need to be read in conjunction with the portion that puts limitations on the UW's ability to post, but I cannot find any portion of Act 35 that prohibits them from banning carry by non-licensed people. It could be there and I'm just missing it...

Thanks

In addition I would like to know how rules of a corporation could allow and give permission to seize and destroy MY property and charge me fees, when I have no connection or contracts with that corporation.

Motofixxer said:

In addition I would like to know how rules of a corporation could allow and give permission to seize and destroy MY property and charge me fees, when I have no connection or contracts with that corporation.

Click to expand...

I see what youre saying Moto...and to go along with that...IF the UW isnt a political entity, its PD should have NO law/statute enforcement ability...i think i stated that correctly.

Shotgun said:

Could you, or someone, please include a citation for which portion of Act 35 makes it illegal to prohibit carry on the grounds for non-licensed individuals? I can cite the portion that allows licensed people to carry on the grounds, which need to be read in conjunction with the portion that puts limitations on the UW's ability to post, but I cannot find any portion of Act 35 that prohibits them from banning carry by non-licensed people. It could be there and I'm just missing it...

Thanks

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was just talking about oc vs cc. My contention is that UW can't make oc illegal on grounds with a permit.

Shotgun said:

Could you, or someone, please include a citation for which portion of Act 35 makes it illegal to prohibit carry on the grounds for non-licensed individuals? I can cite the portion that allows licensed people to carry on the grounds, which need to be read in conjunction with the portion that puts limitations on the UW's ability to post, but I cannot find any portion of Act 35 that prohibits them from banning carry by non-licensed people. It could be there and I'm just missing it...

Click to expand...

What ACT 35 does is carve out exceptions for licensees. Any property owner may prohibit carry on their property by non-licensees. There is nothing prohibiting the UW from banning carry by non-licensees.

Shotgun said:

So the way I read it, whether the UW can continue to ban unlicensed carry on their grounds without having authority to post such a restriction is an interesting question. I think the legislative intent is to not allow any sort of prohibition on UW grounds, but whether the language of Act 35 absolutely supports that intent I'm not sure.....

Click to expand...

They can post for non-licensees.

943.13 Trespass to land.
(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

Click to expand...

RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Are there restrictions on carrying in state and local government buildings?
Yes. In some locations the carrying of concealed weapons is absolutely prohibited
(see section entitled LOCATIONS WHERE CCW IS PROHIBITED below).
In other places government entities and agencies MAY prohibit CCW if appropriate notice
is given.
NOTE: 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, while carrying a firearm, 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).
In addition, property owners generally possess the right to exclude others from their
property. While the specific provisions below only reference prohibiting the possession of
firearms, property owners may also prohibit or restrict the possession of other weapons
on their property. Violations of such restrictions may also constitute a Class B forfeiture
under Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(b). Therefore, the language quoted below, while only
mentioning firearms, applies with equal force to other weapons.

Click to expand...

This is the part I have the problem with.

Yes, the Administrative Rule in effect on UW System campuses is UWS 18.10(3) which reads:

DANGEROUS WEAPONS. (a) No person may carry, possess
or use any dangerous weapon on university lands or in university
buildings or facilities, except with the written approval of the chief
administrative officer or for law enforcement purposes.

The forfeiture for violation of this rule is $500, and it authorizes the police to confiscate any weapons from violators.


Who authorizes to confiscate my personal property...I sure don't but that's a whole different conversation. But anyway, I think even if the buildings are currently posted as I think they are. No proper legal notice is given for the grounds. If one really wanted to fight it, I think the individual would win. Unless there were signs on the grounds somewhere regarding Trespassing, or you were verbally told. I think they would have a really hard time enforcing it. Think of publicly accessible private land, it needs to be posted or verbal Trespassing notice given etc, in order for a Trespassing charge to stick.