• 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.

Legal basis for lawsuit against ordinances aand resolutions posting signs

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
After Walworth County voted to pass an ordinance mandating the posting of buildings, I came up with an idea. Please tell me if I wrong.


Here is the statute:

66.0409(2)Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

(3) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subch. V of ch. 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county. (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm. Any ordinance or resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm does not apply and may not be enforced if the actor’s conduct is justified or, had it been subject to a criminal penalty, would have been subject to a defense described in s.939.45.

(4) (a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute. (am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun. (b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legaleffect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995. (c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.

Since the state has no statute that posts buildings, isn't the act of the local government in violation of this?


The way I read it, the only way a local government can post is to do it without a statute or resolution. That means, at least in most local governments, it can't be done.


I understand that each local government would have to be sued individually but if one or two were sucessful, especially if we were to pick the Cities of Milwaukee and Madison, we could use that as further ammunition in our local fights.


Please feel free to shoot holes in this.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I've been saying this since cities have been doing this. I personally do not believe they can make the ordinance as it conflicts with preemption, but they cannot post without an ordinance.
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
"unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, A STATE STATUTE"
"Since the state has no statute that posts buildings,..."

The absence of a statute allows them to do it, not prohibit them from doing it. If there is no statute banning the posting of buildings, then I think local ordinances that do so are legal. In my humble, non-lawyerly opinion.
 

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
In the PM...

...you mentioned city park amenity's. Since a bathroom doesn't meet any restricted areas of state law, I believe that the law in whole could be successfully challenged. boar out.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
"unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, A STATE STATUTE"
"Since the state has no statute that posts buildings,..."

The absence of a statute allows them to do it, not prohibit them from doing it. If there is no statute banning the posting of buildings, then I think local ordinances that do so are legal. In my humble, non-lawyerly opinion.

The interpretation has always been that if the state has no statute, then the local governments cannot have one. For example, the state has no statute banning open carry walking down a street so therefore the local government doesn't have one either.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The hole is that there IS a statute about posting buildings: Chapter 941.13

This section outlines when and where the state, local governments and private owners may post.

This ^

But I agree that they shouldn't be able to pass an ordinance that requires all buildings to be posted. They can post IMHO, but not pass a blanket ordinance. So, the "vehicle" is the problem IMO.
 

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
The interpretation has always been that if the state has no statute, then the local governments cannot have one. For example, the state has no statute banning open carry walking down a street so therefore the local government doesn't have one either.

The state has no statute banning the burning of leaves but many local governments do have ordinances that do.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Can you provide a specific cite? 941.13 is a mess and I get confused.

I think one has to read and consider a couple of statutes to get the full picture. 941.235 basically says nobody can take a firearm into a building that is owned or leased by the state or a political subdivision of the state unless meeting one of the exceptions. The important exception for most of us is having a valid CCW license. Political subdivisions are counties, cities, villages, and townships.

Next we have to look at what allows these units of government to regulate licensed people from carrying inside the buildings. That's in 943.13, specifically 943.13(1m)(c)4 for the portion that pertains to state of Wisconsin and municipal buildings. This section basically says if you've been notified not to enter or remain in those buildings, or portions of buildings, you're trespassing. Governmental units have the option of posting a notification or not. Those that are choosing the option of posting are doing so by passing an ordinance or resolution to do so. When a municipality decides a course of action, it's done via passage of ordinances and resolutions by those elected to make the decisions on behave of the residents. It looks to me that they don't have the option to allow CCW licensees to carry in court rooms, jails, police stations, because 943.13(1m)(c)4 only gives them the option of posting in buildings or portions of building that don't come under 175.60(16)(a) i.e., the portion of the statute that makes some places automatically prohibited.
 

tomm1963

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
176
Location
mke, ,
I felt that when the legislature allowed carry into the capital that a preemption suit against local Governments my be feasible. Who's going to spend the money to file suit?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
I felt that when the legislature allowed carry into the capital that a preemption suit against local Governments my be feasible. Who's going to spend the money to file suit?

I don't understand the basis for such a suit. How would the decision regarding the Capital be relevant to local governments? As far as I can tell the law that allowed a choice to carry in portions of the Capital is the same law that allows local governments to choose against carry in their buildings. As far as the breakdown of where you can and cannot carry in the Capital building, the decision to allow carry in the building in general was made by the Department of Administration, which reports to the Governor. The decision to allow carry in Senate and Assembly chambers is made by each legislative body respectively. Individual legislators can decide about their offices. The Supreme Court chambers is off-limits to most people by statute. So the "legislature" allows carry insofar as they passed the statutes that authorize all of these varying decisions to be made.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I felt that when the legislature allowed carry into the capital that a preemption suit against local Governments my be feasible. Who's going to spend the money to file suit?

The Dept. of Administration allows carry in the Capitol. The Senate and Assembly only have authority over the Senate and Assembly Floors and Galleries. The Assembly Committee on Orgnization voted to allow carry on the Floor and Gallery. The Senate Committee on Organization voted to allow carry on the floor, but not in thier gallery. The legislators offices are under the authority of the DOA, and DOA has given the Legislators permission to post thier own individual office if they so choose.

The Legislators did not put the Capitol as a prohibited place leaving that decision to the DOA. To not, it's not just that Capitol, but all state buildings, with the exception of buildings or parts of buildings that there was a specific reason to prohibit.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I felt that when the legislature allowed carry into the capital that a preemption suit against local Governments my be feasible. Who's going to spend the money to file suit?

There are no laws which allow us to carry anywhere by any manner. There are only Statutes which restrict our civil liberty to carry everywhere by any manner of our choosing. All of these Statutes have exceptions to their restrictions.
The legislature simply decided to change its no-weapon policy not pass a Statute allowing carry. They already did that when 941.235 was amended by Act 35 and exceptions to the restrictions were made.

Since the state has no statute that posts buildings, isn't the act of the local government in violation of this?
There is no State posting preemption Statute.

941.235 is *the State Statute which prohibits the carry in any Public Building. *The only way a Statute could be more stringent is if it prohibited carry within a specific number of feet from the building and not just inside the building itself.*
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I am reposting this as a reply to this thread.

res·o·lu·tion - a formal expression of opinion or intention made, usually after voting, by a formal organization, a legislature, a club, or other group.

What I am saying that if a municipality were to pass a resolution to prohibit by posting any/all public buildings, that is entirely legal. They are allowed to take such action in the trespass statutes what would be enforced is 943.13(am)(c)4.

A resolution to prohibit w/o out proper posting would be unenforceable, not in the way you might think considering 66.0409, but because there is no enforcement mechanism afforded to a resolution.

If they pass an ordinance to prohibit firearms and do not properly post the building, then it is illegal and unenforceable under 66.0409 because that would be more stringent than 941.235.

But, if they adopt a trespass ordinance to prohibit firearms in a public building and properly post, then the ordinance is legal because they do have the lawful authority to post any/all buildings to prohibit firearms. It is the proper posting that allows them to have and enforce such an ordinance. That would all fall apart if the changes that Act 35-2011 made to 943.13 were ever repealed, then such ordinance could not be enforced with permit holders, but it could for non-permit holders.
 
Top