• 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

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
I suspect the issue of posting will be the subject of a lot of court activity Center stage will be the inter-play of 66.0409. The posting issue is probably the most confused part of Act 35 compounded by the information contained in ss943.13 (4). The courts should be busy for quite some time. I have some questions for which I would like to her a court response.

Note: My questions are restricted to the licensed carry of concealed handguns only.

The state only prohibits carry of concealed handguns in specific locations.

1. Any portion of a building that is a police station,
sheriff’s office, state patrol station, or the office of a division
of criminal investigation special agent of the department.
2. Any portion of a building that is a prison, jail,
house of correction, or secured correctional facility.
3. The facility established under s. 46.055.
4. The center established under s. 46.056.
5. Any secured unit or secured portion of a mental
health institute under s. 51.05, including a facility designated
as the Maximum Security Facility at Mendota
Mental Health Institute.
6. Any portion of a building that is a county, state, or
federal courthouse.
7. Any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom
if court is in session.
8. A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.
9. School property for grades 1 thru 12.

Question: Do political subdivisions contradict 66.0409 if they add additional locations? By doing so do they make the prohibitions more strict than the state?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Statute 941.235 makes specific exemption for the carry of licensed concealed weapons in political subdivison buildings.

941.235  Carrying firearm in public building.
941.235(1) (1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
941.235(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
941.235(2)(a) (a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.
941.235(2)(c) (c) A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
941.235(2)(d) (d) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
941.235(2)(e) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

Question: If a political subdivision disallows the carry of licensed concealed weapons in their buildings are they arguing with 941.235?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does allowing a political unit of the state or a political subdivision of the state to post their buildings under statute 943.13(4) contradict the state'e exemption in 943.235(2)(e)(e)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally:
The state specifically allows the carry of handguns in State parks. If a political subdivison bans them in city, county, municiple parks are they making an ordinance that is more strict than state statutes. It would be very intersting to hear their argument on this issue. It would probably be a 180 degree reversal. One of the arguments those subdivisions made during the open carry controversies was that because the state banned carry of firearms in state parks, except for when authorized by the DNR, banning carry in local parks was lawful and not more strict than state law.

I'm not taking a position on these questions. Just voicing them. I'm sure there are some that will go to lengths to discredit my questions to the benifit of the enforcement. But I repeat they are just food for thought. Only the courts hold the answers.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I suspect the issue of posting will be the subject of a lot of court activity Center stage will be the inter-play of 66.0409. The posting issue is probably the most confused part of Act 35 compounded by the information contained in ss943.13 (4). The courts should be busy for quite some time. I have some questions for which I would like to her a court response.

Note: My questions are restricted to the licensed carry of concealed handguns only.

The state only prohibits carry of concealed handguns in specific locations.

1. Any portion of a building that is a police station,
sheriff’s office, state patrol station, or the office of a division
of criminal investigation special agent of the department.
2. Any portion of a building that is a prison, jail,
house of correction, or secured correctional facility.
3. The facility established under s. 46.055.
4. The center established under s. 46.056.
5. Any secured unit or secured portion of a mental
health institute under s. 51.05, including a facility designated
as the Maximum Security Facility at Mendota
Mental Health Institute.
6. Any portion of a building that is a county, state, or
federal courthouse.
7. Any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom
if court is in session.
8. A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.
9. School property for grades 1 thru 12.

Question: Do political subdivisions contradict 66.0409 if they add additional locations? By doing so do they make the prohibitions more strict than the state?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Statute 941.235 makes specific exemption for the carry of licensed concealed weapons in political subdivison buildings.

941.235  Carrying firearm in public building.
941.235(1) (1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
941.235(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
941.235(2)(a) (a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.
941.235(2)(c) (c) A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
941.235(2)(d) (d) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
941.235(2)(e) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

Question: If a political subdivision disallows the carry of licensed concealed weapons in their buildings are they arguing with 941.235?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does allowing a political unit of the state or a political subdivision of the state to post their buildings under statute 943.13(4) contradict the state'e exemption in 943.235(2)(e)(e)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally:
The state specifically allows the carry of handguns in State parks. If a political subdivison bans them in city, county, municiple parks are they making an ordinance that is more strict than state statutes. It would be very intersting to hear their argument on this issue. It would probably be a 180 degree reversal. One of the arguments those subdivisions made during the open carry controversies was that because the state banned carry of firearms in state parks, except for when authorized by the DNR, banning carry in local parks was lawful and not more strict than state law.

I'm not taking a position on these questions. Just voicing them. I'm sure there are some that will go to lengths to discredit my questions to the benifit of the enforcement. But I repeat they are just food for thought. Only the courts hold the answers.

I like it! I will have to re-read it and think about it.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Statute 941.235 makes specific exemption for the carry of licensed concealed weapons in political subdivison buildings.

941.235  Carrying firearm in public building.
941.235(1) (1) Any person who goes armed with a firearm in any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
941.235(2) (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
941.235(2)(a) (a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.
941.235(2)(c) (c) A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
941.235(2)(d) (d) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
941.235(2)(e) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).

Question: If a political subdivision disallows the carry of licensed concealed weapons in their buildings are they arguing with 941.235?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does allowing a political unit of the state or a political subdivision of the state to post their buildings under statute 943.13(4) contradict the state'e exemption in 943.235(2)(e)(e)?

My take is that you can not be charged under 941.235(1), because as a permit holder you are exempted. But under 943.13(4) your remaining in the building knowing it is lawfully posted could subject the carrier to other charges such as trespass.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
This would be worth attempting to get a legislator to run this by the AG:

Situation: A CCW licensee carries a concealed weapon into a public building, that is not prohibited by state statute, but are posted with a sign prohibiting such carry.

Can the licensee be charged under 941.235(1) (1) even though a licensee is listed under 941.235(2)(e) (e) as exempt from 941.235(1)(1)?

If 941.235(1)(1) can not be charged, are their any other provisions that may be charged?
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
This would be worth attempting to get a legislator to run this by the AG:

Situation: A CCW licensee carries a concealed weapon into a public building, that is not prohibited by state statute, but are posted with a sign prohibiting such carry.

Can the licensee be charged under 941.235(1) (1) even though a licensee is listed under 941.235(2)(e) (e) as exempt from 941.235(1)(1)?

If 941.235(1)(1) can not be charged, are their any other provisions that may be charged?

Violation of posting isn't 941.235. It's 943.13 - trespassing. In this specific case:

943.13 (1m)(c)(4)
4. Enters or remains in any part of a building that is owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit, excluding any building or portion of a building under s. 175.60 (16) (a), if the state or local governmental unit has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a person who leases residential or business premises in the building or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the building used as a parking facility.
943.13(1m)(c)

This information is in the WI CCW faq.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
The subject of trespassing is another confusion in Act 35.

943.13 (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. ( Note: definition of premisis please.)
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.


And then we have:

943.13 (1m) (c) 1. While carrying a firearm, enters
or remains at a residence that the actor does not own or
occupy after the owner of the residence, if he or she has
not leased it to another person, or the occupant of the residence
has notified the actor not to enter or remain at the
residence while carrying a firearm or with that type of
firearm. In this subdivision, “residence,” with respect to
a single−family residence, includes the residence building
and the parcel of land upon which the residence building
is located,
and “residence,” with respect to a residence
that is not a single−family residence, does not
include any common area of the building in which the
residence is located or any common areas of the rest of
the parcel of land upon which the residence building is
located.

And this:
1m. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in a
common area in a building, or on the grounds of a building,
that is a residence that is not a single−family residence
if the actor does not own the residence or does not
occupy any part of the residence, if the owner of the residence
has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the
common area or on the grounds while carrying a firearm
or with that type of firearm.


and this:

2. 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.


and this

SECTION 82. 943.13 (2) (bm) of the statutes is created
to read:
943.13 (2) (bm) 1. In this paragraph, “sign” means a
sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that
is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
2. a. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 1m., an owner
of a residence that is not a single−family residence has
notified an individual not to 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
if
the owner has posted a sign that is located in a prominent
place near all of the entrances to the part of the building
to which the restriction applies or near all probable access
points to the grounds to which the restriction applies
and
any individual entering the building or the grounds can be
reasonably expected to see the sign.

b. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., an owner or
occupant of the grounds of a nonresidential building or of
land
has notified an individual not to enter or remain on
the grounds or land while carrying a firearm or with a particular
type of firearm
if the owner or occupant has posted
a sign that is located in a prominent place near all probable
access points to the grounds or land
to which the
restriction applies and any individual entering the
grounds or land can be reasonably expected to see the
sign.

What the h**L does 943.13(1m)(c) 1. apply to? A person can't deny you trespass to "premisis" if the expressed intent is to prevent the carry of a firearm but if you disregard a posted facility you can be charged with trespass?

Some may say that 943.13(1m)(c) 1. applies only to land. Why then did they not use the word property or land instead of premisis? Would they also say that grounds does not = land?

I don't know about you but I'm confused.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
It Could Be Your Confusion Stems from the Fact that

Can you provide a specific cite? 941.13 is a mess and I get confused.

Wis. Stat. 941.13 is about false alarms, not posting buildings. If you meant Wis. Stat. 943.13 then the short answer is that a building that is posted is posted under the provisions of a state statute. The fact that a local government uses an ordinance to state and implement a policy is wholly consistent with the provisions of the state law and cannot be said to be "more stringent." Is this really the issue that you want to spend time and treasure on? The best you could hope to get is that the statutes are in conflict with each other. Rules of statutory interpretation such as Newer > Older; Specific > General indicate that posting pursuant to an ordinance is not a problem.

Oh, everybody please ----

capital - city where the government meets (e.g. Madison, WI)
capitol - building where the government meets (e.g. Wisconsin State Capitol)
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
It Could Be Your Confusion Stems from the Fact that
Oh, everybody please ----

capital - city where the government meets (e.g. Madison, WI)
capitol - building where the government meets (e.g. Wisconsin State Capitol)
Evidently capital is also what I use for Leggo Blocks and what you use for initial letters.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
@Nemo....

Simple. 943.13(1m)(b) is a paragraph that does not apply to firearms.

Paragraph (c) does apply.

There are many reasons they may have split c out like that...perhaps they intended or considered separate penalties for c vs b, for example.

943 is the chapter.

13 is the section

(1) (1m) etc are subsections

a,b,c etc are paragraphs

Then there's subparas....
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Q&A

I suspect the issue of posting will be the subject of a lot of court activity Center stage will be the inter-play of 66.0409. The posting issue is probably the most confused part of Act 35 compounded by the information contained in ss943.13 (4). The courts should be busy for quite some time. I have some questions for which I would like to her a court response.


The first such attempt will be disposed of by summary judgement or some procedural defect (failure to state, no standing, etc.) Subsequent attempts won't happen because the court will impose sanctions for filing a frivolous suit. Find a different hobby horse to ride.

Note: My questions are restricted to the licensed carry of concealed handguns only.

The state only prohibits carry of concealed handguns in specific locations.

1. Any portion of a building that is a police station,
sheriff’s office, state patrol station, or the office of a division
of criminal investigation special agent of the department.
2. Any portion of a building that is a prison, jail,
house of correction, or secured correctional facility.
3. The facility established under s. 46.055.
4. The center established under s. 46.056.
5. Any secured unit or secured portion of a mental
health institute under s. 51.05, including a facility designated
as the Maximum Security Facility at Mendota
Mental Health Institute.
6. Any portion of a building that is a county, state, or
federal courthouse.
7. Any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom
if court is in session.
8. A place beyond a security checkpoint in an airport.
9. School property for grades 1 thru 12.

Question: Do political subdivisions contradict 66.0409 if they add additional locations? By doing so do they make the prohibitions more strict than the state?.

No. State law provides authority for local governments, business and private individuals to prohibit carry in locations under their control. Enforcement generally requires posting. While an ordinance may be used to state policy and implement a posting plan, the actual authority rests in state law so there isn't even a question of preemption.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Statute 941.235 makes specific exemption for the carry of licensed concealed weapons in political subdivison buildings.

++deleted material++

Question: If a political subdivision disallows the carry of licensed concealed weapons in their buildings are they arguing with 941.235?

First there is no such thing as a licensed concealed weapon (at least in Wisconsin). A politcal subdivision that disallows the carry of a concealed handgun by a licensee does so under the provisions of 943.13. This section simply exempts a licensee from application of the criminal penalty contained in the section. It does not change the provisions of any other statute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does allowing a political unit of the state or a political subdivision of the state to post their buildings under statute 943.13(4) contradict the state'e exemption in 943.235(2)(e)(e)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained above - no. Even assuming that there was a contradiction, 943.13 would prevail. The reason is left as an exercise for the reader.
Finally:
The state specifically allows the carry of handguns in State parks. If a political subdivison bans them in city, county, municiple parks are they making an ordinance that is more strict than state statutes. It would be very intersting to hear their argument on this issue. It would probably be a 180 degree reversal. One of the arguments those subdivisions made during the open carry controversies was that because the state banned carry of firearms in state parks, except for when authorized by the DNR, banning carry in local parks was lawful and not more strict than state law.

I'm not taking a position on these questions. Just voicing them. I'm sure there are some that will go to lengths to discredit my questions to the benifit of the enforcement. But I repeat they are just food for thought. Only the courts hold the answers.

Remember that a municipal ordinance on the same subject as a state statute is a way for a local jurisdiction to deal with an issue at a lower level. A lot of the time the ordinance is identical (or nearly so) with the statute. It could be more or less stringent except for topics that are covered by preemption (either statutory [like firearms] or constitutional). A city cannot issue a driver's license or commission a notary public. Otherwise local jurisdictions (particularly cities) enjoy wide latitude in governing ("home rule").
 

Brass Magnet

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

Oh, everybody please ----

capital - city where the government meets (e.g. Madison, WI)
capitol - building where the government meets (e.g. Wisconsin State Capitol)

Evidently capital is also what I use for Leggo Blocks and what you use for initial letters.

Grammar_Nazis____The_Motivator_by_ZlayaHozyayka.jpg


Who's the first to find the error? :lol:
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
You Answered Your Own Question

This would be worth attempting to get a legislator to run this by the AG:

Situation: A CCW licensee carries a concealed weapon into a public building, that is not prohibited by state statute, but are posted with a sign prohibiting such carry.

Can the licensee be charged under 941.235(1) (1) even though a licensee is listed under 941.235(2)(e) (e) as exempt from 941.235(1)(1)?

If 941.235(1)(1) can not be charged, are their any other provisions that may be charged?

Quite nicely, why are you still unsure?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Confusion is Understandable

You have a number of different statutes interacting and the phrasing used is not what I would call "plain English." Some scenarios, critiques welcome -

John is carrying a Glock 26 and enters the land upon which Bob's house sits, which land Bob had previously told John not to enter with a Glock 26 (any other model is ok). John has committed a trespass.

Mary is carrying a handgun and enters the apartment that Ernie leases. Ernie tells Mary not to remain in his apartment as long as she is carrying a handgun. Mary refuses to leave. Mary has committed a trespass. The trespass was not entering the apartment as there was no notice not to do so but remaining after notice was given.

Al is carrying a firearm and goes to visit Laura who lives at Campy Condos. Laura has no problem with firearms in her condo. However the owner of the Campy Condos has large neon signs declaring “No Firearms Permitted” Al ignores the sign and walks directly to Laura’s condo using the community sidewalk. Al has not committed a trespass.

Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice are walking to Lake Algae. They want to take a shortcut across Farmer Brown’s meadow. All are carrying handguns. Carol is a licensee. Farmer Brown says they are welcome to cut across his property but only if they disarm. He does not want anybody carrying a weapon across the meadow. All four carry anyway. Bob, Ted and Alice have committed a trespass. Carol has not.

Geezer Nursing Home has “no carry” signs posted everywhere. Billy and Grampa Joe are both carrying. They arrive at Geezer Nursing Home where Grampa Joe leases an apartment. Both carry directly to Grampa Joes’s apartment. No trespass occurs simply because Billy parked his car in GNH’s lot. Billy committed a trespass once he set foot on the grounds at GNH. Grampa Joe does not commit a trespass by carrying in his apartment but arguably did so when he set foot on the grounds – however as a tenant it could be that he, in effect, also “occupies” the common areas.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
You have a number of different statutes interacting and the phrasing used is not what I would call "plain English." Some scenarios, critiques welcome -

John is carrying a Glock 26 and enters the land upon which Bob's house sits, which land Bob had previously told John not to enter with a Glock 26 (any other model is ok). John has committed a trespass.

Correct.

Mary is carrying a handgun and enters the apartment that Ernie leases. Ernie tells Mary not to remain in his apartment as long as she is carrying a handgun. Mary refuses to leave. Mary has committed a trespass. The trespass was not entering the apartment as there was no notice not to do so but remaining after notice was given.

Correct.

Al is carrying a firearm and goes to visit Laura who lives at Campy Condos. Laura has no problem with firearms in her condo. However the owner of the Campy Condos has large neon signs declaring “No Firearms Permitted” Al ignores the sign and walks directly to Laura’s condo using the community sidewalk. Al has not committed a trespass.

Incorrect. If Campy Condos was properly posted, or if Al has otherwise been notified that firearms are prohibited, Al has commited Trespass. He has done so because the exception to trespass is for residents only, not family, friends, etc.


Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice are walking to Lake Algae. They want to take a shortcut across Farmer Brown’s meadow. All are carrying handguns. Carol is a licensee. Farmer Brown says they are welcome to cut across his property but only if they disarm. He does not want anybody carrying a weapon across the meadow. All four carry anyway. Bob, Ted and Alice have committed a trespass. Carol has not.

Incorrect. I assume you make that analysis based on 943.13(1m)(b), which if that was the only statute, you would be correct. But there is also 943.13(1m)(c)2. in which Carol is not given such exeption and which she could be prosecuted.

Geezer Nursing Home has “no carry” signs posted everywhere. Billy and Grampa Joe are both carrying. They arrive at Geezer Nursing Home where Grampa Joe leases an apartment. Both carry directly to Grampa Joes’s apartment. No trespass occurs simply because Billy parked his car in GNH’s lot. Billy committed a trespass once he set foot on the grounds at GNH. Grampa Joe does not commit a trespass by carrying in his apartment but arguably did so when he set foot on the grounds – however as a tenant it could be that he, in effect, also “occupies” the common areas.

Incorrect.

943.13(1e)(cm) “Nonresidential building” includes a nursing home as defined in s. 50.01 (3), a community−based residential facility as defined in s. 50.01 (1g), a residential care apartment complex as defined in s. 50.01 (1d), an adult family home as defined in s. 50.01 (1), and a hospice as defined in s. 50.90 (1).
 
Last edited:

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Incorrect. I assume you make that analysis based on 943.13(am)(b), which if that was the only statute, you would be correct. But there is also 943.13(am)(c)2. in which Carol is not given such exeption and which she could be prosecuted.

You are correct, but the cites are 943.13(1m)(b) and 943.13(1m)(c)2.

The later, for ap's benefit:

2. 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.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
You are correct, but the cites are 943.13(1m)(b) and 943.13(1m)(c)2.

The later, for ap's benefit:

Thanks, I corrected. I typed it correctly, but my computer has been autocorrecting for some reason. Since last week, I have read over my post and words get changed, and I have to go back and edit. I don't know why it is happening.
 
Last edited:

GlockRDH

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
...another potential scenario...youre fishing from the shore on a public area...you decide to walk upstream, leaving the public area, you then enter someone elses property, but are still w/in the easement on which youre allowed to be fishing from...can you be asked to disarm if youre with in that area? Would that be trespassing?
 

TaurusToter

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
308
Location
West Bend, WI
...another potential scenario...youre fishing from the shore on a public area...you decide to walk upstream, leaving the public area, you then enter someone elses property, but are still w/in the easement on which youre allowed to be fishing from...can you be asked to disarm if youre with in that area? Would that be trespassing?

Why are you fishing with a gun? Shouldn't you be using dynamite? :lol:
 
Top