Gun in a vehicle on school grounds

This Would Be Very Strange

Interceptor_Knight said:

You do own the sidewalk. The city does not own the streets or the sidewalks but they are part of the public right-of-way. You have a deed for the land up to the center of the street but it is not your private property.

Click to expand...

At least in a modern subdivision plat. While there are always exceptions, a dedication by the land developer to the public for a street/sidewalk etc. vests the municipality with title. The lot line is generally a few feet from the edge of the roadway or just behind the sidewalk, if there is one. This makes sense in that the property owner has none of the typical rights associated with ownership whereas the local government could sell, destroy, rent, exclude others from the property in question (at least in theory). Check your plat/deed/whatever for details. The granting of a ROW or easement does not eliminate other rights of ownership. Prior to Act 35, could you carry concealed under the power line in the utility easement on your lot? Sure. Could you conceal carry in the middle of the street directly in front of your house on the theory that you were on your property? I think not. You own the former but not the latter. I think people confuse the duty to maintain the sidewalk (shovel snow, mow grass on the strip) or pay special assessments (to replace a broken sewer line) with ownership. I certainly could be mistaken and would be glad to hear input from a more knowledgeable person. I didn't raise the issue of ownership but am simply responding to it. The important point (as I understand it) is 'is place X part of "school grounds"?' I merely advance the idea that this question is not answered solely by (a) who maintains place X or (b) who has title to place X, although that information would be useful in making the determination.

apjonas said:

.. While there are always exceptions, a dedication by the land developer to the public for a street/sidewalk etc. vests the municipality with title. The lot line is generally a few feet from the edge of the roadway or just behind the sidewalk, if there is one. This makes sense in that the property owner has none of the typical rights associated with ownership whereas the local government could sell, destroy, rent, exclude others from the property in question (at least in theory). ..

Click to expand...

No. The municipality does NOT have title to the land. The city/Municipality has ZERO land owner rights to the sidewalk or the planting strip in between the sidewalk and the street. The city does not even own the street. Streets and the accompanying sidewalks are part of the public-right-of way. The city oversees public right-of-ways within its borders but does not own/hold deed to, etc.
This is the difference between private property and that which is not. Even though you hold deed to the ground underneath the sidewalk it is not your "private" property.
Back when Open Carry first became a public awareness issue and then when we were planning the picnics I consulted both the city attorneys office and multiple private attorneys regarding this matter.

Here's a definition of private property from the Wisconsin "Trespass to land." Statute:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

943.13(1e)(e) "Private property" means real property that is not owned by the United States, this state or a local governmental unit.

Click to expand...

The above statute paragraph existed prior to changes and additions to other parts of the statute from 11ACT35.

E6chevron said:

Here's a definition of private property from the Wisconsin "Trespass to land." Statute:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13




The above statute paragraph existed prior to changes and additions to other parts of the statute from 11ACT35.

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant regarding a municipality posting for Open Carry. The Statute does not say "private property". It specifies "land of another"...

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. 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...

Interceptor_Knight said:

...This is the difference between private property and that which is not. Even though you hold deed to the ground underneath the sidewalk it is not your "private" property.
...

Click to expand...

Interceptor_Knight said:

This is irrelevant regarding a municipality posting for Open Carry. The Statute does not say "private property". It specifies "land of another"...

Click to expand...

This thread is about Gun Free School Zones, which do not require posting, I was responding to your description of private property.

E6chevron said:

This thread is about Gun Free School Zones, which do not require posting, I was responding to your description of private property.

Click to expand...

If a sidewalk runs parallel to and within 15 feet of a street it can be generally assumed that it is "public property" as it is part of the public right of way. It most definitely is not municipal property. Although it was mentioned by an attorney as a hypothetical possibility, I am willing to bet that you would be hard pressed to find a single sidewalk in front of a WI school running next to a municipal street which is private property of the school board and not "public property" or part of the public right-of-way.

What about the "entrance way" and parking lot? School property or public access to said school? What I get from the answers (and discussions) here, it is illegal to carry a handgun, open or concealed, on school property, even when dropping off or picking up students, and not leaving vehicle. I read that the handgun has to "unloaded and encased" even in the situation described above. That is a PITA! I have to do it twice daily, if the driveway and lot are school property. True?

It is a felonious pain

True.

Uziel Gal said:

True.

Click to expand...

No dbout...

For compliance with federal law, the case has to be locked.
Or you could stay on the road, have the little darling(s) hike from the school door to your car. Surely they'll be safe that far... after all, it's school property, protected by a magical bubble.

Let's Go to the Videotape, I Mean Statute....

Interceptor_Knight said:

No. The municipality does NOT have title to the land. The city/Municipality has ZERO land owner rights to the sidewalk or the planting strip in between the sidewalk and the street. The city does not even own the street. Streets and the accompanying sidewalks are part of the public-right-of way. The city oversees public right-of-ways within its borders but does not own/hold deed to, etc. This is the difference between private property and that which is not. Even though you hold deed to the ground underneath the sidewalk it is not your "private" property.
Back when Open Carry first became a public awareness issue and then when we were planning the picnics I consulted both the city attorneys office and multiple private attorneys regarding this matter.

Click to expand...

Wis. Stat. 236.29 Dedications.
236.29(1)
(1) Effect of recording on dedications. When any plat is certified, signed, acknowledged and recorded as prescribed in this chapter, every donation or grant to the public or any person, society or corporation marked or noted as such on said plat shall be deemed a sufficient conveyance to vest the fee simple of all parcels of land so marked or noted, and shall be considered a general warranty against such donors, their heirs and assigns to the said donees for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no other; and the land intended for the streets, alleys, ways, commons or other public uses as designated on said plat shall be held by the town, city or village in which such plat is situated in trust to and for such uses and purposes.

This seems to indicate that a dedication for a public road means that the town, city or village OWNS the land (surface and below) and has not simply been granted an easement providing a right-of-way. Furthermore, since the dedication came from the developer any issues arising from it are between the developer and municipality not the abutting homeowner. This is different than say, an easement for utility lines which is imposed on the lot and survives any subsequent conveyance (unless and until the utility company gives it up). Although there is a condition (e.g. public road) attached to the dedication, it would be up to the developer to recover the property if the municipality decided to turn the part of the land into a duck pond. The homeowner (unless the duck pond blocked the only exit from his lot) would have nothing to say about it. Likewise, if gold were discovered in the right-of-way, the municipality would own the gold but could not extract it without the cooperation of the developer (leaving aside other methods such as condemnation, etc.)

In cases where there is simply an easement (primarily older pre-subdivision days?), the if the municipality vacated the street, a lot owner could take possession out to the centerline. The gold mine scenario would be between the municipality and homeowner, as the developer is long out of the picture (again absent some specific mineral rights provision).

In short, there are many possibilities but to state categorically that a city/village/town never owns a public street or sidewalk is a bit much. I draw your attention back to my "test" - prior to Act 35 (for simplicity's sake). Could a person legally carry concealed* -

A. In his house?
B. In the portion of his lot that has a utility easement?
C. In the street, on his side of the centerline directly in front of his house?

*Let's assume that Hamdan decision is read as liberally as possible.

I think both of us would say A=yes, B=yes. If your position is correct, then C must also be yes - because you have title to that portion of the street subject to the public right of way (and you are not interfering with traffic). I also wanted to clarify that the existence of a public right of way (or other easement) does not change the character of the land to something other than "private property." Property is either private or public (i.e. government-owned). This is similar to Fred's Firearms being private property but the public, in general, being invitees. Fred's may be a "public place" for purposes of meeting somebody you met online but Fred is generally in control of the property. I understand that you were told something by one or more attorneys. However, does that make sense to you? I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to have a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision on point. Until that happens, I am trying to do a reasonable analysis of this question. Your thoughts?

apjonas,

Thanks for the citation.

apjonas,

Thanks for the citation.

Here's a more complete definition of private property from the Wisconsin "Trespass to land." Statute:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

943.13(1e)(c) "Local governmental unit" means a political subdivision of this state, a special purpose district in this state, an instrumentality or corporation of the political subdivision or special purpose district or a combination or subunit of any of the foregoing.
...

943.13(1e)(e) "Private property" means real property that is not owned by the United States, this state or a local governmental unit.

Click to expand...

This makes it more obvious, that even entities like public universities and tech. schools, as well as cities, villages, towns, and counties that own real property, cannot own anything called "private property".

apjonas said:

This seems to indicate that a dedication for a public road means that the town, city or village OWNS the land (surface and below) and has not simply been granted an easement providing a right-of-way. Furthermore, since the dedication came from the developer any issues arising from it are between the developer and municipality not the abutting homeowner. This is different than say, an easement for utility lines which is imposed on the lot and survives any subsequent conveyance (unless and until the utility company gives it up). Although there is a condition (e.g. public road) attached to the dedication, it would be up to the developer to recover the property if the municipality decided to turn the part of the land into a duck pond. The homeowner (unless the duck pond blocked the only exit from his lot) would have nothing to say about it. Likewise, if gold were discovered in the right-of-way, the municipality would own the gold but could not extract it without the cooperation of the developer (leaving aside other methods such as condemnation, etc.)..

Click to expand...

My thoughts are that "Held in trust" does not grant ownership. The municipality does not hold a free and clear deed to the land. The municipality may not sell nor even turn the land into a duck pond... The municipality also would not hold mineral rights to the land. If anything, this land becomes "public" property in the sense that its primary purpose is for transportation by the general public and not just the municipality nor the abutting land owners.
After the holiday I will again seek the educated professional opinion of an attorney and this time will present it in more detail.

Where is the Line?

I double checked one of my deeds. It simply refers to Lot XXX in the Happy Homes Subdivision, Addition 3. I looked at the plat and field-checked the surveying markers and it is clear that the property line is on the house side of the sidewalk - where there is a sidewalk and about 3 feet from the curb elsewhere. My property does not include the sidewalk nor any portion of the street. That area was the developers' until they dedicated (gave it away) to the city and the city accepted it. Even if there is disagreement about the property rights of the city and the developer, one thing is clear - it ain't mine. A side note - the easement for utility lines is shown as being within my property boundary. I could sell that strip of land although the easement would go with the land. Whether or not the municipality can sell the property is not conclusive proof of ownership if the property has been acquired with restrictions or covenants. I don't know if there is a "deed" for a public street but the plat shows that the abutting property owners do not have any ownership interest in the sidewalk or street.

The relevance is that for the purpose of gun laws, the sidewalk (that along the street not a diagonal that cuts the corner) and street are not your property but rather public property in general and would not be part any "school grounds" barring (perhaps) some unusual setup such as a street bisecting an existing school campus. The existence of a school in a gated community or other situation where the streets are truly "private roads" may also yield a different result.

Interceptor_Knight said:

My thoughts are that "Held in trust" does not grant ownership. The municipality does not hold a free and clear deed to the land. The municipality may not sell nor even turn the land into a duck pond... The municipality also would not hold mineral rights to the land. If anything, this land becomes "public" property in the sense that its primary purpose is for transportation by the general public and not just the municipality nor the abutting land owners. After the holiday I will again seek the educated professional opinion of an attorney and this time will present it in more detail.

Click to expand...

True ownership/title versus easement status for boulevards, medians, sidewalks and streets, varies a lot in the state of Wisconsin. It is dependent on the laws or standards in effect for the governments involved, the year that the original platting or subdivision was done, and also can be affected by special arrangements or contracts between the developer and the governments involved.

It can also vary due to the jurisdiction responsible for the road that borders the property: private, community, municipal, county, state, federal. Road changes and improvements after the original platting, can also affect it.

There is no one standard.

That is Certainly Possible

E6chevron said:

True ownership/title versus easement status for boulevards, medians, sidewalks and streets, varies a lot in the state of Wisconsin. It is dependent on the laws or standards in effect for the governments involved, the year that the original platting or subdivision was done, and also can be affected by special arrangements or contracts between the developer and the governments involved.

It can also vary due to the jurisdiction responsible for the road that borders the property: private, community, municipal, county, state, federal. Road changes and improvements after the original platting, can also affect it.

There is no one standard.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I only know about my own situation. However, nobody has offered up first-hand knowledge of a situation where the sidewalk/street was owned by the residents or school. I would be interested in seeing how that came about. Even a reference to a statute or ordinance that supports that position would be helpful. Let us wait and see what Interceptor-Knight's attorney friends have to say.

A little bird told me:

Sidewalk is between property line and roadway.

340.01(58) " Sidewalk " means that portion of a highway between the curb
lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property
lines, constructed for use of pedestrians.

Click to expand...

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

A little bird told me:

Click to expand...

So if your property line goes to the municipal street edge then that strip of concrete running parallel to the street is not a sidewalk??:dude:
Many sidewalks were put in decades later as afterthoughts.... Public Right of way does not infer municipal property... Your property may contain a public sidewalk and not simply abut it.

Right-of-Way (ROW)'s:

Wisconsin municipalities all have "Right-of-Ways." ROW's are areas of land that, while owned by a private land owner, are reserved for public uses. In many ways, ROW's are more like public land than private land. All Platteville City roads are built on a ROW, and the ROW's usually extend beyond the size of the road itself to include areas for sidewalks: the front several feet of most Platteville yards actually exist in a ROW. Below are some facts about ROW's:
ROW's exist on almost all City land: if you buy a parcel of land, odds are high that you also have a ROW written into your land contract,
ROW's are privately owned land, but the use is reserved for the public by a legal easement,
Private land owners are responsible for maintaining the ROW (except for roads),
The City has the right to develop or make use of a ROW at any time.

Click to expand...

You Never Can Tell

Interceptor_Knight said:

So if your property line goes to the municipal street edge then that strip of concrete running parallel to the street is not a sidewalk??:dude:
Many sidewalks were put in decades later as afterthoughts.... Public Right of way does not infer municipal property... Your property may contain a public sidewalk and not simply abut it.

Click to expand...

There is no requirement in the statute that a sidewalk contain concrete (or any other manmade material). It is defined as the space between the property line (as on a plat) and the road (curb or edgeline, where there is no curb). It's like a crosswalk being defined by reference to extension of a sidewalk. A crosswalk does not necessary need to be painted (=unmarked crosswalk). I think the comment by E6Chevron is instructive. There are many variations on a theme and determining where the ROW begins and ends and the extend of ownership rights can vary. An important question is when a private entity (whether developer or homeowner) grants a ROW/easement (let's consider them equivalent for now) is whether in addition to granting access to the public, etc., he loses some aspect of ownership that is not transferred to another legal entity. Again may a homeowner carry concealed (sans CWL) in a ROW that was or otherwise would be his property in fee simple? The obvious (albeit unsatisfactory) answer is that each case is different and he doesn't know until the judge smacks the gavel. The school grounds question is a little different. May the principal shoo away people standing on the (let's say concrete) sidewalk between the school building and an adjacent public street? Probably not. That would indicate that OC/CC with CWL is ok. Isn't that what we are concerned about?