• 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.

City as Property Owner banning Open Carry by non-permittee

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Alot of municipalities are discussing carry bans. One of the positions I have seen is that they can ban Open Carry in Parks, etc if you do not have a permit. This is what they are citing.....
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.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Alot of municipalities are discussing carry bans. One of the positions I have seen is that they can ban Open Carry in Parks, etc if you do not have a permit. This is what they are citing.....

Can you cite any of these cases?

Tell me what city bans open carry in thier parks and I will be there, with food and a frisbie.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Alot of municipalities are discussing carry bans. One of the positions I have seen is that they can ban Open Carry in Parks, etc if you do not have a permit. This is what they are citing.....
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.

Interesting........but I think it's a FAIL. We all know that the intent behind this statute is to protect private property owners and not collectively owned property. If knowing isn't enough, the wording itself clearly implies that there is one (1) owner/occupant who get's do decide what is allowed on his/her property. They may try to use this statute but I think that ultimately they, being a government entity, must fall under 66.0409.

Furthermore, the propery is controlled by the government where the 2A/14A applies specifically. Besides the "sensitive places" outlined in Heller, one of which this is not, the government has little power to control this. It would be found unconstitutional on these grounds IMHO.

The local communtities seem to forget that we can now file a federal suit; with fee-shifting provisions, under 2A/14A when before it was a puny state suit that we had to pay for. The fact that we had to pay for the whole deal before is what I think slowed the advancement of gun rights pre-heller. They are REALLY going to pay $$$$ if they keep this garbage up.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
If our legisalators do not give 66.0409 some teeth, I see alot of lawsuits coming. Maybe that's the point, more revenue for laywers.

66.0409 has nothing to do with this as 943.13 is a State Statute.66.0409 has nothing to do with this as 943.13 is a State Statute.
Sorry, I understand what you mean. Your right..

I just realized that you are right. It is preempted for everywhere but possibly Parks in regards to the carry of firearms.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I just realized that you are right. It is preempted for everywhere but possibly Parks in regards to the carry of firearms.
Did you just realize that I was right about you being right? That's funny.

But if they use 943.13 instead of an local ordindance or resolution, then they get around 66.0409, but they still have the problem that nothing in 943.13 applies to public land, only public buildings only if you are armed.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Freeking Liberal Sheep Local Law makers....November 1st they will be too scared to leave their homes..... because of the evil Gun Toters with CCW permits..soon they will say you can't carry on a public sidewalk because it's city owned

Glad I bought a little 38 special, if they can't see it, it aint there....
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Freeking Liberal Sheep Local Law makers....November 1st they will be too scared to leave their homes..... because of the evil Gun Toters with CCW permits..soon they will say you can't carry on a public sidewalk because it's city owned

Fortunately the sidewalk is part of the public right-of-way. The reason that the sidewalk in front of your house is not "private" property is the same reason that the sidewalk in front of city hall is not City property and the sidewalk in front of a school is not part of school grounds.
 
Top