Police investigate report of gunman on Wisconsin college campus Read more: http://w

Law abider said:

Trip20 why are you angry? I thought we all are comrades in arms. I realize we misunderstand each other. If I do more, please forgive me. It is the Christian thing to do.

Click to expand...

Being a member of the Wisconsin "clique" is not required. Completely ignore people who continue to attempt to lecture you. The moderators on this forum will modify your posts and threads if they feel the need.

Keep on apostin and athreadin, I know alot of members enjoy em.

apjonas said:

Is Carroll private or public? Was this incident indoors or outdoors? Was the area posted?

Click to expand...

He was seen by two students near the Kilgour-Trailblazer Tennis Center on the northwest corner of the campus at 10:33 a.m. with what appeared to be a rifle, Oremus said.

Click to expand...

If this was a long gun, they do not have to post and your license does not cover it. The UW system has a no weapons policy, Caroll likely also does..

That gun is as long as my...

Interceptor_Knight said:

If this was a long gun, they do not have to post and your license does not cover it. The UW system has a no weapons policy, Caroll likely also does..

Click to expand...

one of my sentences. You make good points but at the time of posting nothing was fer shure. As I suggested earlier, to the general public a S&W 29 is a "long gun" and might be reported as such. Non-CWL weapons would fall under the general trespass provisions (or other law), so there would still have to either a statutory prohibition for a crime to have occurred or sufficient notice for trespass charges to be brought. I also note that administrative rules cannot trump the constitution.

Ceasefire?

Trip20 and Law Abider - Both of you have set out your opinions and further public feuding would be counterproductive. If you wish to continue, I respectfully suggest you take it private at this point. I am beginning to regret having commented at all. Takeaways:

1. Be careful about how you express opinions. Ask yourself could this fairly interpreted in a way that I am not intending? Double/triple check facts. Indicate if something you say is speculation (if not otherwise obvious that it is).

2. Respond/correct to posts positively and specifically. It might be advisable to privately inquire what the poster is trying to say. Being "firstest" is of no value if what is posted/replied is misleading, inflammatory or just plain wrong.

I know that I have failed on numerous occasions to live up to these standards as I am a congenital smartass but I am continually trying to improve.

apjonas said:

Trip20 and Law Abider - Both of you have set out your opinions and further public feuding would be counterproductive. If you wish to continue, I respectfully suggest you take it private at this point. I am beginning to regret having commented at all. Takeaways:

1. Be careful about how you express opinions. Ask yourself could this fairly interpreted in a way that I am not intending? Double/triple check facts. Indicate if something you say is speculation (if not otherwise obvious that it is).

2. Respond/correct to posts positively and specifically. It might be advisable to privately inquire what the poster is trying to say. Being "firstest" is of no value if what is posted/replied is misleading, inflammatory or just plain wrong.

I know that I have failed on numerous occasions to live up to these standards as I am a congenital smartass but I am continually trying to improve.

Click to expand...

I agree. I did say to trip20 to PM and decided to meet him but he considers that a threat. Let the moderator decide if my posts are off topic. If Trip20 doesn't like my post Don't respond. Send a PM. No one wants to be controlled by anyone.

Anyway. There is an element of overreaction on that campus because of gun phobia that has been preached in schools and colleges for decades. One is considered a criminal if a gun is seed on his hip, or in this case an air pellet gun. I see smokers treated the same way: like it is a crime that they smoke. Many of you have said that in the old days they could bring a gun to school to go hunting or trade etc... That tradition seems to be long gone.

Carroll is a private college and apparently has a statement in their student handbook that nobody is allowed to be on campus (in buildings, in the open, nowhere) if in possession of a 'weapon'.

But the statutes are somewhat contradictory.

943.13 is the trespass statute: it is a class B forfeiture if
943.13(1m)(c)(3)

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.

Click to expand...

That section also specifically allows having a firearm in a vehicle.

943.13(1m)(c)(5) is the only one which specifically mentions a college

Enters or remains in any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, if the university or college 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...

Click to expand...

also allows firearms in vehicles, says nothing about being allowed to prohibit people from the grounds.
If the first thing I quoted covered the building & grounds of a college, why add this section?
And if this is all that covers colleges, then they're not allowed to prohibit people from the grounds.

But then there's 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...

Seems to apply to any land.

MKEgal said:

Carroll is a private college and apparently has a statement in their student handbook that nobody is allowed to be on campus (in buildings, in the open, nowhere) if in possession of a 'weapon'.

But the statutes are somewhat contradictory.

943.13 is the trespass statute: it is a class B forfeiture if
943.13(1m)(c)(3)

That section also specifically allows having a firearm in a vehicle.

943.13(1m)(c)(5) is the only one which specifically mentions a college

also allows firearms in vehicles, says nothing about being allowed to prohibit people from the grounds.
If the first thing I quoted covered the building & grounds of a college, why add this section?
And if this is all that covers colleges, then they're not allowed to prohibit people from the grounds.

But then there's 943.13(1m)(b)

Seems to apply to any land.

Click to expand...

Maybe they are using "land" and "grounds" to mean the same thing. Yes it looks contradictory. But then if one leases a space in the building on the grounds/land, then they are exempt?... hmm. I was referring to the college situation.

Man who set off lockdown at Carroll University cited for disorderly conduct

http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-new...y-cited-for-disorderly-conduct-203460821.html

So the people are wrong when they call in a guy carrying an air rifle, and he's the one who gets cited for DC?! :banghead:

protias said:

Man who set off lockdown at Carroll University cited for disorderly conduct

http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-new...y-cited-for-disorderly-conduct-203460821.html

So the people are wrong when they call in a guy carrying an air rifle, and he's the one who gets cited for DC?! :banghead:

Click to expand...

But I thought that Van Hollen's Advisory memo 2009 later incorporated in Act 35 prohibited Dcs from occurring unless there were other factors involved. So, If we OC with or without CCL and someone calls 911 we are cited with DC. GREAT!

Law abider said:

But I thought that Van Hollen's Advisory memo 2009 later incorporated in Act 35 prohibited Dcs from occurring unless there were other factors involved. So, If we OC with or without CCL and someone calls 911 we are cited with DC. GREAT!

Click to expand...

Looking up the actual citation, when talking about laws, what they are, what they allow, what they don't, is important and is one of the rules of this forum.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

•(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Click to expand...

Here is the section that is pertinent to this discussion of firearm disorderly conduct:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/IV/0409

66.0409  Local regulation of firearms.
_(1) In this section:
__(a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (c).
__(b) "Political subdivision" means a city, village, town or county.

...

66.0409(6) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, no person may be in violation of, or be charged with a violation of, an ordinance of a political subdivision relating to disorderly conduct or other inappropriate behavior for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried. Any ordinance in violation of this subsection does not apply and may not be enforced.

Click to expand...

To complete the citation, here is the definition of firearm for section WI 66.0409:

167.31(1)(c) "Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder.

Click to expand...

Since an Airsoft air rifle was being carried by this man, it did not meet the definition of a firearm, and the 66.0409(6) protection from being charged with disorderly conduct, did not apply. If he had been carrying even an unloaded revolver (designed to fire ammuniton that uses gunpowder), he would have been protected from the disorderly conduct charge, since it appears that he did not brandish or menace, or show any criminal or maliciious intent.

I hope he can afford a defense and doesn't just roll over and plead on the DC charge.

E6chevron said:

Looking up the actual citation, when talking about laws, what they are, what they allow, what they don't, is important and is one of the rules of this forum.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules



Here is the section that is pertinent to this discussion of firearm disorderly conduct:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/IV/0409



To complete the citation, here is the definition of firearm for section WI 66.04

Since an Airsoft air rifle was being carried by this man, it did not meet the definition of a firearm, and the 66.0409(6) protection from being charged with disorderly conduct, did not apply. If he had been carrying even an unloaded revolver (designed to fire ammuniton that uses gunpowder), he would have been protected from the disorderly conduct charge, since it appears that he did not brandish or menace, or show any criminal or maliciious intent.

Click to expand...

I'll do so in the future. Thanks buddy.

Why We Have Judges and not Bookkeepers Sitting on the Bench

It is always important to read any definitions that are part of a law and not rely on everyday meanings or how a term is defined elsewhere in the statutes.

1. There is a rule of statutory construction that the more specific law on a particular subject trumps a more general one.

Example:

Definitions: In Fictitious State Laws 100-500, "red" means cardinal, maroon, crimson or any color in the light spectrum between 590-750 nanometers.
Fictitious State Law 150 (enacted April 1, 2013) No person may park a red vehicle on any street.
Fictitious State Law 200 (enacted April 1, 2013) No person may park a red Corvette on any street except after 5 p.m.

It is 7 p.m. on April 5, 2013. May you park your orange Corvette on the street?

2. There is a rule of statutory construction that the more recent law on a particular subject trumps an older one.

Example:

Fictitious State Law 222 (enacted April 15, 1903) No person less than 21 years of age may possess a firearm.
Fictitious State Law 455 (enacted April 1, 2013) A person whose last name begins with a "Z" may possess a shotgun.

May Fred Zany, age 19 possess a Mossberg 500? (Assume no other laws apply.)

Please note that these examples are highly simplified and there are other factors that come into play in real life.

Finally, something nice to say about this case.
A couple students of Carroll College organized a fundraiser to help the victim pay his DC ticket.
How nice is that?
He shouldn't have gotten it in the first place, but at least now he doesn't have to lose the money.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukes...r-mans-lockdown-ticket-i69k5uc-203664691.html

And Wisconsin Carry has talked with both the man & his brother (not sure if the brother is the legal guardian). For now, the man doesn't want to take legal action, but considering what the police did to his brother when he went to the station for the victim, I really hope that changes & they include the brother in the plaintiffs.
WCI has also done an open records request & will be evaluating where the overreaction occurred.
I'm sure the whole (true) story will eventually come out, probably after the ORR is received.

Law Abider,

I know what you mean, trying to understand and make sense of some of this legislation, is like running thru a mine field! It can be done, but its tricky.

-------

apjonas said:

It is always important to read any definitions that are part of a law and not rely on everyday meanings or how a term is defined elsewhere in the statutes.

...

Click to expand...

Good point. The Wisconsin statute with regard to general definitions, and statutory construction can be found at: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/990

The Counstruction of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, Chapter SCR 99, also touch on similar subjects:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/scr/_46/_4