Captain Nemo
Regular Member
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.
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.