Grizz272
Regular Member
Any one know if the park is posted? Heading over there and was planning on carrying.
-
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.
-
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.
Oostburg Veterans park
- Thread starter Grizz272
- Start date
Sorcice
Regular Member
I don't think parks can be posted unless they are national parks with controlled entry. IANAL
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
National Parks Gun Law, Public Law 111-24 §512 codified 16 USC 7(b)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ24/pdf/PLAW-111publ24.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1a-7b
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ24/pdf/PLAW-111publ24.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1a-7b
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Park buildings may be posted, but the park itself cannot. (Unless there is a "special event" there.)
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
They may post for non-licensees. State Parks still ban non-licensees so Municipalities may ban non-licensees from parks. 29.089
Plus, a municipality may cite a non-licensee for trespass under 943.13(1m)(b) if the park is posted. In other words you could receive 2 citations for carrying in a posted park without a license.
dangerousman
Regular Member
I don't know about that. The trespassing laws related to posting for gun carriers comes under 943.13(1m)(c) not (b). And under (c) there's no provision for government to post land, only buildings ("except during special events".) Secondly, State Parks can't ban non-licensees, they can only require that the firearm be unloaded and in a case. So I don't see how one would be held liable for a trespassing charge. At most a "failure to unload and case" citation-- which is what? I'm not sure, but I think it is no more than $100-- the same as the under 167.31.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
A Municipality may charge more than $100 for possession of a firearm in a park which is not unloaded and encased. 167.31 has zero to do with a municipal ordinance regarding manner of carry for a firearm. 167.31 is a State Statute. A Municipality may enact an ordinance regarding carry in Parks or on other Municipal property.
A gun carrier may be charged with a 943.13(1m)(b) violation unless you are a licensee. It stands on its own. It existed before Act 35 was enacted and was only amended to add the part about licensees. The subsequent Statutes do not negate it. They clarify what a licensee may not do not what a non-licensee may do.
dangerousman
Regular Member
I didn't say 167.31 had anything to do with carry in parks or municipal property. I said as far as I can tell the state penalty for non-licensee having a firearm that was not unloaded and encased in a state park is no more than $100, i.e., the same penalty as in the vehicle transport law. If true, then a municipality couldn't have a greater penalty for a municipal park, right?
943.13(1m)(b) covers trespassing in general. So if a municipality posted no trespassing signs on it's property it would apply equally to everyone, regardless if they had a firearm. Kind of defeats the purpose of a park, wouldn't it?
943.13(1m)(c) covers trespassing as it relates to people with firearms. Nothing in there authorizes municipalities to post anything but buildings. If you read it carefully, you'll notice that it allows posting of residential land and buildings, and non-residential (e.g., commercial) land and buildings to be posted. However when it comes to the section regarding government property, it say NOTHING about land, but only buildings. Please cite the section regarding posting of government land for people with firearms if you can. It will be difficult, since there is no such section.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
I don't see why not. A greater penalty does not equal more stringent.
No it does not and would not. As you pointed out, it would be a restriction on the manner of carry. Dogs on leashes, firearms unloaded and in cases. The WI State legislature added language which is to the effect that licensees may not be restricted access. There is no such language for non-licensees. This chapter stands on its own and you may be cited under it if you are not a licensee.
Statutes restrict what you may do and do not give you the authority to do anything. Municipalities are property owners. Parks are not public right of ways. A Municipality has control over this property and is free to sell it, etc. Municipalities never have and currently do not need explicit Statutory authority to restrict firearms on land. They are simply prohibited by preemption from having a ordinance which is not similar to and no more stringent than a State Statute.
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
I can not stress this point enough... Chapters under 943.13 prohibit individuals from trespassing and provides exceptions. That is all they do and that is their purpose.
943.13(1m) states:
Note that it states "any of". This means that you may be cited for doing anything prohibited by 943.13(1m)(a) - 943.13(1m)(f). Each subdivision stands on its own and is not dependent upon another. You may be cited under 943.13(1m)(b) even if you may not be cited under 943.13(1m)(c)(2). Note the language in 943.13(c)(2).
That means that ONLY 943.13(c)(2) does not apply to land owned by a municipality. It does not in any way effect the prohibitions of 943.13(1m)(b)
Last edited:
dangerousman
Regular Member
That's not true, since some statutes do grant authority to do certain things.
Let's get down to the meat of it. If a local government wanted to post it's land restricting the carrying of firearms, what state statue regarding posting land for carrying guns is it similar to?
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
There are no Statutes which grant you the authority to carry a firearm. Not even the State Constitution gives you the authority to Bear arms. It simply affirms the Right which you inherently have.
We are back to 943.13(1m)(b). It's the local government's land and they may "notify" you that you may enter it if you are carrying a firearm unless you are a licensee. The State has prohibited firearms from being carried on State land under 29.089 for decades.
Here is another way to look at chapter 943.13.
943.13(1m)(b) prohibits you from entering or remaining on the land of another once notified to leave. This includes government land. The exception added with Act 35 is that a licensee may not be targeted exclusively because they are carrying a firearm.
Subsequently, the remaining subdivisions under 943.13 prohibit licensees from entering specific land of another and prohibit entry onto land of another without express or implied consent regardless if it is posted or not.
Last edited:
dangerousman
Regular Member
No no no.... we're talking about POSTING, not carrying. Again, I'll ask you: What state statute about POSTING would a municipality point to and say it is similar to state law? Don't forget, since it is about firearms, it is preempted if there is no similar state law. Citation please.
As for your earlier comment, you've said that statutes do not grant authority, they only prohibit. That's not true. Forget firearms, we're talking statutes in general.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
A municipality does not need any additional authority to post. It already has it as a property owner. The State posts State Parks regarding firearms. Not only could you be cited for carrying a loaded and/or uncased firearm under 29.089, in a State Park but you could also be cited for trespassing. 943.13(2)(am) mentions posting in regards to 943.13(1m)(b) which is what you may be cited under in addition to a local ordinance prohibiting the carry of a loaded and or uncased firearm. Posting has zero to do with preemption. Posting is simply legal notice.
The posting language regarding firearms in 943.13 including 943.13(2) simply defines one of the forms of legal "notice" which a property owner may use. It does not grant them authority to do so as it is not necessary.
We are specifically talking about firearms in this thread. Statutes which grant authority typical pertain to law enforcement officers and the enforcement of laws. They may also dictate contract negotiations, etc.
Last edited:
dangerousman
Regular Member
Wrong again! As you ought to know, anything done by a municipality in WI regarding firearms is subject to the preemption statute. We're talking about a no trespassing sign here, not a simple "here are the park rules" sign. I'm still waiting and asking for the third time for you to cite the state statute regarding posting government land for firearms. Once again, as everyone can see, there is no statute regarding posting government lands, only buildings. Look at the language in the trespassing statute and compare what it says about giving notice in private residences and residential land, non-residential buildings and land, and then the government-owned property. Present in the residential and non-residential PRIVATE property is stuff about giving notice (by sign or by words) which includes both buildings and land. Conspicuously absent in the publicly-owned property is anything about posting land. Explain that.
Any state or municipal-owned land in Wisconsin can be posted for "no trespassing" but then it would apply to anyone, whether or not they have a gun. There's simply nothing in the statutes that allows them to ban only people with guns.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Parks are State land. Parks are posted for no firearms. It does not apply to everyone, only those who have firearms which are not unloaded and cased.
943.13(1m)(b) allows property owners to prohibit you on their property unless you are a licensee and they are simply trying to prohibit people from carrying firearms. The language change as a result of Act 35 was deliberate. There would have been no need for it if it did not apply to non-licensees.
You choose to conveniently ignore 943.13(1m)(b). Don't feel bad as it is a common error. Take the time to consult an attorney and see what they think about this Statute and if they believe that they could get you off if you were cited under it for trespassing because you were not a licensee and you were carrying a firearm on posted municipal property. I have consulted 2 and they both advised me that a municipality may post and cite for a violation if you are not a licensee.
I already have and I suggest that you read my posts again.
Each sub section stands on its own. 943.13 (1m)(c) stands apart from (b). As an example, 943.13(1m)(c)(2) further restricts the ability of a licensee to carry. It does not grant a licensee nor a non-licensee the authority to carry anywhere. It does not grant a licensee the authority to carry on government land. It simply adds no rights of refusal to entry on government land which are prohibited by 943.13(1m)(b)
Last edited:
dangerousman
Regular Member
I conveniently ignore it because it doesn't apply. And show us some pictures of those "posted" state parks. Oh, and get better lawyers.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
It is you who will need a good lawyer if you are not a licensee and insist that you "know your rights" and Open Carry without a license in a posted area instead of actually reading the Statutes and following them....:dude:
Last edited:
dangerousman
Regular Member
I read the statutes..... you never answered my questions by providing the citation regarding posting government land. I'll be waiting to see pictures of those signs posted for municipal land. If it was possible, then places like Madistan would have posted all of the city parks. Why do you suppose they have not?