• 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
So, permit holders would be exempt from open carry bans via tresspass theory.

They recognize that permittees are explicitly exempt according to the new WI State Statute 943.13 (1m)(c)(2).
The position is that non-permittees are not protected by 943.13 (1m)(c)(2). I believe that they are also explicitly exempted by this Statute.


One municipal attorney I happened to talk to is of the belief that they can post and cite you for a violation of 943.13 (1m) (b) for trespassing if you are not a permittee and you are carrying. Their statement was that a City has the same Property rights as someone who owns private property. When I brought up Preemption they again cited 943.13(1m)(b) as the similar State law because that is what you could be cited for right now if you do not leave a store, etc and you are Open Carrying.
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I realized that I was mistaken in my analysis. The city may not use 943.13 (1m)(b) to prevent anyone from carrying firearms on City owned property which is not a "park" (park bans have not been tested in court regarding if they are more stringent). 66.0409(2) preempts them from regulating the carry of firearms unless their Ordinance is similar to and no more stringent than a State Statute. As an example, there is no State Statute regulating carry in parking lots.

Yes, this one needs to be tested. We had and opportunity to do that last year in Portage Co, but leadership made a strategic call not to do it in that instance.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Call/E-mail Council members, go to the Council Meeting or call/meet/E-mail with the City/Village/Town Attorney and explain this.

IMHO, that equates to ALOT of energy spent state-wide with few, if any success's.

It is also MHO that all our energy would be better spent getting our legislators giving 66.0406 some teeth. Then test the local ordinance parks bans. If any municipalities used 943.13(1m)(b) against a non-permitted Open Carrier, that would be a seperate issue to file a lawsuit.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
IMHO, that equates to ALOT of energy spent state-wide with few, if any success's.

It is also MHO that all our energy would be better spent getting our legislators giving 66.0406 some teeth. Then test the local ordinance parks bans. If any municipalities used 943.13(1m)(b) against a non-permitted Open Carrier, that would be a seperate issue to file a lawsuit.
I believe that it is worth our time and effort to do both concurrently...
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Just a question, wouldn't the communication from the city side be FOIA able?

It would be more tedious filing the FOIA request with each municipality but that would contribute to building the mosaic of what the league has put out.

There you go, that would work. You'd probably need to FOIA just one municipality, since chances are the same info went to all.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
The term "parking facility" occurs about ten times in Act 35, so there's your state law regarding "carry" in a parking lot.

The context is what is relevant. I am certain it is mentioned several times in several different Statutes which have zero to do with the OP. Please cite which specific Statute you are referring to which is relevant and applicable.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
Dropped on head at birth? The communications are with local government....

Any more smart-(_O_) irrelevant comments?

Too late, I got straightened out already. See post #50. Any more tardy snarky comments?

And yeah, a head drop would explain a lot -- I'll ask Ma about that next time I catch her sober.
 
Last edited:

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
great question. Research is in order. I will go to Veteran's Park tomorrow and advise. [sarcasm] I wouldn't imagine a place named "Veteran's Park" would be posted..... [/sarcasm] Neither park is within 1000' ft of a school - just to get that out there.

i'll try to get pictures of the signs at the different parks. I have a Zombie hunter shotgun (IAC Hawk 12ga with Ghost Sights) being delivered to my FFL tomorrow, so these tasks will be prioritized, of course.

this is posted at Fireman's Park in Verona, WI. I did not make it to Veteran's Park.

Click for larger picture

2011-09-16 12.08.27.jpg
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Greg:
Can you explain what is going on here? Are town and cities mis usinf a state statute to enforce OC without permit??

What does that mean?

Municipal governments cannot ban lawful open carry from any public land, i.e. streets, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys, parks, lawns of public buildings. Public land within a school zone are prohibited under a state statute. However, the League of Muncipalities has advised that local municipalities can ban parks, because that would be similar to the state statute banning state parks. Not all municipalities have done so, infact few have.

The problem is that the laguage in the preempion law 66.0409 states," is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute".

On ordinance can be exactly the same as a state statute, or similar(less stringent) but absolutley not more stringent than.That is what the League of Municipalities does not get. They could model an ordinance that is exactly the same as a state statute, except for the penalty. They could even scale the model back so that it is less stringent than a state statute. For expample, the county could pass an ordinance banning the carry of firearms within 100 feet of any buildings within the state park within the county. That would be similar and not more stringent than the state statute. Local municipalities cannot ban the lawful carry of firearms in county or city parks because there is no state statute that does so.

For example, a local municipality could ban firearms 500 feet from a school, 1000 feet from a school, but not 1001 or more feet from a school. Also, if a state park was within a county, they could pass an ordinance banning firearms, except those properly unloaded and encased. They could not make an ordinance that would ban firearms that were properly unloaded and uncased. They cannot ban firearms from county or city parks, because there is no state statute that does that.

If I come across as incoherent, I aplogize. It's hard to concentrate right now. Myblood sugar might be low.
 

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
What does that mean?

Municipal governments cannot ban lawful open carry from any public land, i.e. streets, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys, parks, lawns of public buildings. Public land within a school zone are prohibited under a state statute. However, the League of Muncipalities has advised that local municipalities can ban parks, because that would be similar to the state statute banning state parks. Not all municipalities have done so, infact few have.

The problem is that the laguage in the preempion law 66.0409 states," is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute".

On ordinance can be exactly the same as a state statute, or similar(less stringent) but absolutley not more stringent than.That is what the League of Municipalities does not get. They could model an ordinance that is exactly the same as a state statute, except for the penalty. They could even scale the model back so that it is less stringent than a state statute. For expample, the county could pass an ordinance banning the carry of firearms within 100 feet of any buildings within the state park within the county. That would be similar and not more stringent than the state statute. Local municipalities cannot ban the lawful carry of firearms in county or city parks because there is no state statute that does so.

For example, a local municipality could ban firearms 500 feet from a school, 1000 feet from a school, but not 1001 or more feet from a school. Also, if a state park was within a county, they could pass an ordinance banning firearms, except those properly unloaded and encased. They could not make an ordinance that would ban firearms that were properly unloaded and uncased. They cannot ban firearms from county or city parks, because there is no state statute that does that.

If I come across as incoherent, I aplogize. It's hard to concentrate right now. Myblood sugar might be low.

Did somebody see a League position on this? Just wondering if it's referring to existing laws, or laws after 11/1. The pre-emption language is in addition to other, explicit provisions in the statutes. To me, the trespassing statute changes in Act 35 very clearly bar local governments from prohibiting firearms in parks:

SECTION 78.
943.13
2. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any
part of a nonresidential building, grounds of a nonresi-
dential 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.
This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building,
grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local gov-
ernmental unit,
to a privately or publicly owned building
on the grounds of a university or college, or to the
grounds of or land owned or occupied by a university of
college, or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked
in the parking facility, to any part of a building, grounds,
or land used as a parking facility.


Looking at that, how can anyone argue that the Legislature intended to allow local governments to ban firearms outdoors?
 
Top