Not a far fetched possiblity...in Madison..

[GlockRDH]

Say i walk into a store that's posted....i DONT see the posting on the door...Im CC...I turn to look at something and my jacket briefly reveals my side arm... is the store owner obligated to ask me to leave or can he just call LE and have me charged with trespassing? In this situation, is the LEO operating under legal authority to question me regarding my carrying a fire arm, since it is still concealed, on private property, and ive not been ask to leave the premises?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Good question, that I believe will have to be answered with a test case and case law, no thanks to our legislature (that could'a just repealed 941.23). In stead they conflated and confused gun law and trespass law, property rights with civil rights.

The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.

 

[GlockRDH]

test case? Great...let me not be the one!

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

test case? Great...let me not be the one!

Amen. First Amen. Second Amen. Fourth Amen. Fifth Amen. Tenth Amen. Fourteenth Amen.

 

[skidmark]

Not knowing Wisconsin law but applying the general rules of law - Yes, they could just call the cops and ask for you to be arrested for trespass. The sign that you missed gave what is called "effective notice" and you violated it.

In practice the cops may ask you to leave rather than have to arrest you. Take the opportunity if it presents itself.

stay safe.

 

[Brass Magnet]

The easier question is probably "Do they have RAS"? I'd say yes. Known (as opposed to anonymous) caller/witness. The possible "crime" is trespassing. If they have RAS, they can Terry stop. You know what goes after that.

You have been notified by the sign as far as our law is concerned. I don't know if the courts wil end up treating it differently than face to face notification.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

You have been notified by the sign as far as our law is concerned. I don't know if the courts wil end up treating it differently than face to face notification.

As I recall Act 35, even the instant existence of the sign is not required. Proof of its previous existence is sufficient.

I'll find the cite in a moment ....

ETA: Section 81

SECTION 81. 943.13 (2) of the statutes is renumbered
943.13 (2) (am), and 943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) and 1., as
renumbered, are amended to read:
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) A person has received notice
from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub.
(1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally,
either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted.
Land is considered to be posted under this subsection
paragraph under either of the following procedures:
1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least
2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.
The sign must provide an appropriate notice and the
name of the person giving the notice followed by the
word “owner” if the person giving the notice is the holder
of legal title to the land and by the word “occupant” if the
person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but
is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate
signs as provided in this subdivision were
erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected
prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie
proof that the premises to be protected were posted as
provided in this subdivision.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Say i walk into a store that's posted....i DONT see the posting on the door...Im CC...I turn to look at something and my jacket briefly reveals my side arm... is the store owner obligated to ask me to leave or can he just call LE and have me charged with trespassing? In this situation, is the LEO operating under legal authority to question me regarding my carrying a fire arm, since it is still concealed, on private property, and ive not been ask to leave the premises?

If the sign meet the legal requirements, you are guilty.

If there is no sign and you are asked/told to leave and you refuse, you are guilty.

If anyone reports that you a carrying a firearm to law enforcement, they then have RAS to detain and pat you down.

This ain't Minnesota. They may have stricter training requirements, but you gotta like their 'trespass with a firearm' laws.

 

[markush]

If I'm not mistaken Mr Koch, The statute you posted to back up your "Proof of its previous existence is sufficient" is in regards to residential land and not a place of business The first tip off to that is the "11 inches square" signage then the "every 40 acres" I'm sure someone will be along to post the proper statute, if relevant, and/or correct me.

 

[GlockRDH]

If the sign meet the legal requirements, you are guilty.

If there is no sign and you are asked/told to leave and you refuse, you are guilty.

If anyone reports that you a carrying a firearm to law enforcement, they then have RAS to detain and pat you down.

This ain't Minnesota. They may have stricter training requirements, but you gotta like their 'trespass with a firearm' laws.

Am i still guilty of a trespass even if im not asked to leave by the shop owner?
and is here-say enough RAS for a pat down and detainment?

and adding another slight twist...what if im NOT armed, but the shop owner saw the bottom of my holster under my jacket...? or would that still allow for RAS?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

If I'm not mistaken Mr Koch, The statute you posted to back up your "Proof of its previous existence is sufficient" is in regards to residential land and not a place of business The first tip off to that is the "11 inches square" signage then the "every 40 acres" I'm sure someone will be along to post the proper statute, if relevant, and/or correct me.

Actually I am thinking in terms of legislative intent, absent a test case et ceteris paribus.

 

[Teej]

Actually I am thinking in terms of legislative intent, absent a test case et ceteris paribus.

Given that the "trespass to land" statute you cited was amended by act 35, and the building/etc. provisions were specifically created as below (and appear after your cited section in act 35), I disagree with your reading of legislative intent.

am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5.,
an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building,
the state or a local governmental unit, or a university
or a college has notified an individual not to enter or
remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm
or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant,
state, local governmental unit, university, or college has
posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all
of the entrances to the part of the building to which the
restriction applies and any individual entering the building
can be reasonably expected to see the sign.

Further, your comment

even the instant existence of the sign is not required. Proof of its previous existence is sufficient.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're saying "It's not posted now, but it was last month, so it's still illegal to enter."

If that is what you're saying then I think that is a ludicrous interpretation of the language. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify your interpretation.

 

[littlewolf]

As I recall Act 35, even the instant existence of the sign is not required. Proof of its previous existence is sufficient.

I'll find the cite in a moment ....

ETA: Section 81

SECTION 81. 943.13 (2) of the statutes is renumbered
943.13 (2) (am), and 943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) and 1., as
renumbered, are amended to read:
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) A person has received notice
from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub.
(1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally,
either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted.
Land is considered to be posted under this subsection
paragraph under either of the following procedures:
1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least
2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.
The sign must provide an appropriate notice and the
name of the person giving the notice followed by the
word “owner” if the person giving the notice is the holder
of legal title to the land and by the word “occupant” if the
person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but
is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate
signs as provided in this subdivision were
erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected
prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie
proof that the premises to be protected were posted as
provided in this subdivision.

This is great for NO tresspass signs I put up on my deer hunting woods,but what about sinage prohibiting weapons.?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

If that's not what you're saying, please clarify your interpretation.

OK What I cut&pasted is Act 35 (notice the "Section 81" that might suggest that I know what section I cut&pasted).

 

[Captain Nemo]

(az) “Implied consent” means conduct or words or both that
imply that an owner or occupant of land has given consent to
another person to enter the land.

And what about these excerpts from 943.13?

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class
B forfeiture:
(a) Enters any enclosed, cultivated or undeveloped land of
another, other than open land specified in par. (e) or (f), without
the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.
(am) Enters any land of another that is occupied by a structure
used for agricultural purposes without the express or implied consent
of the owner or occupant.
(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.

 

[Teej]

OK What I cut&pasted is Act 35 (notice the "Section 81" that might suggest that I know what section I cut&pasted).

My question was whether I properly interpreted the words you wrote about your interpretation of section 81. Specifically, I am reading what you wrote as saying "It doesn't matter if the sign is there now, only that it was there at some point."

 

[E6chevron]

Act 35 has been merged into the statutes on the Wisconsin website https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

I encourage you to use the link above, or ones like it, to review statutes, after new Acts have been merged into them, because you can easily click on reference links in one statute that refer to different portions of the statutes. If you do not understand what those references actually refer to, it is like reading foreign words in a book, you cannot understand what is actually going on. I will cite portions pertinent to this thread:

Wisconsin Statute 943.13 "Trespass to land" has been modified by Act35 and this statute now contains some of the law for prohibiting and posting prohibitions for carrying weapons, or concealed weapons as well as simple trespass.

943.13(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
...
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.
...
943.13(1m)(e) Enters or remains on open land that is an inholding of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the land.

943.13(1m)(f) Enters undeveloped private land from an abutting parcel of land that is owned by the United States, this state or a local governmental unit, or remains on such land, after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the land.
...

943.13(2)
943.13(2)(am) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub. (1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally, either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted. Land is considered to be posted under this paragraph under either of the following procedures:

943.13(2)(am)1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected. The sign must provide an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the notice followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the notice is the holder of legal title to the land and by the word "occupant" if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate signs as provided in this subdivision were erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie proof that the premises to be protected were posted as provided in this subdivision.

943.13(2)(am)2. If markings at least one foot long, including in a contrasting color the phrase "private land" and the name of the owner, are made in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.

In Section 943.13, subsection "2", paragraph "am", subdivision "1", there is mention of prima facie proof that premises had been posted, which probably is referring to time-stamped photographs, but only applies to signage in THAT subdivision. That subdivision outlines one procedure for posting areas within the meaning of sub. (1m) (b), (e) or (f) (which, as cited above, are different types of LAND areas, NOT buildings)

Section 943.13 "Trespass to Land"
was modified by Act35 and now contains some of the law with regard to prohibiting and posting those prohibitions for carrying weapons, and/or concealed weapons, as well as conventional simple trespass.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

The language of 943.13 (2) (am) originates in the fact that Private Property "No Trespassing" signs are commonly defaced or stolen. A Land Owner is not required to inspect these signs every 10 seconds to ensure that they are always in place. The language clearly states "in this subdivision" as to not apply to all subdivisions within the Statutes.
Since there is no such loophole in the subdivisions regarding buildings and the actual language includes "any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign", there MUST be a sign in place in order for a sign to legally provide notice. Of course verbal notice is equally binding if such notice is given regardless whether it is in the absence or presence of a sign.

 

[RR_Broccoli]

As I recall Act 35, even the instant existence of the sign is not required. Proof of its previous existence is sufficient.

I'll find the cite in a moment ....

ETA: Section 81

SECTION 81. 943.13 (2) of the statutes is renumbered
943.13 (2) (am), and 943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) and 1., as
renumbered, are amended to read:
943.13 (2) (am) (intro.) A person has received notice
from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub.
(1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally,
either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted.
Land is considered to be posted under this subsection
paragraph under either of the following procedures:
1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least
2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.
The sign must provide an appropriate notice and the
name of the person giving the notice followed by the
word “owner” if the person giving the notice is the holder
of legal title to the land and by the word “occupant” if the
person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but
is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate
signs as provided in this subdivision were
erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected
prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie
proof that the premises to be protected were posted as
provided in this subdivision.

For the OP's stated example, you want Section 82, not Section 81. Section 81 is for out doors, farm land and wilderness. 82 covers stores.

It specifically states "can reasonably be expected to have seen the sign" and in "predominant place" on "all entrances".

The sign has to be up. It has to be up on the entrance the person entered. It has to be up in a predominant place the person entered. And, to stay within the law, you have to not have known the signs are on other entrances. If the sign was taken down, it's not in a predominant place. Section 82 mentions nothing about "should have known it was up." The details talk about what it is to be "notified" without saying that's the ONLY way you can be notified. So seeing "they are posted" here in this forum is notification as well.

A sign in amongst a bunch of clutter behind the cash register isn't good enough. Neither is at one entrance if you came in another. Nor is "taken down by the cleaning staff", nor is "at the other entrance."

Look at the entrance you go through and continue if there is no sign. That's it.

 

[MKEgal]

test case? Great... let me not be the one!

Some people are born to be test cases, others have test-case-dom thrust upon them.
Ask not what your state can do for you, ask what you can do for your state.
[What other sayings can I mangle this morning?]

The sign that you missed gave what is called "effective notice" and you violated it.

If the sign meet the legal requirements, you are guilty.

...if the owner, occupant ... has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.

If he didn't see the sign then it didn't meet the legal requirement of being in a prominent place where people could reasonably be expected to see it, otherwise he would have seen the sign.

Or is that only making sense 'cause it's 03:00 & I'm tired?