A sorry state of affairs....

[LaBomba]

So, it is public property, meaning that the county owns it? If so, that sign is not enforceable. That fair is this weekend? I might come down and try to get arrested.

ETA: Public property, they could not post it last year or this year. They can after 11/1/11 if they qualify as a 'special event'.

Hmmm....not sure about that, is there a particular law that leads you there? Until 11/1, there's no restriction on posting private land. Act 35 narrowed the existing property owner right, it didn't create it. After 11/1, barring weapons requires signs on non-residential property and exempting vehicle carry.

Am I wrong? I thought Act 35 (not in effect today) said that private businesses could NOT stop people from carrying on their land? Or did I misread that? They do have to allow guns in cars at least, right?

I think I know where you might have gotten that impression -- the early versions of SB 93 didn't allow private property owners to ban weapons on grounds or land. The law as passed does allow them to ban outdoors. And you're right, there's an exemption for vehicle carry of firearms (not "weapons"), including in parking areas at special events.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

So, it is public property, meaning that the county owns it? If so, that sign is not enforceable. That fair is this weekend? I might come down and try to get arrested.

ETA: Public property, they could not post it last year or this year. They can after 11/1/11 if they qualify as a 'special event'.

Hmmm....not sure about that, is there a particular law that leads you there? Until 11/1, there's no restriction on posting private land. Act 35 narrowed the existing property owner right, it didn't create it. After 11/1, barring weapons requires signs on non-residential property and exempting vehicle carry.

I was saying if it was public property, not private property.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Am I wrong? I thought Act 35 (not in effect today) said that private businesses could NOT stop people from carrying on their land? Or did I misread that? They do have to allow guns in cars at least, right?

I don't think you are wrong. AFTER 11/1/11. Firearms cannot be banned on private land that does not have a residence on it. So, Walworth County fairgrounds cannot ban firearms, UNLESS they qualify as a special event.

Anyone who does not agee, I am working on the cite.

 

[HandyHamlet]

I thank you sir. I was in the Viet Nam conflict, 1971-1975 service time.

Welcome aboard and thanks for your service.

 

[sheller]

Welcome aboard and thanks for your service.

Thank you HH, we all serve in different ways. I leave it to you younger people to fight the gun rights battle. You have the passion big time, mine is kind of dwindling. My last to do was Madison in 2005 for two days during the PP debate in the Assembly and waiting on a vote.

It was the most foot stomping, fist pounding theatrics I ever want to see in my lifetime. FUBAR.

I am lucky enough to watch you people with the energy to sic em.

 

[rcawdor57]

Sic Em We Will....

Thank you HH, we all serve in different ways. I leave it to you younger people to fight the gun rights battle. You have the passion big time, mine is kind of dwindling. My last to do was Madison in 2005 for two days during the PP debate in the Assembly and waiting on a vote.

It was the most foot stomping, fist pounding theatrics I ever want to see in my lifetime. FUBAR.

I am lucky enough to watch you people with the energy to sic em.

We can never rest. This "battle" over our sacred rights will go on long after we all are dust in the wind.

Thank you for your service and I hope to meet you one day.

Take Care

 

[LaBomba]

I don't think you are wrong. AFTER 11/1/11. Firearms cannot be banned on private land that does not have a residence on it. So, Walworth County fairgrounds cannot ban firearms, UNLESS they qualify as a special event.

Anyone who does not agee, I am working on the cite.

Oops! I neglected the Forum mandate to provide cites. In thinking that owners of private, non-residential property can ban firearms outdoors, I'm relying on s. 943.13 in the trespassing laws. That's where the vehicle exemption Paul wondered about also appears:

1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:

...

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.
​

Note: governments, colleges and universities have their own sections under the trespassing law allowing them to ban firearms from buildings, but not from outdoor areas except for qualifying special events on their land.

 

[LaBomba]

I thank you sir. I was in the Viet Nam conflict, 1971-1975 service time. I respect both sides of the issue, I carry but I also respect those who do not and stores that post. I understand it makes things somewhat tougher to carry but it is the law, be it good or bad.

Welcome, Sheller and thank you for your service to our country. I look forward to reading your perspective here!

 

[GLOCK21GB]

If it's county land, then it's not really Private property..since it's paid for with your tax dollars..that's Public property.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

If it's county land, then it's not really Private property..since it's paid for with your tax dollars..that's Public property.

It's not. It is a non-profit that owns it.

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

Here is where all the confusion of 943.13 comes from:

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
(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.

The above was ammended to read as below:

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
(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.

And I cannot figure out why in hell they did ammend it as such, because all of the following completely takes away any effect it may have had.

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
(c) 1. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a residence that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the residence, if he or she has not leased it to another person, or the occupant of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain at the residence while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. In this subdivision, “residence,” with respect to a single− family residence, includes the residence building and the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located, and “residence,” with respect to a residence that is not a single−family residence, does not include any common area of the building in which the residence is located or any common areas of the rest of the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located.
1m. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in a common area in a building, or on the grounds of a building, that is a residence that is not a single−family residence if the actor does not own the residence or does not occupy any part of the residence, if the owner of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the common area or on the grounds while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of the grounds of the building if that part is used for parking and the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in that part.
2. 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. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental 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 or 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.
3. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building used as a parking facility.

The only reason I can think is if 941.13(1m)(c) was not intend to apply to a 'permit holder'. If that was the intent, they did not make it clear.

 

[davegran]

By George, I think he's got it!

....
(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
(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.

And I cannot figure out why in hell they did amend it as such, because all of the following completely takes away any effect it may have had.

(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
(c) 1. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a residence that the actor does not own or occupy after the owner of the residence, if he or she has not leased it to another person, or the occupant of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain at the residence while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. In this subdivision, “residence,” with respect to a single− family residence, includes the residence building and the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located, and “residence,” with respect to a residence that is not a single−family residence, does not include any common area of the building in which the residence is located or any common areas of the rest of the parcel of land upon which the residence building is located.
1m. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in a common area in a building, or on the grounds of a building, that is a residence that is not a single−family residence if the actor does not own the residence or does not occupy any part of the residence, if the owner of the residence has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the common area or on the grounds while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a part of the grounds of the building if that part is used for parking and the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in that part.
2. 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. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental 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 or 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.
3. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to enter or remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building used as a parking facility.

The only reason I can think is if 941.13(1m)(c) was not intend(ed) to apply to a 'permit holder'. If that was the intent, they did not make it clear.

I think you may have hit on it, brokenspocket. 941.13(1m)(b) obviously addresses permit holders while 941.13(1m)(c) never mentions permit holder but only mentions an actor carrying a firearm.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if

2. 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. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental 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 or 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.

has legalized open carry without a permit in the areas mentioned above?

 

[vermonter]

Ignore sheller. It is most likely that troll.

Why, b/c he voiced his opinion? Sometimes people on here are as extreme as the libtards! Sounds like a liberal thing - stifle freedom of speech. I know lot's of ultra conservatives who value property owner rights above all else. It is the right of someone to post and my right not to patronize the business. I just ignore the signs anyway and would never live in a state where the signs have force of law. I only CCW so it is a moot point for me. Take Arizona.... A state where signs have "force of law". They kept pushing for permitless CCW and got it. Guess what? Signs are now everywhere b/c business owners are afraid of untrained individuals CCW'ing. When I go out unless I am hiking I am usually viviting stores and businesses. I would not want to live in an environment where I have to leave a gun in my car evertime I enter a store. So let me ask you what is more important property owners rigts to restrict, or my right to defend myself?

 

[lockman]

I would read 941.13(1m)(b) to remove the forfeiture penalty if you have a license to carry.

I would read 941.13(1m)(c)(1),(2) & (3), to allow forfeiture (with or without a LTCF) if you enter or remain in the listed locations. The applicability of 1,2 & 3 will hinge on what is proper notification to the actor.

Is a sign good enough? D
Do you have to be told in person?
Is there a state approved sign?

 

[BROKENSPROKET]

I think you may have hit on it, brokenspocket. 941.13(1m)(b) obviously addresses permit holders while 941.13(1m)(c) never mentions permit holder but only mentions an actor carrying a firearm.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if

2. 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. This subdivision does not apply to a part of a building, grounds, or land occupied by the state or by a local governmental 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 or 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.

has legalized open carry without a permit in the areas mentioned above?

The part you highlighted red was exempted by 943.13 (1m)(c)2. because it is explicited covered in 943.13 (1m)(c)4.

I can't anwer you question.

What I am stuck on is WHY did they ammend 943.13(1m)(b) to expempt licensees on out-of-state licensees and then create 943.13(1m)(c) to make it void.

I know, the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it is laywers creating business for other lawyers. "Lets confuse the poor baastards into needing a laywer."

Attorney for the Defendant - "943.13(1m)(b) says that my client can"

Prosecutor - "Read further, 943.13(1m)(c) cleary states that your client could not'

IT'S A TRAP

We thought is was crazy when 167.31 was inconflict with 941.23(supposedly), now 943.13 is clearly in conflict with itself.

INSANE, UTTERLY INSANE