• 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.

Madison contemplates posting bus shelters

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
I tuned in to the web broadcast of Madison's Transit and Parking Commission meeting today. It is pretty clear that the city plans to post every Madison Metro bus shelter and transfer point. They claim that "building" is not defined in Act 35 so they interpret this to mean "any structure." Their plan includes charging anyone with a firearm inside one of these "buildings" with trespassing. One member of the commission asked how, if bus shelters were specifically identified as non-buildings when the smoking ban was passed, the could now be considered "buildings."

What purpose could this action take other than to harass gun carriers? Will those people in the shelter be more safe simply because the armed person has to stand outside of the shelter to wait for the bus?
 

Attachments

  • brasco_bus_shelter.jpg
    brasco_bus_shelter.jpg
    5 KB · Views: 91
M

McX

Guest
they should waste some tax payer money to have stickers printed up that the homeless can put on their cardboard boxes, and the tent campers in the capitol can stick on their tents saying no guns allowed.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
Glad I don't have to take the bus in Madistan, but if I did, I'd still ride the bus while armed.

I don't see how this can even be remotely legal to do. By their logic, a tent could be considered a building... :rolleyes:
 

Big Dipper

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Illinois & Wisconsin
What purpose could this action take other than to harass gun carriers? Will those people in the shelter be more safe simply because the armed person has to stand outside of the shelter to wait for the bus?

Non-tax revenue enhancement for the city. :rolleyes:

Rather than setting up speed traps to line the city's coffers they can just nail carriers with a Class B forfeiture.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Concealed carry won’t be allowed on Metro buses

will (open/concealed) carry with a permit be legal on the bus itself?
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_8a70cf1a-e574-53c2-af82-cfae104488ca.html
Madison.com said:
Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law should not affect Metro Transit’s policy prohibiting guns on city buses, an assistant city attorney said Wednesday.

“We don’t believe the new law affects buses,” said Marci Paulsen.

“The municipalities that we’ve heard from are in agreement that it doesn’t impact buses,” Paulsen said.

She said Eau Claire and De Pere were the municipalities she was aware of that were in agreement.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,539
Location
Quarryville, PA
Really? Bus shelters? I don't mean to be a pessimist but your new CC law seems to be causing more problems than good. Am I accurate in believing that all of these places that are now banning firearms were previously okay with OC?
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,539
Location
Quarryville, PA
In the case of bus shelters, it's not the law causing the problem as much as it is a few people... Come to Madison for awhile. You'll see.

This year you guys should fight for total pre-emption and then all these localities won't be able to do this stupid stuff. Is that in the playbook?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,348
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
This year you guys should fight for total pre-emption and then all these localities won't be able to do this stupid stuff. Is that in the playbook?

The Republicans in Madison are too busy trying to reach across the isle & appease the Libs in a attempt to stay under the recall radar... That includes Walker ..if he was smart he would toss those rules in the garbage can, or line item veto most of it.....the winds of decent are a blowing, he might tick off the gun owners enough to vote against him in the recall..which would be bad... last year We voted for sweeping change & all we are getting is compromise across the board..stinking Coward Republicans as I remember when the Liberal Dems were in power they did what ever they wanted republicans had ZERO say as they were the minority...
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
The Republicans in Madison are too busy trying to reach across the isle & appease the Libs in a attempt to stay under the recall radar... That includes Walker ..if he was smart he would toss those rules in the garbage can, or line item veto most of it.....the winds of decent are a blowing, he might tick off the gun owners enough to vote against him in the recall..which would be bad... last year We voted for sweeping change & all we are getting is compromise across the board..stinking Coward Republicans as I remember when the Liberal Dems were in power they did what ever they wanted republicans had ZERO say as they were the minority...

That is what I am not getting. There are far more Conservative/Republicans than Liberals/Democrats.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Shotgun said:
It is pretty clear that the city plans to post every Madison Metro bus shelter and transfer point.
They claim that "building" is not defined in Act 35 so they interpret this to mean "any structure."
The more crap like this goes on, the lower my supply of bad words gets.

One member of the commission asked how, if bus shelters were specifically identified as non-buildings when the smoking ban was passed, the could now be considered "buildings."
But under the smoking ban, bus shelters were also specifically listed as outdoor places where smoking is prohibited. (Not that it's enforced or enforcable.)

What purpose could this action take other than to harass gun carriers? Will those people in the shelter be more safe simply because the armed person has to stand outside of the shelter to wait for the bus?
+1,000,000

I think we have elected & appointed officials at several layers of gov't who are in violation of their oaths of office:
19.01  Oaths and bonds
(1)  Form of oath. Every official oath required by article IV, section 28, of the constitution or by any statute shall be in writing... in substantially the following form:
...
I, the undersigned, who have been elected (or appointed) to the office of [office], but have not yet entered upon the duties thereof, swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and will faithfully discharge the duties of said office to the best of my ability

19.01 (2) Form of bond
(a) Every official bond required of any public officer shall be in substantially the following form:

"We, the undersigned, jointly and severally, undertake and agree that [name], who has been elected (or appointed) to the office of [position], will faithfully discharge the duties of the office according to law, and will pay to the parties entitled to receive the same, such damages, not exceeding in the aggregate [amount] dollars, as may be suffered by them in consequence of the failure of [name] to discharge the duties of the office."

19.02 Actions by individuals Any person injured by the act, neglect or default of any officer, except the state officers, the officer's deputies or other persons which constitutes a breach of the condition of the official bond of the officer, may maintain an action in that person's name against the officer and the officer's sureties upon such bond for the recovery of any damages the person may have sustained by reason thereof...

And I don't see how any city could possibly claim that a bus is a building.
 
Last edited:

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
i'm no lawyer, but unless the state prohibits (by law) carrying on state owned ride-shares then we have a local policy that is clearly a preemption (wording?) violation?
State firearms preemption is as ineffectual as is 175.60(2) Issuance and scope of license.
(a) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to any individual who is not disqualified under sub. (3) and who completes the application process specified in sub. (7). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub. (2m).
(b) The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.
(c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed.
(d) For purposes of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii), an out-of-state licensee is licensed by this state.
 

IcrewUH60

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
481
Location
Verona, Wisconsin, USA
i'm no lawyer, but unless the state prohibits (by law) carrying on state owned ride-shares then we have a local policy that is clearly a preemption (wording?) violation?

State firearms preemption is as ineffectual as is 175.60(2) Issuance and scope of license.
(a) The department shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to any individual who is not disqualified under sub. (3) and who completes the application process specified in sub. (7). A license to carry a concealed weapon issued under this section shall meet the requirements specified in sub. (2m).
(b) The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.
(c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section does not limit an individual's right to carry a firearm that is not concealed.
(d) For purposes of 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii), an out-of-state licensee is licensed by this state.

errrrr... something the AG is supposed to enforce?
 
Top