Summer 2009 Milwaukee Open Carry Picnic: May 25th, 2009 (Memorial Day), Time: 3PM-7PM

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

pvtschultz wrote:

All,

I just contacted County Exec. Walker, Alderperson Sanfellipo, Mayor Dan Devine (I am from Stallis), and every member of the West Allis Common Council with the below message. I will carry that day knowing that I risk prosecution and persecution. Maybe if we get the word out now, we won't have to worry about wearing bracelets and they'll just let us eat out chips and dogs and drink our sodas.

I did change the wording to the county guys to include that county ordinance prohibiting firearms in parks asking them to repeal it at once.



Dear __________:

I am writing to you today regarding the memo from the state attorney general’s office underlining the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin to carry a side arm so long as it is not concealed. Additionally, a large group of citizens of the metropolitan Milwaukee area are scheduling a picnic in Greenfield Park to occur on Memorial Day where we intend to exercise our rights under Article 1, Section 25 of the WI Constitution with the support of State Statue 66.0409 which preempts any local ordinances regulating firearms. Additionally, I ask that the City of West Allis adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, The Common Council of West Allis, Wisconsin affirms that the people have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose.

WHEREAS, the concealed carry of firearms is prohibited by Wisconsin Statute 941.23.

BE IT RESOLVED, that open carry is not an unlawful means to exercise these rights, and that no one may restrict a citizen's lawful exercise of these constitutionally protected rights.

If you choose not to act on the aforementioned resolution, the least that I ask is for an explaination of the reason for failure or refusal to act.

Very best regards,

Carl Schultz

West Allis, WI

We'll see what I get in response.

Excellent. Great letter, and thanks for the pledge to stand with us.

 

[wiUPSR]

imported post

Mr. Greg wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

I am still planning on attending, but the holster& pistol may or my notremain in the vehicle. I am bringing a camera regardless.

Good.

The more cameras, the better.

Obviously new to and supportive of OC/CC, (just give me the right to bear arms), or be armed ).......When and Where on the gig, I can help....I have some Catering Equipment....

Dennis

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

wiUPSR wrote:

Obviously new to and supportive of OC/CC, (just give me the right to bear arms), or be armed ).......When and Where on the gig, I can help....I have some Catering Equipment....

Dennis

First Post in the thread has all of the information. As far as planning what to bring, we haven't gotten that far yet, but catering equipment would be excellent.

 

[wiUPSR]

imported post

My intent, is to attend.

Dennis B.

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

I'm not sure that this belongs here, but I'll post for the time being. I received an email response from Mayor Devine saying that I need to contact my alderman since the resolution needs to come from the legislative branch of the city (makes sense) and Marty Weigel wants me to call him. :shock: I'll let you know how that goes after work.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

BJA wrote:

Mr. Greg We may want to look into actually measuring from the school ourselves, by hand. We cannot be semi-sure about the school zone, we must be absolutely sure. Also so we have accesable parking NOT within the school zone right?

Ben

Remember, it from the school PROPERTY LINE, not the building.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

BJA wrote:

Good job! Yes the 66.0409. Local regulation of firearms should make us immune to the local laws. However depending on which action she and the county takes this could end up a little screwy. I'm actualy glad she brought up that county ordinance. Because now is the time to repeal it LMAO! But..... how long could that take? If we were to attend the picnic we would be breaking local law if it is not repealed. The police would be able to arrest us and take our guns based on the local law makers. BUT if they chose to do that, then they would have a big case on there hands that they are likely to lose.

The county of Milwaukee must be notified of their failure to conform to 66.0409 and IMMEDIATE ACTION must be taken to remove the ordinance and othjer ordinances conflidting with state laws!

WE MUST DEMAND IMMEDIATE REMOVAL NOW! We don't want a grace period for that day, we want it abolished NOW.

Ben

Not that I want to put the kibosh on anything, but:

29.089(2)url=http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=xhitlist$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$xhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$xhitlist_d={stats}$xhitlist_q=[field folio-destination-name:'29.089(3)']$xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-40921]sub. (3)[/url], no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.

66.0409(2)
(2) Except as provided in $xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-101615]subs. (3) and $xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-101617](4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.

One might argue that as state law allows restriction by the state, so too municipal law allows restriction by the municipalities (the same as or similar to). Even if my interpretation is incorrect, LEO could claim this interpretation without clarification from "the AG," and it would have to be settled in court.

I will also point out, that 66.04.09states they cannot be enforced, it does not require the removal of said ordinance.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

see below

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

It triple posted for some reason

 

[skamp]

imported post

[align=left]

no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case.

I thought this was a city park not a state park.. am i wrong?
[/align]

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

It is a Milwaukee County park.

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

Exactly. The restriction at the state level is for State Parks, not County Parks. WI State Statues do not mention anything about carrying in a County Park. Since anything from a political subdivision less than the state cannot be more stringent than a State Statue as per 66.0409, the County Ordinance preventing carry in parks is uninforcable.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

Look, I ain't saying I'm right, I'm saying from a certain interpretation.....

And that is EXACTLY what got Krause and Gonzalez unlawfully detained, an incorrect interpretation.

 

[semperfiws6]

imported post

Just to be safe, I will bring my Bersa instead of my Colt 1911 .

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Look, I ain't saying I'm right, I'm saying from a certain interpretation.....

And that is EXACTLY what got Krause and Gonzalez unlawfully detained, an incorrect interpretation.

Well, that interpretation would be incorrect.

Look at what I highlighted when I posted 66.0409 before, emphasis on the definition of "Political Subdivison":

66.0409. Local regulation of firearms.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s.
167.31 (1) (c).
(b) "Political subdivision" means a city,
village, town or county.
(c) "Sport shooting range" means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.
(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
(3)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subchapter V of chapter 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.
(4)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute. transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components,
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.
(b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or
taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.
(5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am) applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am), except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that is imposed under subchapter V of chapter 77.

It is a Milwaukee County Ordinance that restricts carry in county parks, therefore it is a ordinance by a "county," which is specifically defined as a "Political Subdivison" by 66.0409 that cannot have a law more stringent than state law.

Also, Krause and Gonzalez were not arrested because of an "incorrect interpretation," they were arrested because LEOs in WI are specifically taught that OC = DC, which is downright false, and the AG agreed in his opinion on Monday. It just took a waltz through the political process for that to be revealed.

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

Well gents, we should get a better definition soon (I hope). I got a very niceemail back from Mr. Sanfelippo in which he is going to ask the county's corporation counsel to review for us. :celebrate We'll see if they are brave enough (or even willing) to respond.

Dear Mr. Schiltz:

I am aware of the comments by Mayor Barrett and Chief Flynn but I am not familiar with comments made by Sheriff Clark. I assume from your letter that his comments are similar to the mayor and the police chief's. Nonetheless, I am a strict constitutionalist and as such I do not appreciate threats to law-abiding citizens by our police force or other government officials.

Unfortunately, whenever this issue comes out, our governor reverts to his often repeated and always misguided statement that he does not want to see our state turned into the wild west. The fact of the matter is several other states around the country have enacted laws permitting citizens to carry firearms and none of them have experienced any public "shootouts" because of it.

I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on your claim as to what statutes would apply in a court of law. Complicating matters further is the fact that while the law is clearly black and white, there are judges out there with their own personal agendas that will try to rewrite or simply ignore the laws granted to us in our constitution.

Until the state legislature deals with this situation once an for all, you are correct is requesting that some clarity on the matter needs to be done at the local level and for that reason I will send a request to the county's Corporation Counsel to review the county statute and render an opinion as to how it may or may not fit with the opinion issued by the attorney general.

Thanks for writing to me on this issue, I will keep you informed as I receive information back.

Joe Sanfelippo

 

[AJ Dual]

imported post



If the stateis prohibiting/restricting firearms in their parks, then one could argue equivalency that the county has the right to do the same to the same level, and that Milwaukee County's ordinance does fall within the guidelines of 66.0409.

Unless specifically hunting in a designated state park area, IIRC, (I have yet to find the cite) that WI state law requires firearms in state parks to be cased and unloaded.

So by that reason, 66.0409 invalidates the Milwaukee County ordinance only up to the point that you can't have a firearm in a County Park even when cased and unloaded. Then you can have a cased and unloaded firearm in a County park and 66.0409 protects you.

Someone PLEASE poke holes in my reasoning here.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

And there we have it, multiple interpretations and NONE of us are lawyers, I just hope that doesn't mean we'll all be waiting almost a year like Jesus and Brad for some judge to sort it out afterward.

 

[Mr. Greg]

imported post

You know what...AJ_Dual's post actually made me unfortunately see something that I didn't before.

66.0409. Local regulation of firearms.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Firearm" has the meaning given in s.
167.31 (1) (c).
(b) "Political subdivision" means a city,
village, town or county.
(c) "Sport shooting range" means an area designed and operated for the practice of weapons used in hunting, skeet shooting and similar sport shooting.
(2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
(3)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a county from imposing a sales tax or use tax under subchapter V of chapter 77 on any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, sold in the county.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, village or town that is authorized to exercise village powers under s. 60.22 (3) from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution that restricts the discharge of a firearm.
(4)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute. transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components,
(am) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from continuing to enforce until November 30, 1998, an ordinance or resolution that is in effect on November 18, 1995, and that requires a waiting period of not more than 7 days for the purchase of a handgun.
(b) If a political subdivision has in effect on November 17, 1995, an ordinance or resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or
taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, and the ordinance or resolution is not the same as or similar to a state statute, the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce the ordinance or resolution on or after November 18, 1995.
(c) Nothing in this section prohibits a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulates the new construction of a sport shooting range or when the expansion of an existing sport shooting range would impact public health and safety.
(5) A county ordinance that is enacted or a county resolution that is adopted by a county under sub. (2) or a county ordinance or resolution that remains in effect under sub. (4) (a) or (am) applies only in those towns in the county that have not enacted an ordinance or adopted a resolution under sub. (2) or that continue to enforce an ordinance or resolution under sub. (4) (a) or (am), except that this subsection does not apply to a sales or use tax that is imposed under subchapter V of chapter 77.

The word "similar" in 4(a).

I think it could probably be argued successfully in court that a county's ordinance banning uncased firearms in a park is "similar" to the state statue preventing uncased firearms in a state park.

It all would defend as to how Similar is defined in the courtroom. Similar could be interprerted in two ways, in my eyes: Similar in actuality to a state law (IE a county law preventing carry in a state park), or Similar in principle (IE a county law preventing carry in a county park being similar to a state statue preventing carry in a state park).

Hoo boy. That's not one I'd like to risk.

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

Hopefully we'll get an answer from the County's Corporation Cousel in a expiditious manner on this one. I can see how it can be argued either way by us simple minded folks. And sorry guys, my yard isn't big enough for all of us.