Tomah Police Waiting For Me Outside of Aldi

[FLR&@]

imported post

Five Places you cannot OC? I can come up with lots but not five "rule of thumb" places I will say.



School Zone.

Govt. Building.

Bar or “establishment” w/ class2 liquor license.

County Park, at least in Milwaukee.



AND??



When dealing with LEO, in a more public environment i.e. not at the range or my house, I usually put my right hand under my left arm and my left hand near my mouth/ chin and give them the “puzzled look” before they can tell me to keep my hand away from my gun. I feel it gives “them” the been there did it done it got the T-shirt impression, but that’s me.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

kd6sxa wrote:

bnhcomputing wrote:

I sent the FOI request shortly after reading the OP.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I am not familiar with your acronyms. FOI and OP?

FOI(A): Freedom Of Information Act

OP: Original Post, or Original Poster; You.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

I sent the FOI request shortly after reading the OP.

FOI == Freedom of Information i.e. Open Records Request.

OP == Original Post OR Original Poster.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

FLR72 wrote:

Five Places you cannot OC? I can come up with lots but not five "rule of thumb" places I will say.



School Zone.

Govt. Building.

Bar or “establishment” w/ class2 liquor license.

County Park, at least in Milwaukee.



AND??



When dealing with LEO, in a more public environment i.e. not at the range or my house, I usually put my right hand under my left arm and my left hand near my mouth/ chin and give them the “puzzled look” before they can tell me to keep my hand away from my gun. I feel it gives “them” the been there did it done it got the T-shirt impression, but that’s me.

School Zone

Government building

Place that serves alcohol for consumption on premises

State Park

Vehicle



Pretty sure that's the five.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Wow, that was like a rapid fire posting contest right there......LOL

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

FLR72 wrote:

Five Places you cannot OC? I can come up with lots but not five "rule of thumb" places I will say.



School Zone.

Govt. Building.

Bar or “establishment” w/ class2 liquor license.

County Park, at least in Milwaukee.



AND??



When dealing with LEO, in a more public environment i.e. not at the range or my house, I usually put my right hand under my left arm and my left hand near my mouth/ chin and give them the “puzzled look” before they can tell me to keep my hand away from my gun. I feel it gives “them” the been there did it done it got the T-shirt impression, but that’s me.

County parks are NOT prohibited by state law BUT state law 66.0409 DOES prohibit enforcement of local laws. Therefore, it is my belief that county or city park bans cannot be enforced.

This hasn't been tested in a court of law, most likely WILL be tested in court before the summer is over!

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Freedom Of Information [Act] and Original Post(er).

In Wisconsin, the FOIA is enacted in state statute in Chapter 19.

 

[FLR&@]

imported post

Thank you guys..

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Look at the difference in the language of §66.0409(4)(b) and §66.0409(2) to which you refer, do you imagine that there is any significance in the different words?

One says 'no [one] may enact', while the other says 'the ordinance or resolution shall have no legal effect and the political subdivision may not enforce..."

A challenge to Ch. 66 will be a challenge to home rule.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

A challenge to Ch. 66 will be a challenge to home rule.

You are right Doug, my bet is this would go all the way and be a "home rule" challenge. The thing is, under Article 11, Section 3, there are only two cases in which local governments have successfully asserted constitutional home rule authority in the face of seemingly contrary statutes.

Far more typical of constitutional jurisprudence relating to municipal home rule is the result in Van Gilder, in which the court determined that compensation paid by the city of Madison to its police officers, which would seem to be a fairly local matter, was instead primarily a matter of statewide concern and, thus, not protected from state regulation under municipal home rule authority.

In sum, based on case law, it seems that the home rule constitutional amendment is not a substantial impairment to legislative enactments affecting cities and villages. The reason may be because the terms of the amendment are limited to "local affairs and government" and, for most practical purposes, "local affairs" have statewide impact and are therefore of statewide concern.

A "local affair" like a handgun ban or prohibition on carrying certainly has statewide impact – thus the reason for 66.0409 to affect uniformity in every city or every village. The method (open carry) is the determination prescribed by the legislature with the passing of 941.23.

So it is my opinion (not a legal one) that if a municipality made a home rule challenge of 66.0409 the municipality would not be successful.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

A challenge to Ch. 66 will be a challenge to home rule.

You are right Doug, my bet is this would go all the way and be a "home rule" challenge. The thing is, under Article 11, Section 3, there are only two cases in which local governments have successfully asserted constitutional home rule authority in the face of seemingly contrary statutes.

[ ... ]

So it is my opinion (not a legal one) that if a municipality made a home rule challenge of 66.0409 the municipality would not be successful.

Citation please. To logically make that assertions requires that all of Wisconsin case law on point was examined.

A municipality is unlikely to challenge to overturn home rule and, because it would be against the interests of all the other municipalities, I agree that it would not be successful. Or do I mistake your point?

Village powers are the practical embodiment of home rule and include the power to regulate discharge of a firearm beyond the other limitations of § 66.0409; perhaps an indication of legislative intent.

 

[bnhcomputing]

imported post

Doug:

Being you are on your town board, I would have thought you would have read this already, but I post for those who would enjoy an interesting read about "home rule"

http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={D746E3BD-06EB-4823-A22A-0B4AE68E7CC7}&DE={FC1247CE-05AC-4094-B9E4-E600A5BE60BE}

 

[MKEgal]

imported post

in re: places not to OC...
In general, yes, bars are off-limits.

BUT...
If the owner or manager gives you permission to come in for "a specific event
of limited duration" (like, oh, say, having lunch) then it's OK. They'll look at you
funny for asking permission to come in & eat, but them saying yesmakes it legal.

941.237(2)
Whoever intentionally goes armed with a handgun on any premises for which
a Class "B" license or permit has been issued ...is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(I used to not know this applied to restaurants - thought it was just bars.)

941.237(3)
Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:

941.237(3)(g)
The possession or use of a handgun on the premises if authorized for a specific
event of limited duration by the owner or manager of the premises

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

imported post

MKEgal wrote:

in re: places not to OC...
In general, yes, bars are off-limits.

BUT...
If the owner or manager gives you permission to come in for "a specific event
of limited duration" (like, oh, say, having lunch) then it's OK. They'll look at you
funny for asking permission to come in & eat, but them saying yes makes it legal.

941.237(2)
Whoever intentionally goes armed with a handgun on any premises for which
a Class "B" license or permit has been issued ... is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 
(I used to not know this applied to restaurants - thought it was just bars.)

941.237(3)
Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:

941.237(3)(g)
The possession or use of a handgun on the premises if authorized for a specific
event of limited duration by the owner or manager of the premises

Yes.

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/carrypermissionsliprev5.pdf

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

§941.237(3)(g) The possession or use of a handgun on the premises if
authorized for a specific event of limited duration by the owner or
manager of the premises who is issued the Class “B” or “Class B”
license or permit under ch. 125 for the premises.

Not just any owner or manager, but only the one issued the license or permit of Ch. 125.

 

[AaronS]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

§941.237(3)(g) The possession or use of a handgun on the premises if
authorized for a specific event of limited duration by the owner or
manager of the premises who is issued the Class “B” or “Class B”
license or permit under ch. 125 for the premises.

Not just any owner or manager, but only the one issued the license or permit of Ch. 125.

Hmm... Never seen a class B with a persons name on it (Yes I have looked at a few now), just the establishments name. Have you? I think not. Or do you think all of the Roundys stores have a class B under the name "Chairman Bob"?

Nice try to scare off more OC'ers. You elected official you...

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

AaronS wrote:

Hmm... Never seen a class B with a persons name on it (Yes I have looked at a few now), just the establishments name. Have you? I think not. Or do you think all of the Roundys stores have a class B under the name "Chairman Bob"?

Nice try to scare off more OC'ers. You elected official you...

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/NXT/gateway.dll/Miscellaneous%20Documents/Town%20Law%20Forms/251?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=71

Retailer's Class "B" license, fermented malt beverages. STATE OF WISCONSIN
Town of ________
________ County Written application having been made to the Town Board of the Town of ________, ________ County, Wisconsin, by __JOE__ _SMITH_, of ______________, for a retailer's Class "B" fermented malt beverage license, under s. 125.26, Wis. stats., and the applicant having paid the required fee of $________ [fee shall not exceed $100 per year; nonrenewable license may be issued for 6 months for one half of the license fee]; A retailer's Class "B" license is granted to ________ ________ to sell fermented malt beverages, under s.125.26, Wis. stats., on the following premises in the town either to be consumed on the premises where sold or off the premises: [describe the premises]. This license will expire on June 30, 20__, unless sooner revoked. Dated this ______ day of ________, 20__. [Signatures of town board] Attest: [Signature of town clerk]