Carry in Library?

[MikeLovell]

Almost completed my move to Wisconsin (few months away). I needed to use the library in Burlington. They have the following sign outside



943.13 appears to reference trespassing laws:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13

I've been reading through the legislation. I thought this sign was not legal. Although I have not carried in the library in case it is.

It's public property, not specifically listed in the places you cannot carry. Plus Burlington ordinance cannot be stricted that state law.

Am I missing something?

 

[MikeLovell]

Ordinance they reference in the sign:

http://ecode360.com/9751508#15728021

With respect to dangerous weapons (other than the firearms that are prohibited under above Subsection A), and pursuant to the police powers of the City of Burlington, no person carrying a dangerous weapon may enter and/or remain in any part of a building that is owned and/or occupied and/or controlled by the City of Burlington. This prohibition against carrying a dangerous weapon in a municipal building applies to both open carry and concealed carry of a dangerous weapon.

[...]

Pursuant to the provisions of § 943.13(2), Wis. Stats., the City of Burlington shall post a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the municipal buildings subject to this chapter, in a manner that any individual entering the municipal building(s) can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Each such sign shall:
(1)
Have dimensions of at least five inches by seven inches; and
(2)
State that "No person may enter or remain in this building while carrying, whether openly or concealed, a firearm or dangerous weapon. Section 943.13, Wis. Stats., and Ch. 308, Burlington Code of Ordinances."

 

[MikeLovell]

Maybe §943.13(1m)(c)2 and/or §943.13(1m)(c)4, if the library is not owned by a sub-division of the government or is so owned, respectively.

§943.13(1m) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
[ ... ]
§943.13(1m)(c)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.
[ ... ]
§943.13(1m)(c)4. While carrying a firearm, enters or remains in any part of a building that is owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit, excluding any building or portion of a building under s. 175.60 (16) (a), if the state or local governmental unit has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. This subdivision does not apply to a person who leases residential or business premises in the building or, if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the building used as a parking facility.

According to the tax map. it's owned by City of Burlington:

Tax Code: 206031932401000
Owner Name BURLINGTON CITY OF
Address1 CITY OF
Address2 BURLINGTON
Address3 300 N PINE ST
City BURLINGTON
State WI
ZipCode 531050000
Physical Address 166 JEFFERSON ST E
School District 0777
Zoning Classification CITY OF BURLINGTON

Hang on, under §943.13(1m)(c)4 you can be asked to leave any public property for carrying a firearm? And/or post a sign?

 

[apjonas]

Seems Pretty Straightforward

Is the library "owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit"? Yes.
Do you lease residential or business property in the library? No.
Have you been given notice not to enter? Yes.

So if you enter the any part of the library building (other than a part that is a parking area) with a dangerous weapon you are trespassing. The local ordinance is not "stricter" than state law, it is meeting the requirements of state law. You do NOT have to be asked to leave, the trespass occurred upon entry. Now the library staff may prefer to ask you to leave to avoid the fuss of summoning law enforcement but again they might not.

 

[protias]

Is the library "owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit"? Yes.
Do you lease residential or business property in the library? No.
Have you been given notice not to enter? Yes.

So if you enter the any part of the library building (other than a part that is a parking area) with a dangerous weapon you are trespassing. The local ordinance is not "stricter" than state law, it is meeting the requirements of state law. You do NOT have to be asked to leave, the trespass occurred upon entry. Now the library staff may prefer to ask you to leave to avoid the fuss of summoning law enforcement but again they might not.

I am still of the opinion that these signs are not legal, since they have to make an ordinance (which is stricter than state law), but they somehow can post the sign, but they can't post the sign without making an ordinance.

This is my personal opinion and I am not a lawyer.

 

[MikeLovell]

Is the library "owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit"? Yes.
Do you lease residential or business property in the library? No.
Have you been given notice not to enter? Yes.

So if you enter the any part of the library building (other than a part that is a parking area) with a dangerous weapon you are trespassing. The local ordinance is not "stricter" than state law, it is meeting the requirements of state law. You do NOT have to be asked to leave, the trespass occurred upon entry. Now the library staff may prefer to ask you to leave to avoid the fuss of summoning law enforcement but again they might not.

I wonder why they lay out a specific list of government buildings you cannot carry in, when they can just make it all (and probably do).

Seems odd.

So. The answer is then yes, the government can restrict you carrying a firearm in any public property [EDIT: BUILDINGS], in accordance with state law?

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Is the library "owned, occupied, or controlled by the state or any local governmental unit"? Yes.
Do you lease residential or business property in the library? No.
Have you been given notice not to enter? Yes.

So if you enter the any part of the library building (other than a part that is a parking area) with a dangerous weapon you are trespassing. The local ordinance is not "stricter" than state law, it is meeting the requirements of state law. You do NOT have to be asked to leave, the trespass occurred upon entry. Now the library staff may prefer to ask you to leave to avoid the fuss of summoning law enforcement but again they might not.

Told not to enter based on a state statute that is void as per the 2A. Anybody can enter any public building and owners of said building being public has zero right to trespass you for exercising your constitutional rights. This being said, there are very few people indeed with the courage to stand up and fight back. I would suggest that the consencous will be the state 'law' stands and we must cower and submit to it. Government speaks, we listen. Oh we may complain and make entreaties to the local senator or city council but we're still submitting because we accept something is law because we're told it is. Best of luck because with this attitude rights will be denied even more and of course we'll cry and bawl and lie down and submit

 

[apjonas]

Help Me Out

I am still of the opinion that these signs are not legal, since they have to make an ordinance (which is stricter than state law), but they somehow can post the sign, but they can't post the sign without making an ordinance.

This is my personal opinion and I am not a lawyer.

You're going to have to explain how the ordinance in question is "stricter than state law" and how the posting of or the sign itself is "illegal." The ordinance is merely the method by which this local government authorizes the giving of notice to those carrying weapons. Do you have an alternative that achieves the same result?

 

[apjonas]

Which Do You Prefer - Simplicity and Less Carry or Complexity and More Carry?

I wonder why they lay out a specific list of government buildings you cannot carry in, when they can just make it all (and probably do).

The state decided that carry would be prohibited in certain buildings and left other buildings to the discretion of the local government. You can carry in any public space in Wisconsin that is not prohibited by law.

Seems odd.

So. The answer is then yes, the government can restrict you carrying a firearm in any public property [EDIT: BUILDINGS], in accordance with state law?

 

[protias]

You're going to have to explain how the ordinance in question is "stricter than state law" and how the posting of or the sign itself is "illegal." The ordinance is merely the method by which this local government authorizes the giving of notice to those carrying weapons. Do you have an alternative that achieves the same result?

Preemption (66.0409) prevents local municipalities from making stricter laws than what the state says is allowed (or rather, not prohibited). So Milwaukee, for example, can't just say or make an ordinance, "We don't allow firearms." A city can't just post signs either, like "Dogs must be on leashes." They have to make an ordinance first to have any kind of legal teeth. Back to firearms, since these cities have post signs, they had to enact an ordinance first, which is stricter than state law. There is nothing in Act 35 that grants an exception for municipalities the ability to post signs or enact ordinances stricter than state law.

 

[Grapeshot]

Preemption (66.0409) prevents local municipalities from making stricter laws than what the state says is allowed (or rather, not prohibited). So Milwaukee, for example, can't just say or make an ordinance, "We don't allow firearms." A city can't just post signs either, like "Dogs must be on leashes." They have to make an ordinance first to have any kind of legal teeth. Back to firearms, since these cities have post signs, they had to enact an ordinance first, which is stricter than state law. There is nothing in Act 35 that grants an exception for municipalities the ability to post signs or enact ordinances stricter than state law.

In total agreement.

The ordinance and/or any enforcement of it would have the capacity for a major Ka-ching.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Go to the City of Elkhorn library. It's not posted.

I used to work in Burlington and it is generally open carry friendly. Personally, I can recommend that you go to Gabby's Palace for lunch.

Say hi to Dave when you do.

 

[Franky]

Go to the City of Elkhorn library. It's not posted.

I used to work in Burlington and it is generally open carry friendly. Personally, I can recommend that you go to Gabby's Palace for lunch.

Say hi to Dave when you do.

Dave is what? The owner, the waiter, the host?

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Dave is what? The owner, the waiter, the host?

Owner and cook.

 

[MikeLovell]

Go to the City of Elkhorn library. It's not posted.

I used to work in Burlington and it is generally open carry friendly. Personally, I can recommend that you go to Gabby's Palace for lunch.

Say hi to Dave when you do.

:lol:

Thanks...

Well, I think I have the answer worked out anyhow. Shame this was is up to discretion. That usually means "NO".

 

[NoTolerance]

I am still of the opinion that these signs are not legal, since they have to make an ordinance (which is stricter than state law), but they somehow can post the sign, but they can't post the sign without making an ordinance.

This is my personal opinion and I am not a lawyer.

I really want to agree with you, but I'm not finding a way to.

Preemption says they can't pass ordinances restricting the possession and bearing of firearms "unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute."

943.13(1m)(c)4: [...] if the state or local governmental unit has notified the actor not to enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm

They're passing an ordinance to post a sign to notify "the actor" to not enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm.

That is not more stringent than state statutes as there is a state statute specifically allowing for that notification.

Now, their ordinance itself: you might be able to make the argument that 308-5 A and B are more stringent than state law, but even that would be a stretch. For the sake of discussion, let's say A and B are tossed out because of preemption. Why would part D get tossed:

Pursuant to the provisions of § 943.13(2), Wis. Stats., the City of Burlington shall post a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the municipal buildings subject to this chapter, in a manner that any individual entering the municipal building(s) can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Each such sign shall:
(1)
Have dimensions of at least five inches by seven inches; and
(2)
State that "No person may enter or remain in this building while carrying, whether openly or concealed, a firearm or dangerous weapon. Section 943.13, Wis. Stats., and Ch. 308, Burlington Code of Ordinances."

Part D is not an ordinance restricting firearms in any way. It's a mandate to post signs.

 

[apjonas]

Trying to skate by on a (very weak) technically is never a winning gambit.

Preemption (66.0409) prevents local municipalities from making stricter laws than what the state says is allowed (or rather, not prohibited). So Milwaukee, for example, can't just say or make an ordinance, "We don't allow firearms." A city can't just post signs either, like "Dogs must be on leashes." They have to make an ordinance first to have any kind of legal teeth. Back to firearms, since these cities have post signs, they had to enact an ordinance first, which is stricter than state law. There is nothing in Act 35 that grants an exception for municipalities the ability to post signs or enact ordinances stricter than state law.

I will leave alone for now the claim that the Wisconsin statute is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. For this explanation I am going to use a silly, non-existent example. The focus needs to be on the operation of preemption not in the weeds of details. Preemption means that if a state statute prohibits open carry between midnight and 5 a.m., Madison may not enact (or at least enforce) an ordinance that prohibits open carry between midnight and 6 a.m., as that would be stricter (more restrictive) than the state law. Madison may have a valid ordinance that mirrors the state law. The importance of this is that the law (statute or ordinance) a person is charged with violating will likely have different maximum penalties.

In the library case, the state statute does not mandate any ordinance but specifically states a signage requirement. It is implicit in the authorization for a local government to prohibit carry that an ordinance necessary to effect the required signage is also authorized even though, as mentioned before, a sign ordinance doesn't raise preemption concern. Nobody has stated why an ordinance/sign authorized by state statute is problematic. In what way is the ordinance/sign "stricter" than state law?

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

I really want to agree with you, but I'm not finding a way to.

Simple. Go by the federal Constitution not state. We're dancing around wordings and forgetting the fact that as a public building libraries have zero right to infringe on the right to bear arms. NO city, state, town, place or government organisation has that right. Until that is widely accepted and defended, we'll always have forums and articles which dance around frantically trying to use a corrupt justice system to get justice. It doesnt work. Look at the legal mess in D.C.? The answer is there, we just refuse to accept it

 

[protias]

I will leave alone for now the claim that the Wisconsin statute is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. For this explanation I am going to use a silly, non-existent example. The focus needs to be on the operation of preemption not in the weeds of details. Preemption means that if a state statute prohibits open carry between midnight and 5 a.m., Madison may not enact (or at least enforce) an ordinance that prohibits open carry between midnight and 6 a.m., as that would be stricter (more restrictive) than the state law. Madison may have a valid ordinance that mirrors the state law. The importance of this is that the law (statute or ordinance) a person is charged with violating will likely have different maximum penalties.

In the library case, the state statute does not mandate any ordinance but specifically states a signage requirement. It is implicit in the authorization for a local government to prohibit carry that an ordinance necessary to effect the required signage is also authorized even though, as mentioned before, a sign ordinance doesn't raise preemption concern. Nobody has stated why an ordinance/sign authorized by state statute is problematic. In what way is the ordinance/sign "stricter" than state law?

Again, a municipality must pass an ordinance before it can post signs, therefore making it more strict than preemption. You can't just post a sign. It must have some kind of legal backing, but in this case, preemption trumps their "legal" ordinance.

 

[Grapeshot]

Again, a municipality must pass an ordinance before it can post signs, therefore making it more strict than preemption. You can't just post a sign. It must have some kind of legal backing, but in this case, preemption trumps their "legal" ordinance.

Plus Wisconsin is a Dillon Rule state, as a majority od states are:
http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and...es-101/city-powers/local-government-authority