Local ordinance vs. state law

[Shotgun]

imported post

moon1234 wrote:

So shooting my handguns, my kids .22 rifles, hunting deer (which is all we hunt here) would all be illegal if we were in the city of Madison.

I am not trying to say that the city does not have the power to do it, what I am saying is they should NOT have the power to enact such laws. They are arbitrary and usually emotionally based and not public safety based.

There should be standard laws statewide that eliminate weird local laws.

In Pardeeville many people would target practice within the village limits. The local sheriff must have just igorned it. Many villages are surrounded by towns with different laws even though houses may be next to one another.

I am just distressed at this restriction on freedoms that have no public safety basis and are solely based on municipal boundaries.

Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

I don't understand your distress. First there is a standard statewide law that eliminate weird local laws. That's not to say there aren't some weird state laws, however.

I don't believe that the regulation of the discharge of firearms within city limits qualifies as a weird local law. Other than in predominately rural townships, I believe you'll find the discharge of guns regulated in almost every municipality. I think what is weird is a belief that you should be able to shoot anyplace you want.

 

[Bunker]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Thanks. It wasn't directed at you.

Since you seem to have access to an interesting data base, can you find Door Co. Ordinances?

I've yet to find a website that offers a complete copy of Door County's.

Try here: http://www.co.door.wi.gov/county/app/public?COMMAND=gov.wi.county.view.command.ShowDocumentList&countyName=Door&type=ORD

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Bunker wrote:

Try here: http://www.co.door.wi.gov/county/app/public?COMMAND=gov.wi.county.view.command.ShowDocumentList&countyName=Door&type=ORD

Thanks for trying and thanks for a contribution. I am well familiar with the site and the page. It does not serve my purposes because it shows a small sub-set of the County Ordinances. Thanks.

 

[moon1234]

imported post

This is an area that would fall inside the city of Madison: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=53532&sll=43.118778,-89.535141&sspn=0.090969,0.149002&g=53562&ie=UTF8&ll=43.172885,-89.351292&spn=0.045444,0.074501&t=h&z=14

It currently is NOT in the city of Madison, but will be in the future. There is virtuall NO residential anywhere in this area. So you are FINE with any municipality arbitrarily limiting your rights even when it is not necessary?

Do you support open carry or are you FINE with any municipality telling you no? That is what you are saying here? Can you think of NO scenerio where it would be permissible to discharge firearms within a municipality? You are limiting your thought process to high population density areas. What about all of the areas where this is virtually NO population density?

By your argument there would be virtually no discharge of weapons allowed anywhere. Back to my Pardeeville example. 75% of Pardeeville is rural and only a very small amount is actually high density population center. You would be fine with people living in the population center limiting the discharge of weapons ANYWHERE in the village? How about the people that live 5 miles from the village out in a rural area with no one nearby? Take a look at this map: http://maps.live.com/?mkt=en-us#JnE9eXAucGFyZGVldmlsbGUlMmMrd2klN2Vzc3QuMCU3ZXBnLjEmYmI9NjEuMjI3OTU3MTc2Njc3OSU3ZS01Mi4yOTQ5MjE4NzUlN2UxNy40NzY0MzIxOTcxOTU1JTdlLTEyNi40NzQ2MDkzNzU=

You are fine with people living in the RURAL areas having their rights to discharge a weapon taken away? These decisions are being made in manycities/villagesby people with NO knowlegde of weapons or by people with a political agenda.

Theses are the types of situations where state government or the DNR working under the auspices of the state government should be setting clearer standards on where public safety trumps the excercise of a persons constitutional rights.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

moon1234 wrote:

This is an area that would fall inside the city of Madison: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=53532&sll=43.118778,-89.535141&sspn=0.090969,0.149002&g=53562&ie=UTF8&ll=43.172885,-89.351292&spn=0.045444,0.074501&t=h&z=14

It currently is NOT in the city of Madison, but will be in the future. There is virtuall NO residential anywhere in this area. So you are FINE with any municipality arbitrarily limiting your rights even when it is not necessary?

Do you support open carry or are you FINE with any municipality telling you no? That is what you are saying here? Can you think of NO scenerio where it would be permissible to discharge firearms within a municipality? You are limiting your thought process to high population density areas. What about all of the areas where this is virtually NO population density?

By your argument there would be virtually no discharge of weapons allowed anywhere. Back to my Pardeeville example. 75% of Pardeeville is rural and only a very small amount is actually high density population center. You would be fine with people living in the population center limiting the discharge of weapons ANYWHERE in the village? How about the people that live 5 miles from the village out in a rural area with no one nearby? Take a look at this map: http://maps.live.com/?mkt=en-us#JnE9eXAucGFyZGVldmlsbGUlMmMrd2klN2Vzc3QuMCU3ZXBnLjEmYmI9NjEuMjI3OTU3MTc2Njc3OSU3ZS01Mi4yOTQ5MjE4NzUlN2UxNy40NzY0MzIxOTcxOTU1JTdlLTEyNi40NzQ2MDkzNzU=

You are fine with people living in the RURAL areas having their rights to discharge a weapon taken away? These decisions are being made in manycities/villagesby people with NO knowlegde of weapons or by people with a political agenda.

Theses are the types of situations where state government or the DNR working under the auspices of the state government should be setting clearer standards on where public safety trumps the excercise of a persons constitutional rights.

Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you?

Sorry, but once the city annexes an area, it isno longer "rural." If you haven't noticed the areas that Madison annexes seem to lose that "rural appearance" very quickly. I've lived here since 1977 and I remember plenty of areas that once looked like farmland a few years ago, but are far from that now. So what do you propose? That the city allow unrestricted shooting as long as the population density in the area is below a certain level?

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

This has absolutely nothing to do with open carry, so I don't understand why you even bring that up. Maybe you'll explain why. How would anything that I have ever said imply in the slightest that I am "fine" with a municipality prohibiting open carry? You haven't been paying attention, have you? No municipality prohibitsopen carrybecause they cannot. And THAT is what I am "fine with."

There is nothing particularly arbitrary about firearm discharge ordinances. State law specifically grants municipalities the power to pass such ordinances-- and I would challenge you to find a single Wisconsin city or village that does not regulate the discharge of firearms. If you believe you have a problem with the ordinance, then I think your real problem is with state law that authorizes it.

Once the city annexes where you live, if you feel your "right to shoot anywhere you wish" is being unfairly violated, thengo ahead andshoot! After all, no mere ordinance can stop you. However the SWAT unitwould--- in about 60 seconds flat.

Bottom line, if you want to shoot in your backyard, then live somewhere that allows it.

 

[moon1234]

imported post

I currently do live somewhere that allows it. I will be forceably moved to a different municipality against my will. The only reason this annex/boundry agreement went through was to stop Madison from moving futher north.

Please answer the question about rural villages where 75% of the village is rural, yet they prevent the discharge of firearms. Is it that the local sheriff simply does not respond to calls of a person shooting in the rural areas (Because it is not uncommon)even though according to ordinance it is technically illegal? If this is the case, then it gives law enforcement way too much latitude in determining who they will prosecute and who they will not prosecute.

It is for these reasons that I DO have a problem with state law. I think the STATE should regulate what defines an area that should or should not allow the discharge of firearms and what caliber is allowed. With the expanded rifle areas this year we have local townships responding with ordinances restricting rifle use when there is no statistical reason to do so. These decisions are being made upon emotion and not upon fact.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

moon1234 wrote:

I currently do live somewhere that allows it. I will be forceably moved to a different municipality against my will. The only reason this annex/boundry agreement went through was to stop Madison from moving futher north.

Please answer the question about rural villages where 75% of the village is rural, yet they prevent the discharge of firearms. Is it that the local sheriff simply does not respond to calls of a person shooting in the rural areas (Because it is not uncommon)even though according to ordinance it is technically illegal? If this is the case, then it gives law enforcement way too much latitude in determining who they will prosecute and who they will not prosecute.

It is for these reasons that I DO have a problem with state law. I think the STATE should regulate what defines an area that should or should not allow the discharge of firearms and what caliber is allowed. With the expanded rifle areas this year we have local townships responding with ordinances restricting rifle use when there is no statistical reason to do so. These decisions are being made upon emotion and not upon fact.

Well, do you believe they don't respond, or is it possible that nobody calls? Police don't prosecute, the DA or city/village attorney prosecute. Police usually have alot of latitude to decide how to respond to calls. Probably a good thing that they do too.

 

[moon1234]

imported post

I doubt anyone calls. I just don't like the fact that a municipality can make a right unusable. I doubt that was the intention of the founding fathers.

 

[opusd2]

imported post

The rights the founding fathers established for us are being more and more obscured and legally dissected every day until they are no longer something we can rely on. There are legal beagles who spend their entire careers relieving ordinary citizens of liberties, and there are the criminal element who deserve such treatment but who can afford the representation to dismiss such treatment. I won't mention any ex-professional football players by name, but we all know of such people.

We have two choices; work to effect a change and expect our appointed leaders and LEO to enforce the laws we already have that are constitutional and strike down those that aren't, or live outside the law and deal with the consequences. Sometimes I wonder exactly which is harder to do.

 

[S.E.WI]

imported post

BJA wrote:

Hunters this year are able to use rifles for hunting deer in CWD areas, the local muncipalities are not happy about this and are trying to make an ordinance to make it unlawfull in the areas not to use rifles. I use a rifle for coyote hunting in southern kettlemoraine, i thought local ordinances cannot trump state laws that deem how you carry use and own a weapon.

from jsonline-

Local ordinances on rifles, shotguns and handguns can supersede the rule change, and those laws may change to restrict rifle use before special and regular deer hunting seasons, Trawicki said. He advised hunters to obtain updates from municipalities before hunting.



full article- http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=791287

I read an article about slugs being more dangerous than rifle bullets. I think it was in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine.

Can you imagine what would happen if hunters just refused to hunt for a year or two? Coyotes running around killing pets, auto/deer collisions, squirrels in homes, crop destruction and property destruction. Think of the loss of money that 750,000 deer hunters generate for the DNR and the areas they hunt in.

Wait for the SOB's to beg us to bring things under control again. You know that the auto insurance companies would be pushing for us too when it costs them $$$$.

I'm just sick of the idiots that don't get it. They only learn the hard way.

 

[opusd2]

imported post

The idiots never learn, that's why they are idiots. The department of Natural Resources are so out of touch with what is really out there, it's amazing. Plus they won't acknowledge bear where many witnesses have observed it, etc... And then they complain there are fewer hunters all of the time. With the price of license going up and all of the new regs it's not as fun as it used to be.

Don't worry, a so called sharpshooter will be called in and paid by some municipalities to do what hunters love to do for fun.

 

[S.E.WI]

imported post

opusd2 wrote:

The idiots never learn, that's why they are idiots. The department of Natural Resources are so out of touch with what is really out there, it's amazing. Plus they won't acknowledge bear where many witnesses have observed it, etc... And then they complain there are fewer hunters all of the time. With the price of license going up and all of the new regs it's not as fun as it used to be.

Don't worry, a so called sharpshooter will be called in and paid by some municipalities to do what hunters love to do for fun.

There's even hope for an idiot when the problem hits close to home.

Think of the pets the animal rights group may have. Idiots they are but even they would change when they watched their little Muffy being carried off by a coyote, kicking, squealing and bleeding. Being idiots, it may take Muffy No.10 before they understand the problem. (Kind of a slow thought process for them.)

I've always wondered about these sharpshooters. I doubt they could get enough to make a difference anyway.

I just see the need for pro 2A people to stick together andtake "legal" actions (not court) that make an impact. Our freedom is being attacked and I'm not sure that the people have the will to fight for it. That will may show after a few years of oppression and that is going to be ugly.

 

[Fast Ed]

imported post

It is only those towns that are authorized to use "Village Powers" that can limit firearms discharges. Not all towns have this authority. Your town officials will know whether or not they have this power.

As far as the desire to allow cities to control firearms discharges, get real. Public safety would be compromised to a serious degree if Milwaukee, for instance, could not regulate discharge. They try to control carry, too, which I think is abhorent. If you discharge a lawfully carried firearm in defense of yourself or someone else, I don't think there is a jury that would convict of a discharge offense, even in Milwaukee.

My town has village powers and has limited discharge to shotguns only. This borders on ridiculous, as the area is still mostly rural, but since there are some relatively dense subdivisions, I understand the reasoning, even if I don't agree with it.

Fast Ed

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I know that my Town Board may exercise Village Powers. I do not recall an exception to preemption of firearms regulation for villages. I do know that exceptions to village powers must be in explicit language and it seems that firearms preemption is quite definite.

Will you defend your assertion, please?

 

[Fast Ed]

imported post

Doug,

From your own post on page 2 of this topic:

Regulation of the discharge of firearms is allowed by Wisconsin statute

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 subch. V of ch. 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.


See where is says "Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4)"

sub (3)(b) says,"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"

Therefore, towns with village powers have the authority to restrict firearms discharge. I don't know how to make it any more plain than that.

Fast Ed

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Appears that you are exactly correct. Hmmm...I guess I haven't read beyond the main paragraph. Thank you.

I'll have to read my Ch. 205 of the Town's Ords, Firearms, with new eyes. It currently contains a paragraph that excepts residents and property owners from the chapter in its entirety.

 

[Fast Ed]

imported post

Doug,

There is also an opinion from the attorney's office of the Town's Association that mirrors this information. It is up on this board somewhere, but I don't have the time to find it right now.

Fast Ed

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Fast Ed wrote:

Doug,

There is also an opinion from the attorney's office of the Town's Association that mirrors this information. It is up on this board somewhere, but I don't have the time to find it right now.

Fast Ed

I think Doug started the very thread to which you refer.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I'm sure. But the WTA is not without its agenda that is not mine.

 

[Fast Ed]

imported post

Doug,

I know what you mean about the Town's Association agenda.

I sit on the Plan Commission of my town and it is amazing how quickly elected and appointed officials can forget who they represent. They go from representing the people to representing the town government in about 3 minutes. That's about how long it takes to swear them in.

Fast Ed