WN:54981:USA01559
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01559
51°
H 56° L 46°
Clear | 0MPH

Concealed guns banned in city buildings

Dec. 28, 2011 | 6 comments

Those who have permits to carry concealed weapons will not be able to bring them into municipal buildings.

The Common Council voted at its Dec. 20 meeting to have City Attorney John Hart draft an ordinance banning concealed carry weapons in city buildings and structures, and at events in the city.

The proposed ordinance is scheduled to go before the Judiciary Committee in January before being forwarded on to the council.

Hart said that while state law allows people to carry concealed weapons when they have a permit, municipalities can still ban people from carrying them into municipal buildings or at special events in the city.

The city's employee handbook bans employees from carrying concealed weapons while at work.

Hart said that if the city imposes an ordinance banning concealed weapons in municipal structures, the city's police department could then write tickets for those who violate the ordinance.

The city attorney said Waupaca's police chief cannot ask the state how many permits have been issued to people who live in Waupaca.

He also said that under the proposed ordinance, concealed weapons would not be allowed at such events as Strawberry Fest and Hometown Days.

Signs would have to be posted at those events, Hart told the council.

7 Comments for "Concealed guns banned in city buildings

"

  1. The current 9.02 already prohibits firearms in city buildings, schools, streets, and property. Concealing a firearm doesn't turn it into a rabbit.

    More time and tax dollars wasted.

    lastpercentile Dec 28, 2011 3:29 PM

  2. I know I feel safer living in a state that is known for both: 1) highest alcohol consumption and 2) the most concealed firearm permits - in the midwest. Once "road rage" becomes more common, you might as well stay home.

    lastpercentile Dec 29, 2011 11:18 AM

  3. I think you need to look up the definition of "leftist", because you've used incorrectly twice. Michigan has had a must-issue law for over 10 years; Wisconsin has had a law for 2 months. By this time next year, Wisconsin will have 50% more permits issued than Michigan, per capita.

    I didn't say permit holders have an issue with alcohol, I'm saying Wisconsin residents generally (culturally, if you want diplomacy) have an issue with alcohol; certainly a bigger problem than any other state south of Alaska. To encourage the same population to carry a concealed weapon is flirting with mayhem.

    lastpercentile Dec 29, 2011 12:15 PM

  4. It doesn't preempt the ordinance, it simply requires a property owner to post a notice; which is already posted. We need the "put up a sign" requirement, because so many people don't have the common sense not to carry a firearm into a government building - or their grandma's house - so the law now requires that a "dummy sign" be installed. This protects the dummies from their own social ignorance.

    lastpercentile Dec 29, 2011 12:38 PM

  5. It's also unlawful to drink and drive. Any of that going on?

    One reason we have criminal laws is because a significant portion of the citizenry can't be relied upon to act civilly - particularly when they've been drinking or doing drugs.

    If wanted to instill fear, I would direct readers to your previous comment, where you took GLEE in stating that you could carry a concealed weapon into a public park - as though you would bring a weapon into a park just to prove to everyone how privileged you were.

    Mixing a handgun (secured or not) with groups of families and children is not something I would do - just to make a political statement. Who needs a handgun in a city park? Oh - you do.

    lastpercentile Dec 29, 2011 2:30 PM

  6. I was talking about buildings. The city has an ordinance banning all firearms (that includes BB guns and bows) in city buildings. Act35 didn't preempt that ordinance, so Act35 doesn't "preempt any ordinance", which is what you stated.

    CCL holders are no less likely to go on a shooting spree as anyone else; the only difference is that a CCL holder can now LEGALLY get farther into a movie theater, family reunion, or county fair - and start shooting, before anyone sees the weapon. Or, he'll have a pistol strapped on, when cousin Larry says something about his wife...

    It's just a matter of days or weeks before some idiot shoots another idiot outside (or inside) a bar in Wisconsin. I'd bet your CCL on it.

    You know, there was a time when men took their hat off when they came inside or sat down to eat. Now, I guess, we need a sign or an ordinance. Or a license to keep your hat on inside, that makes sense.

    lastpercentile Dec 29, 2011 3:53 PM

  7. Grant Guess, you seem somewhat hypocritical here in that even though you are touting the right to bear arms, you seem to want to "attack" any business who is exercising their RIGHT to prohibit weapons in their own business or on their own property. You may say that you are then exercising your right not to patronize that business, however, by adding them to a "list" and promoting your agenda, you are trying to suppress their rights granted under the same constitution that you are trying to hide behind..............

    chesteroowi Jan 02, 2012 6:57 AM

Post a Comment

Limit of 2000 characters,  characters remaining

Preview

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Page Tools

  • Print

advertisement

Upcoming Events

Waupaca Community Arts Center - OHSO ARTSY FARTSY events

Location: Waupaca Community Arts Center - Waupaca

Introduction to Wind Systems

Location: Midwest Renewable Energy Association - Custer

Feather Fest 2012

Location: New London Feather Fest Hosts - New London

Feather Fest 2012

Location: New London Public Museum and others - New London

Cystic Fibrosis 5K Run/Walk

Location: New London High School - New London