Weapons on Metro buses

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3158
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby green union terrace chair » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:24 pm

Why is it okay for local and state government to prohibit guns in the City-County Building and the Capitol (respectively), but it's not okay to ban them on buses?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jman111 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:06 pm

Madsci wrote:Why would I have data about guns on Milwaukee buses? You are weird.

It's all part of Dman's double-standard. You won't see much data supporting his various assertions, but he surely will expect it from others. He'll even demand it from someone who hasn't made a factual claim at all (such as in this instance)!

Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Madsci » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:04 pm

Yes, I noticed that.

Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5273
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:31 am
Location: 53703

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Ducatista » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:19 pm

Gentle Man wrote:
Ducatista wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:Why do I open carry as opposed to conceal?

No, my question wasn't "as opposed to conceal." My question was: why do you open carry a lot? I'd still like to hear that answer.

I'm 0% surprised that reasons 1 & 2 in your non-answer are all about posturing.

It's hardly a non-answer or posturing. I laid out reasons that I open carry, and more or less in order of importance to me. They are not only the reasons I do it, but the reasons that I do it "a lot." If you don't like the reasons fine, but I'm not going to make up imaginary reasons just so you're happy. You do realize that I'm an advocate for the right to keep and bear arms which protected by both the federal and state constitutions? That I support and advocate the right strongly enough to exercise it in a public manner ought not surprise anyone. Despite the wishful thinking of its detractors, both from within the gun-owning community and outside of that community, open carry has been a successful means of promoting our right and has lead to fewer infringements of the right. There was a time when interracial or gay couples appearing in public were regarded as controversial and subject to disparaging treatment. Not so much any more. Likewise over the course of a few years, the practice of open carry has gone from an activity that lead some people to be arrested, to one that is barely noticed and with far less harassment or notice by the police across the state. When Noble Ray was police chief he was very defensive about how his officers overreacted to instances of open carry. I'm fairly certain that if you asked Mike Koval about open carry he'll tell you it's a non-issue and that's how he wants his officers to regard it. When a Madison cop last pulled his car over and called me over to chat it wasn't because he wanted to harass me, but because he wanted to know if I'd lend him my 10mm Glock so he could try it out. He told me about the new back-up gun he had started to carry. If you attend the Madison PD or UW-Madison PD training on an active shooters, neither agency tries to discourage an armed "civilian" from being "the first responder." They simply go over the pros and cons of doing so to make sure everyone understands the possible advantages and pitfalls of taking action. The change in attitude by the local Polezei is palpable.

Geez, man. These threads would be a LOT shorter if you'd learn (or bother) to distill. Maybe not any more insightful, but shorter would be a start. All those words and you wound up right back at political posturing, which is fine, just own it.

I do like how you equate the plight of poor, disparaged gun toters to the earlier struggles of interracial or gay couples. Showed that one to my husband, who carries, and he did whatever is just this side of a guffaw.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:24 pm

He and Roy have a lot in common except that he's intelligent enough to know when he's grasping at short straws and backs away. Roy's never stumped because he is the stump.

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:30 pm

green union terrace chair wrote:Why is it okay for local and state government to prohibit guns in the City-County Building and the Capitol (respectively), but it's not okay to ban them on buses?


Because of the way the state trespassing statute is written, in combination with the state law which preempts local regulation of firearms and knives. Some places are automatically off limits, e.g., jails, police stations, court rooms in most circumstances-- and the rest of the state falls under what is outlined in the trespassing law.

The trespassing law has provisions specifically that apply to when a person who is armed is in violation of that law. Different standards apply to different kinds of property. A private person can prohibit someone armed with a gun from entering their buildings or land if they choose. You can do that by posting signs, or by simply telling the person you don't want them to enter or remain on the property.

State agencies and local governments are limited in their the authority to choose to limit someone who is armed only within their buildings and they do so by posting the entrances to the building or parts of the building, if only parts of it are off limits. For example in the Capitol, the building itself is not off limits, but the Supreme Court and Capitol Police are... whether or not they are posted... and individual legislators choose whether or not to post their offices.

If you do not have a concealed carry license (CCL) you are under the old provisions of the law: you cannot enter a state or local government building with a gun unless you've received specific permission to do so. If you have a CCL you do not need prior permission to enter. However if it is posted, you may not enter while armed. Each municipality is allowed to choose whether they prohibit in their buildings, or which buildings. City of Madison and Dane County chose to prohibit in all of their buildings, even in some very "iffy" cases that may be subject to further litigation or legislation. Green Bay chose to not prohibit inside their buildings.

So with regards to the buses, they are not buildings, they are vehicles, so the trespassing law does not authorize the city to prohibit inside buses.

Also at work is the state "preemption" law. This is part of the chapter on municipal law and has been on the books for almost 20 years. Basically it says no political subdivision, i.e., towns, villages, cities and counties, may enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution regarding the possession or bearing of firearms (and ammo, and more recently knives) unless the ordinance or resolution is similar to and no more stringent than state statute. Since there is no general prohibition against having firearms in vehicles under state law, to have a local prohibition that applies to vehicles, in this instance city-owned buses, any such prohibition would be not similar and more stringent than state statute. The city tried to argue that they are entitled to the same property rights as a private individual. The court didn't buy that argument. The law clearly treats the property rights of cities and private individuals differently. It recognizes the private individual's right to prohibit guns on their property as the individual wishes, with one exception. Local governments don't really have rights, or not as many rights. They have authority and power to do certain things, which is granted to them by the state. The state limited their authority to prohibit guns to buildings only. I don't see why anyone, including the city if they thought more clearly about this, would literally want the city to have the same rights as a private property owner. As a private individual you can legally say you don't want someone on your property for any reason, or for no reason. Don't like their politics, skin color, religion, or sexual orientation? Fine, tell them to get out and staff off your property. You might be a biased, bigoted ass for doing so, but you break no law by your choice. Should the city enjoy a similar right, as they seem to claim? I don't think so. I doubt you would either. But we have Soglin repeatedly saying that the city has, or should be recognized to have, absolutely the same rights as the private property owner. Soglin is a biased, bigoted ass.

Also in play to a certain degree is another part of the law. The concealed carry law states that a licensee may carry a firearm "anywhere in the state" except where prohibited by statute. If that provision is to mean anything, it amounts to a separate preemption of local control over firearms that applies to concealed carry licensees. And this is not limited to "ordinances and resolutions" as stated in the general preemption statute. Again, because the statutes do not prohibit carry on vehicles, including buses, the "anywhere in the state" would apply to buses as well.

The city tried to play semantic games by saying a bus agency "rule" is not an "ordinance or resolution." The, or at least one of the counter arguments, to the city's approach is to point out that Madison Metro's authority to do anything flows down from the city. And if the city does not have the authority to ban guns on buses, it cannot grant the authority to do so to one of its subordinate agencies.

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:33 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:He and Roy have a lot in common except that he's intelligent enough to know when he's grasping at short straws and backs away. Roy's never stumped because he is the stump.


You may think the straws are short, but at least they are straws. Unlike the fabricated phantoms that you use.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10525
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:42 pm

Gentle Man wrote:So with regards to the buses, they are not buildings, they are vehicles, so the trespassing law does not authorize the city to prohibit inside buses.

Honest question: are the bus shelters considered buildings?

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:38 pm

G-man, I'm not surprised you'd claim that the documented thoughts of the framers of the 2nd, & the recorded history of its formation are "fabricated," since it doesn't fit your programming.

Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7884
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Bwis53 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:01 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:So with regards to the buses, they are not buildings, they are vehicles, so the trespassing law does not authorize the city to prohibit inside buses.

Honest question: are the bus shelters considered buildings?


Well, there are signs in many of them saying they are for bus riders only.
Not for doping, prostituting, sleeping, camping...

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:32 pm

Gentle Man wrote:
You may think the straws are short, but at least they are straws. Unlike the fabricated phantoms that you use.
You didn't actually say anything here except that you're upset with what the people who wrote the 2nd amendment discussed when they wrote it, & why they wrote it. And that somehow you've decided their documented thoughts & the actual words of the 2nd amendment are "fabricated."

gozer
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: everywhere
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby gozer » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:43 am

did they ever definitively determine if a spud cannon was a firearm or not?

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:02 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:So with regards to the buses, they are not buildings, they are vehicles, so the trespassing law does not authorize the city to prohibit inside buses.

Honest question: are the bus shelters considered buildings?


Madison posts them as if they are. Same goes for a roof on wooden poles over a picnic table at a park. Probably not what comes to mind when most people think of "a government building." I don't know if the county judge will include anything about bus shelters when she issues her order to the city now that the Supreme Court has ruled. I expect that she won't mention them since it wasn't litigated in the suit. If memory serves, it might have been part of the original lawsuit against the city, but it was withdrawn as the case progressed. The feeling is it's an issue that is probably better addressed through legislation.

On the other hand, since the city cannot deny bus service based on the fact the person is armed, the judge might say that standing in a shelter is just part of "riding the bus" and that a person can't be denied the shelter either. I'm not expecting her order to be that broad, but who knows?

I'm sure everyone who is in a open air plexiglass bus shelter or sitting at one of those open air picnic table feels much more secure with that 5x7 inch sticker up protecting them from those evil gun carriers who are supposed to stand a couple of feet away. That's City of Madison mentality for you.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:09 pm

Runaway slaves will not be pleased. Nor will the Redcoats...

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:18 pm

gozer wrote:did they ever definitively determine if a spud cannon was a firearm or not?


Depends upon where you are. A few state and local laws consider them to be firearms or destructive devices. New Jersey is one of them. Considering it's New Jersey, big surprise. There's a Wiki article that says they're legal in 175 counties. Apparently in the UK it depends on how much energy it generates. I guess you'd have to weigh the potato and measure it's velocity through a chronograph to determine the number of joules. Brits must think everyone is going to go full-out Myth Busters to answer the all-important questions surrounding flying spuds. Hopefully Buster doesn't take one in the chops. (Although if they were pork chops they'd go well with potatoes.)

As far as I can tell, they're legal, and not considered firearms here.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests