Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 9/29/2011 9:13:18 AM EST
Whitewater OKs concealed carry rule

By KEVIN HOFFMAN  Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2011

WHITEWATER — Gun owners hoping to take advantage of the state’s concealed carry law this fall could face hefty fines if caught bringing firearms into Whitewater’s public buildings.

The city council passed an ordinance Tuesday banning guns inside a number of buildings in an effort to “promote the health, safety and general welfare” of the community. It also heard the first draft of an amendment that would levy fines of up to $300 against anyone violating the ordinance.

Penalties could escalate to $400 for a second offense within one year and $600 for a third, according to the proposal. The council supported the fines and could approve them next month.


full article: http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2011/sep/28/whitewater-oks-concealed-carry-rule/

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 11:17:02 AM EST
[#1]
I believe because of the state's preemption laws, they can't have the fine be that high.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 11:17:14 AM EST
[#2]
You have the same surprised face as i do.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 1:43:47 PM EST
[#3]
I'm glad I have no reason to go to Whitewater!

I take it to mean any place like a store or restaurant, correct?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:22:47 PM EST
[#4]
Public buildings....did they mean to say municipal buildings?
 






I hope this hysteria doesn't continue to spread.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:35:33 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
I'm glad I have no reason to go to Whitewater!

I take it to mean any place like a store or restaurant, correct?


Nope, because only the property owner can make that decision.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:45:53 PM EST
[#6]
Dont' forget an ordinance that just says the buildings are protected isn't enough-that wouldn't past muster under state premption, except for what the state has-courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.
They would have to POST the building. They can pass a ordinance saying said buildings must be posted though.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:34:50 PM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
I believe because of the state's preemption laws, they can't have the fine be that high.


This is my understanding as well.

Quoted:
I hope this hysteria doesn't continue to spread.


Hand wringing soccer moms and their effeminate male counterparts rallying behind the cause. They'll get distracted by something else soon enough.
Once CCW is mainstream the letters explaining why you don't patronize the business any more will get most all of the private establishments unfucked, and if that doesn't do it, the liability for harm to the disarmed patrons will make risk-averse corporate attorneys reconsider their policies.

The whole damned thing is going to landslide in our favor.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:47:55 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
Public buildings....did they mean to say municipal buildings?  


I hope this hysteria doesn't continue to spread.



the way the full story reads it sounds like the bill applies to ALL city owned property/buildings up to and including restrooms in city parks.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:52:38 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Dont' forget an ordinance that just says the buildings are protected isn't enough-that wouldn't past muster under state premption, except for what the state has-courthouses, jails, police stations, etc.
They would have to POST the building. They can pass a ordinance saying said buildings must be posted though.


looks like they've covered that:

Alderman Lynn Binnie early in the process suggested the board keep an open mind about concealed carry, but he ultimately agreed with certain restrictions.

“When it’s all said and done, I’m not convinced that our citizens would be any safer if they or other law-abiding citizens were carrying a concealed weapons (in) the unthinkable event that there should be an armed perpetrator in one of our municipal buildings,” he said during a meeting earlier this month.

“I really dislike the fact that if this ordinance is passed, all our buildings will have to have signs posted prohibiting weapons, but after researching the subject, I feel that’s what we should do.”


"OMG!" we'll have to put distasteful signs on our pretty buildings."

Link Posted: 9/30/2011 6:21:57 AM EST
[#10]
Here's a kicker...if they pass an ordinance making the signs mandatory in gov't buildings, then you just KNOW this law will never get rescinded, it'll be there forever.

However, if a council went and passed a resolution, or just agreed to post said buildings, then they could quietly drop the signs as time goes on...because of common sense, remodeling, sign falls off and nobody bothers to replace, etc.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top