Gun-rights advocates say they're preparing a court challenge to Metro Transit's weapons ban on city buses, claiming the policy violates the state's concealed-carry law. But city officials say they're confident the policy banning "weapons of any kind" is legal and in the best interest of passengers.
Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Carry Inc. said Friday it plans to file a lawsuit in the next few weeks, theWisconsin State Journal reported (http://bit.ly/1d2pyRF ). President Nik Clark said the policy infringes on a person's right to carry, especially for those who rely on public transportation or live in a high-crime area.
"Madison has a gun law stricter than state law," Clark said. "If we are successful in Madison, other transit systems in the state will follow suit and adjust their policies."
Clark said his organization wanted to challenge the city's policy for some time but had to wait until it heard from someone with a concealed-carry license who'd been prohibited from bringing a gun on a bus. That happened last month, he said.
The lawsuit is based on a state law that Gov. Scott Walker signed in July 2011. It allows people to apply for a license that lets them to carry a concealed gun and carry a gun openly in a school zone, and Clark said anyone who has a license should be able to carry a gun, concealed or in the open, on city buses as well.
Madison officials don't think so, noting that the policy predated the concealed-carry law.
"We don't want guns on buses just like we don't let people bring gasoline on buses," City Attorney Michael May said.
"But city officials say they're confident the policy banning "weapons of any kind" is legal and in the best interest of passengers."
ReplyDeleteThe weapons of any kind rule is intended for illegal weapons. Legally carried weapons such as those carried by permit holders and police officers aren't really applicable.
Wisconsin has a state preemption law. Madison has long opposed legally permitted persons carrying in their city. Florida has similar issues after they passed their preemption law with several cities refusing to remove their ordinances and also enforcing them. The state legislature ended up having to implement fines to motivate them to obey the state law.
Great, a city has no right to protect its citizens from gun loons roaming the city causing mayhem.
ReplyDeleteI've asked this before on other threads, but tell me, exactly how is this law that seems to quite obviously violate the state preemption law any different than laws passed in some states forbidding enforcement of any new federal gun laws passed?
ReplyDeleteI can understand that these can be considered as a political statement as long as no one tries to enforce them. This law is exactly why the state passed the preemption law. And keep in mind that we're talking about the state legislature that has passed so many gun laws that they have "earned" an A grade from the Brady Campaign.
How would you feel if a city or county took it upon themselves to legalize .50 BMG rifles, or constitutional carry? Both of which are illegal under state law. Would the your argument of the people voting for what they think is best still be valid in your eyes?
One obvious difference is one calls for stricter controls and the other calls for ignoring those required by the federal government. It's hard for me to be objective, but couldn't it work like that? If a state or a city wants stricter controls than the federal government calls for, fair enough, but they can't opt out.
Delete