May 25, 2012

Top 10 Concealed Carry Questions and Answers

1. What is the Concealed Carry Statute?

The concealed carry statute (2011 Wisconsin Act 35) allows a properly qualified and licensed Wisconsin resident to carry a concealed weapon (defined as a handgun, "electric weapon", billy club, or knife other than a switchblade) anywhere except on school grounds and in certain mental health facilities, government offices, courthouses, police stations, penal institutions and airports beyond security checkpoints.

2. When Does It Take Effect? 

November 1, 2011.

3. How Do I Find A Copy?

Go to https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/acts/2011/35.pdf. After its effective date, most of the concealed carry law can be found at Wis. Stat. §175.60 and in amendments to Wisconsin's criminal trespass statute (Wis. Stat. §943.13).

4. Can Employers Restrict Their Employees' Right To Carry A Concealed Weapon?

Yes. Employers can prohibit a concealed carry licensee/ employee from carrying a concealed weapon, or a particular type of concealed weapon, in the course of employment, except "in the licensee's . . . own motor vehicle, regardless of whether the motor vehicle is used in the course of employment or whether the motor vehicle is driven or parked on property used by the employer".

5. Can Businesses Restrict The Right Of Customers And Others To Carry A Concealed Weapon On The Premises? 

Yes. Businesses can prohibit a concealed carry licensee from carrying a firearm on the premises.

6. How Do Businesses Notify Their Employees, Customers And Others That Concealed Weapons Are Prohibited?

Signs must be prominently posted near all common entrances to buildings and, if applicable, near all probable points of access to "grounds". In the absence of posted signs prohibiting weapons, concealed carry licensees can lawfully carry weapons on the premises.

7. What Should The Signs Look Like?

At this point, only the size of the signs (at least 5 inches by 7 inches) and their location (near all common entrances and access points) have been prescribed. The statute does not mandate the color of the signs, the size of the lettering, or the precise language required. It also does not allow, prohibit or recommend any symbols. "No Weapons Allowed", or language to that effect, is probably sufficient.

8. Should Employers Modify Policies And Procedures Relating To Weapons?

The law doesn't require it, but employers should review and amend written employee policies, procedures, handbooks and similar materials relating to weapons to reflect any changes in company policy prompted by the concealed carry statute. For example, if an employer chooses to prohibit concealed carry with appropriate signage, written policies might:

  • Reinforce the prohibition and explain any disciplinary consequences for a violation;
  • Address concealed carry in the course of employment while licensees are away from the employer's premises;
  • Incorporate the statutory exception allowing concealed carry in the licensee's "own motor vehicle";
  • Require that weapons in a licensee's own vehicle be stored in a locked container;
  • Prohibit concealed carry in company-owned vehicles.

9. How Will Weapons Be Prohibited In Nonresidential Buildings With Multiple Tenants?

The right to prohibit firearms on nonresidential properties may be exercised by the owner of the building in common areas, and by occupants in portions of the building leased to them.

10. How Does Statutory Immunity Work?

As incentive to allow concealed carry, the legislature granted to employers and businesses statutory immunity from any liability arising from the decision to not prohibit concealed carry.

  • Statutory immunity from liability is alluring, but there may be costs associated with allowing concealed carry, including employees' and third parties' potential negative perception of the safety of the premises and disinclination to work or visit there. On the other hand, allowing concealed carry may be beneficial to some businesses and employers.
  • Insurance costs may be a factor. At this juncture we do not know whether a decision to prohibit weapons will make insurance more or less expensive than it will be if concealed weapons are permitted.
  • The unavailability of statutory immunity for those who prohibit concealed carry does not mean those businesses are automatically liable if a concealed weapon causes injury or damage. If a concealed weapon causes injury despite proper prohibitory signage, a business should not be liable absent proof of fault or wrongdoing, as has always been the case. Proof that the business conscientiously prohibited concealed weapons should assist the defense. 

 

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Shareholder

Peter is a Shareholder in the Litigation and Risk Management Practice Group. He counsels and defends corporations, insurers, health care providers and government entities. He has successfully conducted numerous jury trials involving personal injuries, contract disputes, and other issues. He has also briefed and argued dozens of cases in the state and federal appellate courts. Before entering private practice in 1989, he served for four years as a federal court law clerk in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.

414-287-1374

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.