Port Council Takes Second Shot at Conceal Carry Ban

Despite a vote at a meeting two weeks ago to in all city buildings, the Port Washington Common Council on Tuesday night again found themselves in a heated debate over whether that was the right thing to do.

After that meeting, City Attorney Eric Eberhardt and City Administrator Mark Grams drafted an ordinance that would disallow any citizen from carrying a concealed weapon in any public building despite the new law, and would require posted signs in accordance with state law detailing the ban.

The ordinance would make Port Washington the second community in the area to draft a weapons ban in public buildings, following suit after Grafton.

But some things have changed since that vote that altered the discussion.

A four-hour firearm safety crash course along with a permit was an original requirement under the bill passed by Senate, but Gov. Scott Walker through an administrative regulation lifted the training. (Both Port Washington's and Saukville's police chief .)

Although Ald. Paul Neumyer, who is also a certified law enforcement instructor in firearms, supports concealed carry — he said it’s "absolutely fool-hardy" without training.

“We don’t need citizenry carrying weapons that haven’t been trained. We don’t allow police officers to carry a weapon until they’ve fired probably a thousand rounds through their weapon.”

The other aldermen were all in agreement that the training should not have been lifted, but differentiating opinions arose about the new ordinance.

Ald. David Larson said he supports the ban in public buildings, but only if it is enforced somehow — such as through the use of metal detectors, something the city does not have funding for.

“If someone violates the sign and brings a weapon into a public building, there isn’t any other recourse to stop that person from doing whatever they’re going to do,” he said.

Ald. Burt Babcock said that he would not be for outlawing weapons in public buildings.

“To me, it’s kind of like politicians passing a law and then excluding themselves from the effects of that law,” Babcock said. “I’d feel better about abolishing them from taverns rather than public buildings.”

Businesses do have the right to ban guns from their premises, but it increases their liability when incidents occur. Several local businesses have already said they .

Ald. Dan Becker said that he could go either way with the ordinance, but agrees with the council members that are for it.

“The mayor, the police chief, the city employees, the city administrator, Mr. Neumyer have all said, no guns in here — post the signs,” Becker said. “I’m willing to listen to all those folks who live here and work here every day and we should go ahead and post.”

If the city does pass the ordinance to ban firearms in public buildings, it also assumes liability if the discharging of a weapon was to occur, according to Ebenhardt. If the city chose not to post signs, there would be no liability placed on the city.

Eberhardt said that there would be other grounds in which someone could assert a claim against a governing body.

“Sign or no sign, prohibition or not, if a municipal governing body had reason to know that someone had made an overt threat to come to a particular meeting … and to act out with the use of a firearm, that scenario could frame out a potential grounds for liability in it of itself, regardless of signage,” he said.

Larson, though, said that there is an expectation of safety that comes with posting these signs.

“It is important that the public understands that just because there is a sign posted, doesn’t mean that there is someone there to protect the building, and its employees and council members,” Larson said. “So there is kind of that sense of doubt.”

The ordinance drafted by Eberhardt and Grams includes a number of exceptions:

• Law enforcement and police officers may have a concealed weapon in public buildings.
• Armed forces or military personnel armed and in the line of duty may have a concealed weapon in public buildings.
• Anyone authorized, in writing, by the Chief of Police to carry a concealed weapon can do so in a public building.

The discussion on Tuesday night was a first reading of the ordinance; changes need to be made to hammer out specific kinks, and the council will discuss the ordinance again at its next regular meeting.

Firearms elsewhere in the city

Port Washington is known for its numerous festivals all summer long, and concealed carry at these events is something that the law currently allows. Organizers of special events can prohibit concealed carry if these four criteria are met:

• The event is open to the public.
• The event is not greater than three weeks duration.
• The event has designated entrances and exits with gates that are locked when the event is not open.
•  An admission fee is charged at the event.

Because few, if any, of the events that Port Washington enjoys meet all four of these criteria, the city has no way to ban concealed carry at a local public event according to Eberhardt.

Eberhardt also mentioned that the new law warrants concealed carry on boats in the marina as well as other parks and recreation activities. Heubner said that department heads and the police chief have asked for the posting of signs, at the very least.

"Do we want guns at the pool," asked Heubner? "Do we want guns at various parks and rec. things? The library board itself has already asked for the posting of signs because they obviously don’t want to have guns near the kids."