EAA bans guns at OSH

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name

Display name:
Tom-D
This is from there EAA Forums:
Why I won't be back to Oshkosh
I have learned that EAA has posted it's museum "no weapons".

Besides opening themselves up to lawsuits by posting if something happens (act 35 gives those who DON'T post immunity from such lawsuits), it is an insult to the law abiding citizens of Wisconsin.

They can claim all sorts of things, probably all of them have the word "safety" in there.

The fact is, I went through training, a background check, paid a $50 fee. Why they think criminals will go through all this, or even obey the sign, is beyond me.

I know that airventure rules have said for years no weapons on premises, but with the passing of act 35, this rule opens them up to all kinds of liability, and presumes criminality on the part of members and the public.


Your thoughts????
 
Nope. Of course not. It was the only post in the thread (sarcasm off now). If they had this for years, why are you complaining now? I thought you were complaining about the "act 35" that is presumably more recent.
 
It presumes nothing of the sort. It's extreme right wing thinking to ascribe ulterior motives to anything that offends you.

Airventure and the EAA are private entities. They are specifically allowed by the act and the Wisconsin statutes to restrict firearms provided such notice is given. You're being given that notice.

Even EAA security is not armed. They defer all that to the local LEOs that work with them.

I fail to see what sort of "liability" you think the EAA or Foundation are being opened up to.
 
Nope. Of course not. It was the only post in the thread (sarcasm off now). If they had this for years, why are you complaining now? I thought you were complaining about the "act 35" that is presumably more recent.

Me complain ?? No, I'm not going anyway.

I thought that the gunners here would like to know.
 
Airventure and the EAA are private entities. They are specifically allowed by the act and the Wisconsin statutes to restrict firearms provided such notice is given. You're being given that notice.

And OP is specifically allowed to refrain from doing business from anyone who offends him.
 
This is from there EAA Forums:
Why I won't be back to Oshkosh
I have learned that EAA has posted it's museum "no weapons".

Besides opening themselves up to lawsuits by posting if something happens (act 35 gives those who DON'T post immunity from such lawsuits), it is an insult to the law abiding citizens of Wisconsin.

They can claim all sorts of things, probably all of them have the word "safety" in there.

The fact is, I went through training, a background check, paid a $50 fee. Why they think criminals will go through all this, or even obey the sign, is beyond me.

I know that airventure rules have said for years no weapons on premises, but with the passing of act 35, this rule opens them up to all kinds of liability, and presumes criminality on the part of members and the public.


Your thoughts????

Define ( Weapons )... Maybe like nailclippers or toothpaste or 6 oz of any liquid or what:dunno::dunno::dunno:.

Where do ya draw the line?:dunno: and who gets to draw it.:dunno:

:stirpot::popcorn:
 
It is silly. WI passes CC and these "no weapons allowed" signs pop up. I'm not sure if it is CYA or how it is even enforceable (I wonder if it is criminally enforceable?). Perhaps it allows the private property owner to ask someone to leave who brandishes?

Tom's point makes sense, though. Why prevent law abiding citizens from carrying?
 
Probably best for EAA members to change EAA policy from within. As far as I'm concerned...concealed is concealed. :)
 
Hard to believe the number of tempests that are brewed in such a small teapot.
 
This is from there EAA Forums:
Why I won't be back to Oshkosh
I have learned that EAA has posted it's museum "no weapons".

Besides opening themselves up to lawsuits by posting if something happens (act 35 gives those who DON'T post immunity from such lawsuits), it is an insult to the law abiding citizens of Wisconsin.

They can claim all sorts of things, probably all of them have the word "safety" in there.

The fact is, I went through training, a background check, paid a $50 fee. Why they think criminals will go through all this, or even obey the sign, is beyond me.

I know that airventure rules have said for years no weapons on premises, but with the passing of act 35, this rule opens them up to all kinds of liability, and presumes criminality on the part of members and the public.


Your thoughts????

Unable to comment because I have no idea what "act 35" is or is supposed to do.
 
You want drunk patty with a pistol? Are you nuts?:rofl:
 
Unable to comment because I have no idea what "act 35" is or is supposed to do.
Act 35 is Wisconsin's concealed carry law.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw-faq-20111020.pdf

I believe the relevant part is this.

RESTRICTIONS BY BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS
Can a business or property owner limit or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on its premises?
Yes. The law permits certain owners and occupants of property to prohibit persons from carrying a concealed firearm in or on the property. A person may be subject to a Class B forfeiture if he or she carries a firearm on the property after being notified not to remain on the property or remain with a specific type of firearm. In the latter case, a property owner can prohibit a person form possessing a specific type of firearm on their property or any firearm. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(b).
In addition, property owners generally possess the right to exclude others from their property. While the specific provisions below only reference prohibiting the possession of firearms, property owners may also prohibit or restrict the possession of other weapons on their property. Violations of such restrictions may also constitute a Class B forfeiture under Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(b). Therefore, the language quoted below, while only mentioning firearms, applies with equal force to other weapons.

>snip<

Special events (e.g. sporting events, concerts, etc):
It is unlawful for any person to enter or remain at a special event if the organizers of the special event have notified the actor not to remain at the special event while carrying a firearm or with that type of firearm. The provision does not apply if the firearm is in a vehicle driven or parked in the parking facility, to any part of the special event grounds or building that is used as a parking facility. The law defines ―special event‖ as an event that is open to the public, is for a duration of not more than three weeks, and either has designated entrances to and from the event that are locked when the event is closed or requires an admission. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(1m)(c)3.

>snip<

What kind of notice must be given to a CCW license holder regarding any prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons?
Notice of statutorily prohibited locations is provided by statute and to the licensee on the license application and no other notice or sign is required for those locations.
Notice for other locations can be provided verbally or in writing or if the land is posted by a sign meeting certain criteria. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(am)
Where are signs required?
For non single family residences (e.g. apartment, condos, etc): A sign must be located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies or near all probable access points to the grounds to which the regulation applies and the individual entering the building or grounds can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)2.a.
For non-residential buildings, state or governmental property or university or college: A sign must be posted in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)2.b.
For the grounds of a nonresidential building or land: A sign must be posted in a prominent place near all probable access points to the grounds or land to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the grounds or land can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)2.am.
For special events: A sign must be posted in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the special event and the individual attending the special event can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)2.c.
For posting land: A sign must be posted that is located in a prominent place near all probable access points to the grounds or land to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the grounds or land can be reasonably expected to see the sign. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)2b.
How big of a sign must be used?
A sign must be at least five inches by seven inches that states the restriction on carrying a firearm. Wis. Stat. § 943.13(2)(bm)1.
What must the sign say?
In regard to posting land, the law only provides that the sign must provide an ―appropriate notice‖ and the name of the person giving the notice (listing self as either the owner of occupant). Wis. Stats. § 943.13(2)am1. In regard to other locations the sign must simply state the restriction imposed. Wis. Stats. § 943.13(2)(bm)1. At a minimum the sign must inform people that weapons or firearms are prohibited. There are a number of messages that would meet the standard and the ultimate purpose of the sign is to put individuals on notice of the prohibition or limitation.

I don't see what the problem is.
 
It presumes nothing of the sort. It's extreme right wing thinking to ascribe ulterior motives to anything that offends you.

Airventure and the EAA are private entities. They are specifically allowed by the act and the Wisconsin statutes to restrict firearms provided such notice is given. You're being given that notice.

Even EAA security is not armed. They defer all that to the local LEOs that work with them.

I fail to see what sort of "liability" you think the EAA or Foundation are being opened up to.

Tom-D is correct. The state provides for immunity for anyone who does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies. So if you do lawfully post prohibitions against concealed weapons, you will not be immune from liability arising from acts occuring on that property. Thus, the EAA has exposed itself to some potential liability should something occur by putting those signs up.

I'm not a lawyer, but that is how I read the statute, and how it has been described in numerous interpretations that I have read.
 
Not that I would want to carry at OSH, but I wonder if there would be grounds for a lawsuit if a state has a concealed carry law, some establishment posts the no-carry signs without any particular justification, then a patron gets mugged or killed by a criminal inside that establishment that could (perhaps) have been prevented if that person had been allowed to exercise their legal right?
 
I don't see what the problem is.

One problem is what to do with a legal firearm while you are on the OSH grounds?

Can it be left in the car?

btw - what is the purpose of banning guns at OSH? Is there some value to the ban?
 
One problem is what to do with a legal firearm while you are on the OSH grounds?

Can it be left in the car?
Apparently yes.

Are there exceptions to the prohibitions on possessing in certain public locations?
The above prohibitions do not apply to any of the following:
 A weapon in a vehicle driven or parked in a parking facility located in a building that is used as, or any portion of which is used as, a location described above.
 
Lots of place ban firearms I do not see a big deal about it.

As far as I'm concerned...concealed is concealed. :)
There is always this option too:D
 
One problem is what to do with a legal firearm while you are on the OSH grounds?

Can it be left in the car?

btw - what is the purpose of banning guns at OSH? Is there some value to the ban?

Per Wisconsin law, the banning of a firearm does not pertain to the gun being stored in a car, unloaded, in the parking lot. So if you're carrying, notice the sign (or are asked to not carry), you can go back to your car, unload and leave it there legally.

My work prohibits firearms, but with the new law, they had to change their policy to allow weapons in the parking lot.

The gray area is, what's deemed a parking lot. Does your plane tiedown count as a "parking lot" so that you can legally leave your gun in the plane. I wouldn't count on it (or at least risk getting your gun seized for the week, while the police figure that out).

EAA as a private entity has the right to ask you not to carry a firearm on the premises. Your rights as a gun owner (and the new right to carry a handgun concealed in WI) does not overrule the rights of the property owner. I don't see it as a big deal, just leave it at home.

And yes, I conceal carry.
 
Generally when a state first passes CCW laws people freak out and start slapping those signs up everywhere. With time they start to disappear. I'm not familiar with Wisconsin law but in many states one can ignore those signs with little to no penalty.
 
I think that if you feel the need to carry a firearm at Airventure you have mental issues that should deny you a 3rd class medical and likely a drivers license.
 
I think that if you feel the need to carry a firearm at Airventure you have mental issues that should deny you a 3rd class medical and likely a drivers license.

Nit-pick... the museum is open outside of AirVenture.

(Not that I don't agree with your sentiment... but it's an "always" ban, not just during AirVenture.)
 
Nit-pick... the museum is open outside of AirVenture.

(Not that I don't agree with your sentiment... but it's an "always" ban, not just during AirVenture.)


Doesn't the owner of private property have the right to deny firearms on premises? Seems simple enough. My point is still valid with walking into the EAA museum in Oshkosh WI, probably even more so outside of Airventure. If you feel at threat to your life there to the point where you would rather not go than go unarmed, you have serious mental issues.
 
Doesn't the owner of private property have the right to deny firearms on premises? Seems simple enough. My point is still valid with walking into the EAA museum in Oshkosh WI. If you feel at threat to your life there to the point where you would rather not go than go unarmed, you have serious mental issues.

Yep, agreed.

Not sure where you got the idea I was disagreeing with your statement after I said I wasn't. :)

(Did you accidentally brew decaf this morning, Henning? GRIN!)
 
Unable to comment because I have no idea what "act 35" is or is supposed to do.

Act 35 is what authorizes the issue of CC and turns Wisconsin into a shall issue state. It specifically authorizes private entities to bar firearms from their sites. The EAA Foundation is free to do what they have done. You can certainly complain to the EAA, but you're unlikely to do anything about. Your EAA membership doesn't amount to much unless you can sway someone on the board to intervene. The board controls too many proxies for a grass roots "throw the bums out" movement.

I believe you are misdescribing the immunity provisions. The IMMUNITY provisions don't say "IF YOU LET PEOPLE CARRY, YOU CAN'T BE SUED FOR AN YTHING THAT THAT HAPPENS." The rule is:

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from
carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person
owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising
from its decision

That is...if EAA doesn't ban guns, Joe Airventure attendee can't sue the EAA because they allowed people to bring in guns.

They can still sue the EAA if their is negligence in their part in providing security, etc... All it forestalls is a suit saying "If you banned guns, this wouldn't have been a problem."
 
Last edited:
Yep, agreed.

Not sure where you got the idea I was disagreeing with your statement after I said I wasn't. :)

(Did you accidentally brew decaf this morning, Henning? GRIN!)

Haven't had caffeine in weeks, people said I'd get over it...BS.:nonod:
 
I think that if you feel the need to carry a firearm at Airventure you have mental issues that should deny you a 3rd class medical and likely a drivers license.
An armed society is a polite society!

All joking aside, I don't see the problem with it, although AirVenture is probably one of the safer venues with respect to crime.
 
I'm agreeing with Henning. I just can't see the point of firearms at the Oshkosh airport, during the show or after. One will not be eaten by savages the day they leave their firearm at home. Some of us walk around for years and year bereft of their benefit with no difficulties at all.
 
I'm agreeing with Henning. I just can't see the point of firearms at the Oshkosh airport, during the show or after. One will not be eaten by savages the day they leave their firearm at home. Some of us walk around for years and year bereft of their benefit with no difficulties at all.
I don't agree-about the mental issues part.
 
I don't agree-about the mental issues part.

Actually, if you require a firearm for a feeling of personal security in the environs of the Oshkosh airport, I actually do agree with Henning. I only do so rhetorically, I refuse to believe anyone reading this suffers from such mental issues.

Airports are pretty good in general with those big fences. I can imagine some in inner cities that might seem to require some degree of personal protection. My guess is they're far safer than they look, but others might certainly see it differently. Must be a real bear, having all those different laws regarding your firearm. One could be committing a felony with a simple diversion for wx or mechanical issues.
 
Still haven't read a reason why the ban.

I understand that the EAA has the right to ban firearms. I understand that there are people who don't have a problem with the ban. I understand that there are people who pigeon-hole people who carry. And we could easily get into a discussion of people with an irrational fear of firearms.

What I'm asking is for some articulation of the purpose for the ban.
 
I'm questioning the point myself... not seeing any benefit.
That's because there IS no benefit. None. Go back to caffeine, Henning. The world will look much brighter. :yesnod:
 
Here's a realistic scenario: Pilot flies his 1939 Chief from MT to WI for AirVenture, crossing many miles of open nothingness. This pilot chooses to carry a firearm in the event of a letdown in the wilderness (and if you haven't been outside the 95 Corridor you don't know how inhospitable terrain can be...)

Anyway, on safe arrival to Oshkosh, he decides to carry the firearm rather than leave it untended in the aircraft as he peruses the EAA grounds.

So this is is a sign of "mental illness?"

:rolleyes2:
 
Still haven't read a reason why the ban.

I understand that the EAA has the right to ban firearms. I understand that there are people who don't have a problem with the ban. I understand that there are people who pigeon-hole people who carry. And we could easily get into a discussion of people with an irrational fear of firearms.

What I'm asking is for some articulation of the purpose for the ban.


The reality is that having guns permitted keeps more family people away than it attracts, it's bottom line. Concealed Carry mentality is a minority mentality in this country. The VAST majority of people have no desire to carry and don't trust people who are so afraid they feel they need to carry a gun at all times. While the majority of CC people are not nuts, there is a significant number of total paranoid idiots who carry. It's not like you have to pass any kind of evaluation for mental stability; a lack of a felony conviction is all it takes. Anyone who felt the need for carry in the EAA museum in OSH I would determine to be unstable enough to want to keep out with a firearm.
 
As a Federal LEO, I am authorized by law to carry a gun pretty much wherever I want, on or off duty. And since I'm on call 24/7, there are few times I don't have a pistol on me. Do I feel the need to carry at Airventur? No. Will I carry at Airventure? I can by law, but most times the answer is no. I will let you know that if you are carrying, something goes down, and you pull out your gun, you have a good chance of being shot by responding police. Exercising your right to CC comes with certain responsibilities. It is there to protect yourself or family from harm, not to get involved in something to be the hero. For those that are saying they would carry regardless, that it's "concealed", you are now breaking the law and I don't feel you should be able to exercise the right to CC. If you demand people respect your rights, you must in turn respect their rights.
 
Back
Top