VIllage Employees — But Not the Public — Banned From Carrying Weapons in Municipal Buildings

Public employees in Menomonee Falls will be violating a village policy if they carry a concealed weapon into municipal buildings. However, members of the public can still legally carry concealed weapons in the very same buildings.

That’s because the Village Board on Monday approved a policy that forbids village employees from carrying concealed weapons in village-owned buildings. On the other hand, trustees again delayed taking a vote on a public ban on those buildings.

Although the board approved a weapons ban for village employees, they didn’t have much choice. Village Manager Mark Fitzgerald said he felt strongly about banning it for employees. If the board didn’t approve the employee policy, Fitzgerald said he would have used his administrative powers to make it happen anyway.

However, when it came to a public weapons ban in municipal buildings, the board exercised its administrative powers to prevent it from occurring.

Trustee Michael McDonald urged board members to keep their emotions at the door and not make a knee-jerk reaction by creating a policy hastily. He asked for more time to examine the approach taken by another municipalities in the 48 other states that have a concealed carry law on the books.

The village’s public concealed weapons ordinance would have banned concealed weapons from all 65 municipally owned buildings. However, the ban would not apply to village-owned buildings within parks. Fitzgerald said these buildings were removed to make the law easier to understand and enforce, since Wisconsin's concealed weapons law, which took effect Nov. 1, allows them in parks, including .

The policy for both employees and the public would include a provision that would make it mandatory to keep a gun out of plain view when parked in a lot.

“Whenever there’s change, people are always concerned because everyone is concerned about change,” McDonald said. “There’s no reason to pass this tonight. If we do it right now, it’s strictly an emotional move on everyone’s part. I couldn’t pass this until we hear more about what other states have done.”

The board followed suit, and voted to table the vote on the public policy for no longer than two months. Prior to the meeting on Monday, the General Government Committee gave the policy its approval on a 2-1 vote. Trustee Dennis Farrell voted against it.

“If you’re telling would-be shooters that no one in that building is going to be armed, I think you have a dangerous situation there,” Farrell said. “I feel not banning it is the direction to go.”

For Fitzgerald, the purpose of crafting a concealed weapons ban on village property was for consistency, and to avoid confusion that could occur in . Under recently passed state law, concealed weapons are banned from law enforcement buildings and buildings where municipal court is in session.

In Menomonee Falls, those lines are blurred since Village Hall is a multipurpose building. Therefore, concealed weapons would be allowed in some parts of the building but not others. It gets a bit confusing when attempting to determine the boundaries of the police department building, and ensuring the rule applies when court is in session.

The school district also leases Village Hall for its central offices, so the district will have to come up with its own policy. However, Fitzgerald expected the district would follow suit with the decision made by the Village Board.

“This is the most simple policy we could craft while making it as easy as possible for the public to understand,” he said.

Fitzgerald said, without a ban in place, he expects plenty of confusion for the 500 to 1,000 people who come through Village Hall each day. Simply banning concealed weapons in all public buildings would avoid any confusion about carrying weapons in different parts of Village Hall.

However, McDonald said there were bound to be other munipcalities in the country that use a mutlipurpose public building.

Fitzgerald said a high-end cost estimate to install the signage displaying an ordinance would cost the village about $4,875. It was estimated that more than 300 signs would be needed for all the entrances on village-owned properties.

There was also some concern that the village would put itself into undue liability risks by posting a sign, which could open it to negligence claims.

However, in a memo to the board, Village Attorney Michael Morse said liability risks shouldn’t be a factor in voting on an ordinance. He said it will take time for cases to go through the courts to determine what the real liability risk is for the village if they had posted signs prohibiting concealed weapons.