April 21, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – The Vernon County Board of Supervisors voted to prohibit the general public from carrying firearms inside county buildings during its April 21 meeting. The decision follows months of debate regarding building security the safety of county employees and the constitutional rights of citizens.
The new measure known as the Vernon County Buildings Firearms Ordinance passed on a 15 to 4 vote. The rule officially bans the public from carrying weapons into facilities owned or operated by the county but it includes specific exemptions for law enforcement military personnel and county employees.
The push for a weapons ban began earlier this year after an individual openly carried a firearm into a county department office. Supervisor Charles Jacobson championed the ordinance and explained that the primary goal is to protect county staff and remove the burden of figuring out whether an armed visitor is breaking the law.
“Staff should not have to try to determine if a person in their building is allowed to be carrying a firearm or not,” said Jacobson. “If a firearm is seen staff should call 911 initiate a lockdown or follow their emergency procedures and law enforcement handle it from there.”
Jacobson provided context on existing state laws noting that open carry without a permit is already restricted and concealed carry is banned in specific places like courthouses and jails. He clarified that the new county ordinance takes the extra step of banning concealed carry permit holders from bringing their firearms into any county building.
“So what this ordinance is actually going to do is anybody who has a concealed carry license would no longer to be carry in a county building,” said Jacobson.
While the ordinance restricts the public it explicitly exempts county employees who hold a valid concealed carry permit. However the county is still developing the specific rules and safety requirements for those armed employees.
Administrative Coordinator Cassandra Hanan explained that the General Government Committee is actively working with the county insurance provider to draft the internal employee policy for future review.
“I believe the ordinance exempts employees so they are listed in there,” said Hanan. “But the general government committee has not yet defined a policy for employees as far as what those provisions look like.”
Supervisor Wayde Lawler reiterated that the board was only voting to regulate the public on Tuesday and would deal with staff regulations at a future date.
“The ordinance only addresses carrying firearms by the public,” said Lawler. “It specifically exempts staff board members the peace officer all the statutory exemptions Charlie mentioned and then it will be up to us to determine a policy for employees and board members.”
The ban has faced sharp criticism from some members of the public. Prior to the April 21 vote county resident Mark Joseph filed a formal written objection known as a remonstrance. Joseph had previously spoken at the April 1 General Government Committee meeting where he argued that banning firearms in public spaces violates the state and federal constitution. A total of 61 written remonstrances were filed with the board of supervisors on the topic. It’s not clear if all 61 were on the same topic but the discussion served to refer to them that way.
“Any form of prohibiting firearms in public spaces is directly interfering a constitutional right,” said Joseph. “The county has no lawful authority to infringe on the people rights.”
During the April 21 meeting Corporation Counsel Nikki Swayne advised the board that they were not required to take any specific action regarding the written remonstrance other than acknowledging they received it.
The board proceeded with the vote and the ordinance passed comfortably. The county will now be required to post prominent signage at the entrances of all covered buildings notifying the public of the firearms prohibition. Violators of the new ordinance could face a forfeiture of up to $500.
“It is a reflection of some of your constituents position and opinion on an ordinance that you are to discuss and possibly act upon in this meeting,” said Swayne. “There is no action required or anticipated here other than what our clerk has already done as far as acknowledging that these are here.”
No board took no other action on the topic.
Add comment