In a recent government meeting, city officials discussed the implications of a state statute that prohibits local authorities from banning firearms within designated security zones. This conversation was prompted by inquiries from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel regarding the language surrounding firearms in the context of an upcoming national convention expected to draw between 30,000 to 50,000 attendees.

City representatives expressed concerns about public safety, particularly in light of potential protests and the presence of firearms in the security footprint. One official highlighted the absurdity of allowing loaded firearms while banning less dangerous items, such as tennis balls, during the event. The official proposed a substitute measure aimed at prohibiting firearms within the security zone, despite acknowledging that this could lead to legal challenges based on the existing state law.

The discussion revealed a divide in opinions on the interpretation of the statute, with some officials arguing that the law was not intended to apply to the unique circumstances of a large-scale event with heightened security concerns. The city attorney and other legal advisors were expected to weigh in on the potential for litigation should the city proceed with the ban.

Officials also referenced past conventions, noting that while Philadelphia successfully prohibited firearms in their security zones, Cleveland did not, suggesting that local interpretations of similar state statutes can vary significantly. The meeting underscored the city's commitment to exploring all avenues to ensure the safety of its residents and businesses in the face of potential unrest during the convention.