City ordinances for Waterford TWP

Theres two ordinances that worry me since im in waterford and just got the funds to renew my cpl. The first tells about transporting a firearm in a vehicle no ammo in gun or magazine it needs to be seperate the last part says. It shall be unlawful to carry a firearm on any public street or in any public place unless it is unloaded and in a case. The first was 11-324. The next one is 11-334 Restrictions on weapon use in Township Parks. It is unlawful for any person other than a duly sworn police or law enforcement official in the course of his or her official duty to discharge,possess and/or use a firearm,bow and arrow, crossbow, slingshot, pellet gun or air rifle, or other weapon within the boundaries of a Township park. This provision shall not prohibit the possession and/or use of any such weaapon within the boundaries of a Township park if such possession or use is within a sanctioned hunt approved by the Township Board under section 11-335. sect 11-335 is for hunting. These two areas are a concern for me ive had dealings with the board and its there way or now way ill will have to attend some board meetings in near future city hall is not connected to courts etc. I do know 2 WPD officers are at doors when you go to the meeting room when WFD took over PFD and PFD went there it was like 6 officers and 3 cars so. I think ill have long discussions with them hopefully we will see. Any input would be greatly appreciated thank you army74.

Waterford. Class act there.

stainless1911 said:

Waterford. Class act there.

Click to expand...

Just another Warren MI, just slightly to the north.

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

They have always been a joke. A middle class gang.

waterford

since im a resident and have kids that are in school and play athletics and we travel i should make them aware of these unjust ordinances and how they violate my rights as a citizen or a visitor to there city.

I believe state pre-emption trumps local ordinance.

Sent from my LG-VM701 using Tapatalk 2

Waterford has shown that it doesnt care about the law. They will even twist it to mean what it doesn't to fit their needs.

stainless1911 said:

Waterford has shown that it doesnt care about the law. They will even twist it to mean what it doesn't to fit their needs.

Click to expand...

Does Waterford have any sort of business district with say gun friendly places to eat or such? If so, maybe they need an OC visit, or something.

The only places I have had trouble carrying in Waterford have been the schools where it is legal, and the local PD where it is also legal. No private property issues thusfar.

oc in waterford

There is a city park by the police station and city hall. I went to a memorial day parade nothing said by
WPD only ppl complaining I was carrying. The one board member said we have ordinances to prohibit it but I told him I would see him at a board meeting to discuss it

Discharge ordinances are enforceable.

Possession, sale, transportation, ammo ordinances are not.

IANAL

Read MCL 123.1101-1103

I grew up part of my life in Waterford, still frequent there. I OC'ed there for a minute yesterday. Haven't had any issues.

There really isn't any business/district or downtown area but if a group wants to get together I'm down.

Where can I find a copy of the laws? I know one WPD officer I wanna see what he says whenever I get a chance (prolly won't be for awhile).

TheQ said:

Discharge ordinances are enforceable.

Possession, sale, transportation, ammo ordinances are not.

IANAL

Read MCL 123.1101-1103

Click to expand...

Army74 & others,

We can ask them to change them. They may or may not. The law has no penalty for them to fear, so really unless they are just good folks, which so far does not seem to be the case, they have no motivation to. Sad, but that is the crap hand we have here. Take heart though having such bunk on their books does not help them to wiggle out of color of law or1983 federal actions against them.

So if they do try to enforce their ordinances that are in violation of preemption, Mi Constitution, and the US Constitution it will cost them dearly down the road. I think if the michigan municipal league was paying attention to violations by problem cities, they may start to refuse them insurance coverage. Maybe we could help MML in this respect? For that matter maybe the same would apply for MCOLES certifications for problem PD's?

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

That's a great idea G9, perhaps MOC should consider delegating these tasks to a small group of volunteers. Specialists tend to get things done efficiently.

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

Take heart though having such bunk on their books does not help them to wiggle out of color of law or1983 federal actions against them.

Click to expand...

Actually, it can. "I didn't know about preemption" is a valid defense to a 1983 case. In other words, if the cop believed the ordinance was enforcible, that can be used as an excuse in a civil case against them.

The birder would be on you to prove the officer knew (not should have knew...but knew).

stainless1911 said:

That's a great idea G9, perhaps MOC should consider delegating these tasks to a small group of volunteers. Specialists tend to get things done efficiently.

Click to expand...

Volunteers are always few and tasks so many.

TheQ said:

Actually, it can. "I didn't know about preemption" is a valid defense to a 1983 case.

Click to expand...

This frustrates me to no end. The repeal of the motorcycle helmet requirement has been in effect for 46 days and I'd be willing to bet that motorcyclists that choose to go without a helmet aren't getting cited. Meanwhile pre-emption has been in effect for 21 frickin' years and they still claim they didn't know?!

Big pile of BS if you ask me.

Bronson

Bronson said:

This frustrates me to no end. The repeal of the motorcycle helmet requirement has been in effect for 46 days and I'd be willing to bet that motorcyclists that choose to go without a helmet aren't getting cited. Meanwhile pre-emption has been in effect for 21 frickin' years and they still claim they didn't know?!

Big pile of BS if you ask me.

Bronson

Click to expand...

Its a "choose which law to enforce" kind of world.

I would bet that most LEO dont care about people not wearing helmets. So therefore, no tickets.

The best bet for Waterford is to send the "packet" to the city attorney, mayor, and the police chief, certified mail, so there is proof that they received the package. Then go to a city council meeting, where the said people are generally all in attendance. Let them know that their law goes against the state law. Then give them some time to soak it all in. That way, when the harassment happens, one would at least have some sort of chance to prove that the city was made aware, and enforced anyway. Just my 2 cents.

TheQ said:

Actually, it can. "I didn't know about preemption" is a valid defense to a 1983 case. In other words, if the cop believed the ordinance was enforcible, that can be used as an excuse in a civil case against them.

The birder would be on you to prove the officer knew (not should have knew...but knew).

Click to expand...

"I didn't know you couldn't CC without a license, I thought we had the right under the Michigan, and the US Constitutions!"

Bronson said:

Big pile of BS if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I agree, but "prove it".