Ypsilanti Township posted another sign

MI_XD · May 5, 2013

jt59 said:
Here, I believe is what their code actually says, and is what is specifically needs to be addressed...I have no skin in this fight except that I am coming to MI in a few weeks and always bring my side arm with me and may well be out and about in local community and city parks...we have these same issues with parks in WA. In spite of our state pre-emption law, it still take time and persistence to get them changed...

Sec. 46-61. - Possession and use of firearms; dangerous weapons; fireworks.

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

(1)

Possess within park property, fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged across, in or into any portion of the park, any gun or firearm, spear, bow and arrow, crossbow, sling shot, air or gas weapon, or any other dangerous weapon or projectile, except for purposes designated by the board in areas and at times designated by the board;

(2)

Possess, set off or attempt to set off or ignite any firecracker, fireworks, smoke bombs, rockets, black powder guns or other pyrotechnics without authorization from the director; or

(3)

Possess or carry in any park, any air gun, paint gun, bow and arrow, or any illegal weapon.

Any unauthorized or illegal weapon within a park shall be subject to seizure by a law enforcement officer

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11741

It doesn't seem to actually say that possession is a crime of any sort, and they are leaving themselves an out with the last sentence..."subject to seizure" if it is unauthorized or illegal...by a LEO. They would lose, but it would be a serious inconvenience....the cop who gets the call is the guy you have to convince.

Yeah, I missed that one! Here is another that needs to be corrected. Although it may not be for the same park location.

Sec. 42-209. - Firearms.

It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, carry, or possess a firearm while in or upon the waters of Ford Lake, the islands within Ford Lake, or any Township land abutting Ford Lake, unless said person is a law enforcement officer engaged in performing his or her lawful duties.

(Ord. No. 96-149, 4-16-96)

MI_XD

jt59 · May 5, 2013

What is MI's State level pre-emption?

MI_XD said:
Yeah, I missed that one! Here is another that needs to be corrected. Although it may not be for the same park location.

Sec. 42-209. - Firearms.

It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, carry, or possess a firearm while in or upon the waters of Ford Lake, the islands within Ford Lake, or any Township land abutting Ford Lake, unless said person is a law enforcement officer engaged in performing his or her lawful duties.

(Ord. No. 96-149, 4-16-96)

MI_XD

I couldn't find anything in the MI sticky's, do you guys have an equivalent to WA?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

State preemption.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and re-loader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

For us, this makes anything local of non-effect, regardless of signage or local code to the contrary...

FreeInAZ · May 6, 2013

MCL 123.1102

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1102

The superMods should get input & link to state laws in each state forum. I can't count the # of times I linked to MI & AZ laws, but it's an awful lot. So there clearly is a need for this information. Just saying...

Bronson · May 6, 2013

jt59 said:
It doesn't seem to actually say that possession is a crime of any sort

Sec. 46-61. - Possession and use of firearms; dangerous weapons; fireworks.

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

(1)

Possess within park property, fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged across, in or into any portion of the park, any gun or firearm, spear, bow and arrow, crossbow, sling shot, air or gas weapon, or any other dangerous weapon or projectile, except for purposes designated by the board in areas and at times designated by the board;

"The Board" doesn't get to make regulations, rules, or laws about firearm possession on Township property.

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

Bronson

1245A Defender · May 6, 2013

Well,,,,

jt59 said:
I couldn't find anything in the MI sticky's, do you guys have an equivalent to WA?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

State preemption.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and re-loader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

For us, this makes anything local of non-effect, regardless of signage or local code to the contrary...

Hi JT; go to handgunlawus.com click Michigan
go about half way down to find the state premption
shorter than ours but just as good.

kurt555gs · May 6, 2013

Everyone should carry a Hi Point. Then you wouldn't care if you lost it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

FreeInAZ · May 6, 2013

kurt555gs said:
Everyone should carry a Hi Point. Then you wouldn't care if you lost it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

^^^This^^^ - that & they shoot pretty darn good.
Own 4 - all straight shooters & run reliable.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/handgun_reviews_hipoint_100605/

Hevymetal · May 7, 2013

For anyone interested. I received a phone call this afternoon from the counsel representing the city. I explained MCL123.1102 and that their ordinance presents a potential legal situation for them. Since according to state law it's illegal.

Thankfully I was sitting down, She AGREED totally with my assesment and informed me that they would start the process of ammending/changing the ordinance. Which appears to take a bit of time, research, wording, getting it on the agenda, voting, etc.

Then she assured me it would not be enforced until it was properly worded. I responded by saying that the mere fact an illegal ordinance was posted but not enforced still made it illegal since uneducated people would believe the posted ordinance was legitimate when in fact it wasn't. I could hear her sigh over the phone and she agreed with me again

Although she declined my offer to go around with a Sharpee and remove the offending words myself to expidite the process.

I informed her to the best of my knowledge IANAL the ONLY thing they were allowed to regulate was the discharge of a firearm within the city limits and possibly the ability to hunt within the park. The ability and right of a citizen to carry a concealed or openly carried firearm (pistol or unmentionable) legally on city property wasn't open to any form of debate.

I feel she was genuinely amicable to the needed changes to bring them into compliance with state law. Now the ball is in their court, let's see if the wheels of progress start to turn.

I thanked her for taking the time to respond to my earlier phone call and message and personally returning it. She thanked me for pointing out the error. (Thank you GREATLY to whoever else called the city and their attorney cause I apparently wasn't the only one.)

If all goes well this may be another small victory for "We the people" and our right to keep and bear arms.

TheQ · May 7, 2013

Hevymetal said:
For anyone interested. I received a phone call this afternoon from the counsel representing the city. I explained MCL123.1102 and that their ordinance presents a potential legal situation for them. Since according to state law it's illegal.

Thankfully I was sitting down, She AGREED totally with my assesment and informed me that they would start the process of ammending/changing the ordinance. Which appears to take a bit of time, research, wording, getting it on the agenda, voting, etc.

Then she assured me it would not be enforced until it was properly worded. I responded by saying that the mere fact an illegal ordinance was posted but not enforced still made it illegal since uneducated people would believe the posted ordinance was legitimate when in fact it wasn't. I could hear her sigh over the phone and she agreed with me again Although she declined my offer to go around with a Sharpee and remove the offending words myself to expidite the process.

I informed her to the best of my knowledge IANAL the ONLY thing they were allowed to regulate was the discharge of a firearm within the city limits and possibly the ability to hunt within the park. The ability and right of a citizen to carry a concealed or openly carried firearm (pistol or unmentionable) legally on city property wasn't open to any form of debate.

I feel she was genuinely amicable to the needed changes to bring them into compliance with state law. Now the ball is in their court, let's see if the wheels of progress start to turn.

I thanked her for taking the time to respond to my earlier phone call and message and personally returning it. She thanked me for pointing out the error. (Thank you GREATLY to whoever else called the city and their attorney cause I apparently wasn't the only one.)

If all goes well this may be another small victory for "We the people" and our right to keep and bear arms.

Well done. No protest BBQ, but maybe a celebratory one?

FreeInAZ · May 7, 2013

@Hevymetal - was this their counsel as in a lawyer for the city or a member of their city council? Either way - thanks for contacting her. I hope they don't do as one city in that general area did. Which was to take over a year, pay their counsel near 2 Grand & end up with a more confusing ordinance on the books. MI law is pathetic in the fact it has no teeth in the preemption MCL to spank offending cities/townships. They are all too often filled with officials that are no more than professional word-smiths. They bend & twist anything they can to get what they want & the will of the people (the law) be damned! Rant off now.

ETA - here's a great example of how things should be done by "public servants" -
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112638

FreeInAZ · May 7, 2013

TheQ said:
Well done. No protest BBQ, but maybe a celebratory one?

I offered a nice chunk of change to fund one - my only catch was it needed to be organized by someone who could speak to reporters / or TV should they show up, with some knowledge. To date no takers...have never had such a hard time giving away money in my life...oh well , I'd buy ammo with it if there was any to be bought. :

Speaking of shooting I have to post pic's of a sticky note I shot at 7yrds with the aid of one of Dougwg's triggers jobs. He has my 14+1 Hi-Point 45acp nailing it everytime.

Story - I shot first six shots to make smiley @ 21ft, then tried for the eye's of actual smiley target & missed once (cute girl watching...I choked)

Then moved target back to 50ft and inserted a hi-cap (14rd instead of 9) and went rapid fire. Then I brought the target back to 21ft to try out defense rounds. The hydra-shock shot more accurate, but I had two jams. The WWB JHP ran flawlessly without much loss of accuracy. Say what you will - my Hi-Points all run straight & true.

TheQ · May 7, 2013

FreeInAZ said:
Which was to take over a year, pay their counsel near 2 Grand & end up with a more confusing ordinance on the books.

Or CADL that has spent over 100,000 on gun control that destroys preemption.

FreeInAZ · May 7, 2013

TheQ said:
Or CADL that has spent over 100,000 on gun control that destroys preemption.

Whenever I hear the term CADL I puke a little bit in my mouth...! What a bunch of want to be tyrants in my opinion. Then they try to lay their irrational angst at the feet of their patrons as in - one of our hood rats might attack the armed person in the library. Nice! Losers the whole lot of them. For such a supposedly well read group, none of them has ever read the Bill of Rights it appears. :banghead: /rant.

Hevymetal · May 7, 2013

FreeInAZ said:
@Hevymetal - was this their counsel as in a lawyer for the city or a member of their city council? Either way - thanks for contacting her. I hope they don't do as one city in that general area did. Which was to take over a year, pay their counsel near 2 Grand & end up with a more confusing ordinance on the books. MI law is pathetic in the fact it has no teeth in the preemption MCL to spank offending cities/townships. They are all too often filled with officials that are no more than professional word-smiths. They bend & twist anything they can to get what they want & the will of the people (the law) be damned! Rant off now.

ETA - here's a great example of how things should be done by "public servants" -
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112638

It was their legal counsel. As I said, she seemed genuinely interested in "Revising" the ordinance to bring them into compliance. She was aware the current one violates 123.1102. She tried saying it's not gonna be enforced, but I was insistent the mere existence of the illegal sign and an ordinance on the books that violates state law was a liability, especially for those that are lesser educated on the firearms laws. I attempted to be polite but was assertive they comply with state law. She tried mentioning something about the potential requirement of a CPL and I stopped her mid sentence and stated a CPL has nothing to do with it. I gave her a brief synopsis of the legality of OC and that there was no requirement of a CPL to carry and once again the city has no authority to regulate any aspect of it.

We shall see what transpires, I enjoyed conversing with her and felt it was a positive encounter, I hope we both walked away learning something.

FYI - My suggestion was take the simplest and most efficient and cheapest route possible to the city. Remove the offending ordinances completely and black out the firearms portion of all the signs posted on any city owned property. I even volunteered to due the latter

TheQ said:
Or CADL that has spent over 100,000 on gun control that destroys preemption.

Oh god no, let's hope this city has more wisdom and less financial backing.

jt59 · May 7, 2013

FreeInAZ said:
MCL 123.1102

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1102

The superMods should get input & link to state laws in each state forum. I can't count the # of times I linked to MI & AZ laws, but it's an awful lot. So there clearly is a need for this information. Just saying...

Thanks....interesting bit on the taxes of subcomponents of ammo by local gov't... the D's at the WA state legislature in this last session attempted a bill to add a .01 cent tax on reloading supplies...bullets, primers, cases and gun powder (hard to figure that one out)...but they failed.

...Bad public servants, go home!

Bronson · May 8, 2013

jt59 said:
Thanks....interesting bit on the taxes of subcomponents of ammo by local gov't... the D's at the WA state legislature in this last session attempted a bill to add a .01 cent tax on reloading supplies...bullets, primers, cases and gun powder (hard to figure that one out)...but they failed.

Our law does not prevent the STATE from levying taxes on firearms, ammo, components, etc. It only restricts local units of gov't (cities, townships, counties, etc.) from doing so.

Bronson

jt59 · May 8, 2013

Bronson said:
Our law does not prevent the STATE from levying taxes on firearms, ammo, components, etc. It only restricts local units of gov't (cities, townships, counties, etc.) from doing so.

Bronson

I noted that, it just kind of caught my eye that it was called out....we don't have anything like that in our pre exemption, but our legislators tried to pass a bill for the state to do exactly that....(on ammo and components)....

greedy Bustards...

Bikenut · May 8, 2013

If a sign says the speed limit is 35 and a cop writes a ticket to someone for speeding .... that is "active enforcement" of the law. If folks see the sign and voluntarily slow down ... that is "passive enforcement". Doesn't matter if the sign is old/outdated and the speed limit has changed.... the sign still caused people to obey it.

I believe that an illegal "no guns" sign and/or ordinance is also passive enforcement because even if the sign/ordinance isn't being actively enforced by arresting folks anyone who reads the ordinance/sees the sign will assume that what it says is actual law and not know they can legally carry there............ and the illegal law (ordinance) just got "enforced".

So it is disingenuous for a local government to say the illegal ordinance/sign will not be "enforced" because just by being there/being on the books it IS being enforced.

I also fully believe the politicians/officials/council members/police understand the concept of "passive enforcement" quite well and think it's a good thing.

Bikenut · May 8, 2013

Wednesday morning humor...

jt59 said:
Thanks....interesting bit on the taxes of subcomponents of ammo by local gov't... the D's at the WA state legislature in this last session attempted a bill to add a .01 cent tax on reloading supplies...bullets, primers, cases and gun powder (hard to figure that one out)...but they failed.

...Bad public servants, go home!

Taxes on ammo and/or ammo components? Anyone remember this great idea from our government?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-4651448.html

EPA's Air Pollution Target: Flatulent Cows

For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if the federal government decides to charge fees for air-polluting animals.

Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases emitted by belching and flatulence amounts to air pollution.
-snip-

Politicians will tax anything and everything... including... farts. But they will declare their own farts be exempt. Because if they didn't the politicians would quickly go broke since it is politicians that are so full of crap!

bigt8261 · May 8, 2013

Bikenut said:
If a sign says the speed limit is 35 and a cop writes a ticket to someone for speeding .... that is "active enforcement" of the law. If folks see the sign and voluntarily slow down ... that is "passive enforcement". Doesn't matter if the sign is old/outdated and the speed limit has changed.... the sign still caused people to obey it.

I believe that an illegal "no guns" sign and/or ordinance is also passive enforcement because even if the sign/ordinance isn't being actively enforced by arresting folks anyone who reads the ordinance/sees the sign will assume that what it says is actual law and not know they can legally carry there............ and the illegal law (ordinance) just got "enforced".

So it is disingenuous for a local government to say the illegal ordinance/sign will not be "enforced" because just by being there/being on the books it IS being enforced.

I also fully believe the politicians/officials/council members/police understand the concept of "passive enforcement" quite well and think it's a good thing.

This is why I have been asking state Senators and Representatives to add teeth to our preemption laws. Other states in the area do it and we should too. Mr./Mrs. elected official, you have 90 days to fix this otherwise you will be sued and you will not only lose, you will pay.

Ypsilanti Township posted another sign

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member