Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Vicksburg bans firearms on city property with city ordinance

  1. #1
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238

    Vicksburg bans firearms on city property with city ordinance

    Here is the AP story:


    Vicksburg board votes to ban guns on city property
    Posted: Jun 27, 2013 3:02 AM CST Updated: Jun 27, 2013 3:02 AM CST

    VICKSBURG, Miss. (AP) - Vicksburg is banning firearms city property except for law enforcement officers.

    The Vicksburg Board of Mayor and Aldermen adopted the ban this week. The Vicksburg Post reports (http://bit.ly/10VMelv) that the board also ordered signs to be put up on city buildings and at parks.

    The ban is to take effect Monday.

    No penalty is attached to the resolution.

    City Attorney Lee Thames says he is drafting a gun ban ordinance for the new city board to look at next week.

    Under state law, an ordinance does not become law until 30 days after it is passed so the public may comment.

    A new state law effective Monday allows people without permits to carry firearms as long as they are within sight.

    Information from: The Vicksburg Post, http://www.vicksburgpost.com


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seems to me this is in direct violation of Mississippi's preemption statute, Mississippi Code 45-9-51. Certain ordinances prohibited. Which states:

    Subject to the provisions of Section 45-9-53, no county or municipality may adopt any ordinance that restricts or requires the possession, transportation, sale, transfer or ownership of firearms or ammunition or their components.

    45-9-53 allows restrictions in some venues such as public parks, but not ALL city property. I don't see how they think they can get away with this in the face of the law.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    regardless of what anyone thinks ... these bans are unconstitutional ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Seems MS will need its preemption statute to be similar to Florida's.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Seems MS will need its preemption statute to be similar to Florida's.
    What do you mean? I'm not familiar with Florida's. Isn't Mississippi's clear enough?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    No penalty is attached to the resolution. [ ... ]

    Subject to the provisions of Section 45-9-53, no county or municipality may adopt any ordinance that restricts or requires the possession, transportation, sale, transfer or ownership of firearms or ammunition or their components. .
    S there is no penalty attached to the resolution, neither is there any penalty attached to the statute, nor an officer charged with its enforcement. Much like Wisconsin's ss 66.0409

    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-29-2013 at 08:33 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    What do you mean? I'm not familiar with Florida's. Isn't Mississippi's clear enough?
    Our's contain provisions for civil penalties and termination of any employee, or removal from office for an elected official, that attempts to create/enforce any ordinance/regulation in violation of State Legislative preemption. Also prohibits the use of public funds to defend said defendant.

  7. #7
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    (2) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), no political subdivision may enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution that regulates the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration or taxation of any firearm or part of a firearm, including ammunition and reloader components, unless the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute.
    Where did the above quote come from? I mean which states statute is that? Is that Florida's? Michigan was mentioned and Florida, I just don't want to get confused here.
    Last edited by MSRebel54; 06-28-2013 at 08:32 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Where did the above quote come from? I mean which states statute is that? Is that Florida's? Michigan was mentioned and Florida, I just don't want to get confused here.
    Not Florida. Here the first part of ours:

    790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.—
    PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.
    . . .
    [A little further down comes the good part]
    . . .

    A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    I sent the Vicksburg mayor an email asking how he intended to enact this ordinance and not be in violation of Mississippi code 45-9-51. I suppose he will ignore it, like nearly all politicians do when they sense you're not 100% on board with them. But on the off chance he replies, I'll let ya'll know.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    What do you mean? I'm not familiar with Florida's. Isn't Mississippi's clear enough?

    Florida has penalties attached to violations of preemption, personal penalties.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    I sent the Vicksburg mayor an email asking how he intended to enact this ordinance and not be in violation of Mississippi code 45-9-51. I suppose he will ignore it, like nearly all politicians do when they sense you're not 100% on board with them. But on the off chance he replies, I'll let ya'll know. - 4-29-2013
    As I suspected, 10 days without a reply from the honorable mayor or any of his office minions. I'm beginning to think he's not going to reply to me.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Seems MS will need its preemption statute to be similar to Florida's.
    RCW 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 reloader 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.

    This worked for us in Wa State. A mayor in seattle attempted to bypass it and got slapped down in court. Try it, it works great.

    Good luck to all who try to get this fixed.
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 07-23-2013 at 01:38 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    RCW 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 reloader 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.

    This worked for us in Wa State. A mayor in seattle attempted to bypass it and got slapped down in court. Try it, it works great.

    Good luck to all who try to get this fixed.
    Insufficient. AL and MS have had something like that for a while, it didn't work. We need something with teeth such as a criminal penalty or civil liability.
    Last edited by Daylen; 07-24-2013 at 06:26 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    As I suspected, 10 days without a reply from the honorable mayor or any of his office minions. I'm beginning to think he's not going to reply to me.
    Go knock on his door ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Go knock on his door ...
    I would, but he's several hundred miles away from me, and I suppose he would pay me about as much attention in person as he did the email.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Mississippi code

    Rebel,

    I went thru this here in Columbus. If Vicksburg wants a complete ban on all city property, they're overreaching just like Columbus is/was.

    MS §45-9-53 grants specific exceptions to the pre-emption in §45-9-51. Municipalities are allowed "(f) To regulate the carrying of a firearm at: (i) a public park or at a public meeting of a county, municipality or other governmental body; (ii) a political rally, parade or official political meeting; or (iii) a nonfirearm-related school, college or professional athletic event;" Those four places are the only places they can legally ban carry.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  17. #17
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    Rebel,

    I went thru this here in Columbus. If Vicksburg wants a complete ban on all city property, they're overreaching just like Columbus is/was.

    MS §45-9-53 grants specific exceptions to the pre-emption in §45-9-51. Municipalities are allowed "(f) To regulate the carrying of a firearm at: (i) a public park or at a public meeting of a county, municipality or other governmental body; (ii) a political rally, parade or official political meeting; or (iii) a nonfirearm-related school, college or professional athletic event;" Those four places are the only places they can legally ban carry.
    Yes exactly. This was the basis for my original question to the non-responsive mayor of Vicksburg. That is, how do you intend to implement this ordinance without being in direct violation of state law?

    You say,"I went through this in Columbus". What do you mean? Did you call the city government out on it? If so, what happened?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    You say,"I went through this in Columbus". What do you mean? Did you call the city government out on it? If so, what happened?
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...mption-holdout
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Thanks Eeyore, but what I was really wanting to know was did YOU point the preemption statute out to them, or did they stumble across it on their own. You said you checked into it, but were you the one that brought it to their attention to start with? And did (or have) they changed their ordinance to comply. I'm interested to know if a "non-lawyer" type citizen can ever get a governmental entity to realize they're wrong, and change it without having to force them by taking it up with the courts.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    I first became aware of it by reading http://packet-media.com/2013/06/29/h...nity-concerns/ The full ordinance is quoted at the bottom. I had no idea there was an ordinance until then. The city attorney was quoted “The city has had a gun ordinance in place for years,” Turnage said. “But it probably needs to be revised after a recent AG’s opinion on HB-2.” So apparently he was already looking at it.

    I sent him an e-mail pointing out that 45-9-51 and 45-9-53(f) already made much of the ordinance moot anyway, and that HB2 had nothing to do with it. He agreed, but I don't know if any action has been taken. As crooked as our mayor and city council are, I doubt they'd amend the ordinance unless it somehow benefited them or their associates. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter--the parts of the ordinance that violate the state law are unenforceable, though it may mean an otherwise-unnecessary trip to court for some poor LAC (hopefully not me).
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Eeyore, that clears everything up. I recently read where Meridian was enacting a city ordinance "banning guns on city property", so I think this is going to be an on going problem. I guess the city attorneys are just not aware of preemption, or they are, and hope they can get away with it anyway, or that no one will challenge them. Anyway, I think once HB2 goes into effect, (if it does) and a year later Mississippi is not blown off the map like they would have you believe, no one will think twice about it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Eeyore, that clears everything up. I recently read where Meridian was enacting a city ordinance "banning guns on city property", so I think this is going to be an on going problem. I guess the city attorneys are just not aware of preemption, or they are, and hope they can get away with it anyway, or that no one will challenge them. Anyway, I think once HB2 goes into effect, (if it does) and a year later Mississippi is not blown off the map like they would have you believe, no one will think twice about it.
    Do you realize AG Hood issued an opinion that cities can ban weapons on their property?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Do you realize AG Hood issued an opinion that cities can ban weapons on their property?
    I don't believe he did. AFAIK, his opinion matches the existing state pre-emption law that specifically allows bans in courthouses, meetings of city government, and parks. If you've got something that says different, I'd love to see it. It wouldn't be surprised if certain media outlets and some city officials have over-simplified the issue and believe it applies to all city property.
    Last edited by Eeyore; 08-02-2013 at 07:09 PM. Reason: more research
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285

    To MSG:

    Washington state does allow local municipalities to enact laws restricting the discharge of firearms and the location of new gun shops, refer please to :

    RCW 9.41.300 weapons prohibited in certain places.
    **** (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    **** (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    **** (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    **** (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    **** (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

    **** (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    **** (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.


    The state preemption has made Washington gun laws far less complicated then say our neighbor to the south, Oregon, which is a cluster-explitive of jumbled laws. Oregon does have a preemption as well, but it is a joke and laws very from county to county and even town to town, Portland has even passed laws re-defining basic legal terms, flying in the face of the states preemption and state constitution.

    Example: In Portland, without a CPL, one can not even have rounds in an unattached magazine anywhere on them in the public domain, even your car in Oregon has been ruled a "public" place... Sad but true.

    However the state preemption in Oregon does not give cities or counties the ability to change legal definitions of loaded and unloaded, it only allows them to restrict "loaded" carry (open or concealed) to people with a CPL

    As soon as your are out of maricopa county and the metro area around that area, (Salem, Oregon city, ect) you don't even need a CPL to open carry loaded in your vehicle. (in most counties, unlike WA state, where you must have a CPL to have a loaded pistol in your vehicle, regardless of how you choose to carry it)

    Hope my anti Oregon rant helps =D thanks
    Last edited by MattinWA; 08-02-2013 at 11:30 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I don't believe he did. AFAIK, his opinion matches the existing state pre-emption law that specifically allows bans in courthouses, meetings of city government, and parks. If you've got something that says different, I'd love to see it. It wouldn't be surprised if certain media outlets and some city officials have over-simplified the issue and believe it applies to all city property.
    What you said. I try to keep up with these type things, but this one may have slipped by me. I'd like to see that opinion.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •