I heard some LEO talk about “causing/creating a disturbance”, and apply such statutes or ordinances as “gun control” in certain areas (those areas being “flashing” or open carrying). I looked up a few local ordinances and this is what I found:
From Grand Rapids:
Sec. 9.137. Breach of the Peace Offenses:
No person shall:
(1)Create or engage in any disturbance, fight or quarrel in a public place.
(2)Create or engage in any disturbance, fight or quarrel that causes or tends to cause a breach of the peace.
(3)Disturb the public peace and quiet by loud or boisterous conduct.
(4)Disturb without lawful authority any lawful assembly or meeting of persons.
(5)Engage in, participate in or attempt to engage in or participate in a riot.
(6)Incite, cause or attempt to incite or cause a riot.
(7)Utter profane, obscene or injurious language directed at or in the presence of another person, which language causes or would tend to cause an immediate breach of the peace.
(Ord. No. 76-14, 3-2-76)
State law references: Disorderly persons, MCL 750.167; cursing and swearing, MCL 750.103; disturbance of religious meetings, MCL 752.525 et seq.; disturbance of meetings, MCL 750.169 et seq.; improper language in the presence of women/children, MCL 750.337.
This for Grandville:
Sec. 15-126. Disturbance or fight in public places.
No person shall create or engage in a disturbance or fight in any public place.
(Ord. No. 151, eff. 9-10-76; Comp. Ords. 1977, § 20.251(20); Ord. No. 213, § 9, eff. 5-26-95)
This from Kentwood;
Sec. 38-231. Disorderly conduct:
No person shall create or unlawfully engage in any disturbance, fight or quarrel in any public place, except in reasonable self-defense when attacked without reasonable provocation or in reasonable defense of another who was so attacked.
(Comp. Ords. 1987, § 20.307(1))
Now, it seems to me that these ordinances are for the most part “catch all” ordinances that allow officers latitude when there is no specific ordinance in place. For example: they can’t pass a law prohibiting exposure of a lawfully concealed handgun, or an openly carried handgun, but they can say that it is creating a disturbance or panic. My example appears to be backed up by the Grandville Police Chief, who said the following:
Grandville Police Chief Vern Snyder said weapons carried by shoppers with permits haven't been an issue at the mall. "As soon as (the gun) becomes visible, then we end up with the public being concerned, and technically we may have a violation of the law," Snyder said, "because the law doesn't allow people to display weapons where they are creating panic." http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/1..._the_mall.html
In the above quote, he isn’t even talking about OC, but instead refereeing to he inadvertent exposure of a lawfully concealed pistol. I did search for keyword “panic” and found nothing here:http://www.municode.com/resources/ga...083&sid=22
Any thoughts on this?
I would think that such ordinances, when applied to firearms and/or ammunition, would be voided out by state preemption. Without preemption I can see how this could be applied. I wonder if this is just a “gray area” until it is decided in court.