imported post
LaVere wrote:
I just talked to the Ranger for Genesee County Parks. About CCW in the County parks
He said if you have a legal CCW you may carry in the parks Even if it is from another state. He is aware of the preemption law in Michigan.
But he is not sure about Open carry in the parks. I reminded him about the preemption law. He said that that has not been worked out with the Genesee County
lawyers. He added some rangers may ticket you or arrest you or do nothing. It is up to that ranger. "to myself what does that mean". He also said he could tell me his opinion but I may not want to hear it.
"Why do they fight so hard against legal citizens, I just don't understand it." I have already paid over $300.00 (Read Taxed) to just use my freedom granted in the US and Michigan Constitutions.
/Rant off
The preemption law makes all ordinances about possession of a handgun illegal. They can not make laws that are more restrictive than state law. It's very simple. They can not outlaw open carry or concealed carry with a CPL. This was upheld in a Michigan Court of Appeals case. I'm not sure what has to be worked out by the Genesee county lawyers as it's law 101....it's not legal to have this prohibition on open carry. PERIOD. Send this case to the Genesee County prosecutors office.
[size=You can find the entire opinion here:][size=]
[url]http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/doc_pdf/0430_Ferndale_decision.pdf[/url]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"][/font]][/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"]Ordinance: “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3),
possession or concealment of a weapon shall be prohibited in all buildings owned and/or controlled by the City of Ferndale and located in the City of Ferndale including: City Hall, Police Station, Fire Stations, DPW Administrative Office, Animal Shelter Building, Library, Gerry Kulick Community Center, Summer Youth Recreation Building while under City control and DPW Water Building.” ][/font][/b]
The S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S Opinion.
MICHIGAN COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE
GUN OWNERS, JEAN BRUCE, ALEXANDER
KASA and GREG NEU,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
FOR PUBLICATION April 29, 2003 9:10 am. v No. 242237
Oakland Circuit Court
CITY OF FERNDALE and KAREN PEDRO,
LC No. 02-038045-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, J.
[size=[font="Times New Roman"]The Court stated. ][/font]….In no uncertain terms, § 1102 of the act mandates that “[a] local unit of government
shall not . . . 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, . . . except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.” With the pronouncement in § 1102, the Legislature stripped local units of government of all authority to regulate firearms by ordinance or otherwise with respect to the areas enumerated in the statute,10 except as particularly provided in other provisions of the act and unless federal or state law provided otherwise….[/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"][/font]]
[size=They go on to state.]…Indeed, it would be disingenuous to argue that the broad terms
“transportation” and “possession” do not encompass “carrying.” …In other words, although stated in the negative, rather than the affirmative, the statutory language of § 1102 demonstrates that, in effect, state law completely occupies the field of regulation that the Ferndale ordinance seeks to enter, to the exclusion of the ordinance, although subject to limited exceptions. See
Llewellyn, supra at 322.12 With the enactment of § 1102, the Legislature made a clear policy choice to remove from local units of government the authority to dictate where firearms may be taken. In the present case, it is readily apparent that the [/b][size=Ferndale][/b][size= ordinance regulates areas that § 1102 expressly prohibits. Section 1102 provides that a local unit of government shall not enact an ordinance pertaining to the transportation or possession of firearms, but the city of][/b][size=Ferndale][/b][size= does just that.][/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"]The court continues. ][/font]…A state statute that prohibits a local unit of government from enacting “any ordinance or regulation” or regulating “in any other manner” the transportation or possession of firearms cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude local ordinances that address the carrying of firearms in municipal buildings.
Indeed, in their brief defendants concede that under § 1102 local units of government are prohibited “from enacting laws that concern ownership or possession of firearms,…[/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"][/font]]
[size=…Simply stated, a review of the statutory language reveals a clear intent more than a decade ago to prohibit local units of government from enacting an ordinance such as the][/b][size=Ferndale][/b][size= ordinance, but no clear intent a decade later to limit or remove that prohibition….][/b]
[/b]
THE MICHIGAN APPEALS COURT CONCLUDED:
April 29, 2003 9:10 am. v No. 242237
[size=[font="Times New Roman"]In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing
any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas. [/font]][/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"][/font]][/b]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"]Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421
et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local regulation of the
carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the
Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse. [/font]][/b]
[/b]
