Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Local City Parks - no guns allowed

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Regarding the below city oridnance in Rochester Hills regarding carrying guns in city parks;

    " Sec. 74-108. Firearms and weapons.[/b] It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.[/b]
    (Code 1976, § 7-10.08.13)"[/b]


    Is the above ordinance legal/enforceable given the Michigans State pre-eminance statute?
    [/b]

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    atlantis wrote:
    Regarding the below city oridnance in Rochester Hills regarding carrying guns in city parks;

    " Sec. 74-108. Firearms and weapons.[/b] It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.[/b]
    (Code 1976, § 7-10.08.13)"[/b]


    Is the above ordinance legal/enforceable given the Michigans State pre-eminance statute?
    [/b]
    No. The state does allow local units of government to control the discharge of firearms.

    Preemption

    House Bill 6010, which was tied barred to the preemption bill, now found at M.C.L. 750.234d, supports the conclusion that the city cannot act in this area. Section 234d (1) prohibits the possession of a firearm, with exceptions not applicable here, at a depository financial institution, a church or other house of religious worship, a court, a theatre, a sports arena, a day care center, a hospital or an establishment licensed under the liquor control act. Subsection (2) (c) specifically states that the section does not apply to a person licensed by this state or another to carry a concealed weapon. Other than courts, no governmental locations were included in the amendment. Accordingly, given the fact that the state occupies the entire field of regulation in this area, a city ordinance purporting to ban the possession of firearms on its premises is invalid as it applied to persons who legally possess a firearm. As the court indicated in Llewellyn, supra, even where there is no direct conflict between an ordinance and the statute, the ordinance is invalid where the state occupies the field. It is clear from the protest remarks of a number of Senators who voted against the preemption bill that they felt the law was intended to preempt local units of government from enacting local ordinances. Under the law of preemption, the ordinances need not conflict with the state statute in order to be invalid. Accordingly, in assessing Michigan's firearms statute against the principles enunciated by the Michigan Supreme Court, similar statutes around the country and courts interpretation of same, it is unlikely that any local ordinance purporting to regulate firearms beyond what is contained in the statute would be upheld by the courts.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    atlantis wrote:
    Regarding the below city oridnance in Rochester Hills regarding carrying guns in city parks;

    " Sec. 74-108. Firearms and weapons.[/b] It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.[/b]
    (Code 1976, § 7-10.08.13)"[/b]


    Is the above ordinance legal/enforceable given the Michigans State pre-eminance statute?
    [/b]
    No. The state does allow local units of government to control the discharge of firearms.

    Preemption

    House Bill 6010, which was tied barred to the preemption bill, now found at M.C.L. 750.234d, supports the conclusion that the city cannot act in this area. Section 234d (1) prohibits the possession of a firearm, with exceptions not applicable here, at a depository financial institution, a church or other house of religious worship, a court, a theatre, a sports arena, a day care center, a hospital or an establishment licensed under the liquor control act. Subsection (2) (c) specifically states that the section does not apply to a person licensed by this state or another to carry a concealed weapon. Other than courts, no governmental locations were included in the amendment. Accordingly, given the fact that the state occupies the entire field of regulation in this area, a city ordinance purporting to ban the possession of firearms on its premises is invalid as it applied to persons who legally possess a firearm. As the court indicated in Llewellyn, supra, even where there is no direct conflict between an ordinance and the statute, the ordinance is invalid where the state occupies the field. It is clear from the protest remarks of a number of Senators who voted against the preemption bill that they felt the law was intended to preempt local units of government from enacting local ordinances. Under the law of preemption, the ordinances need not conflict with the state statute in order to be invalid. Accordingly, in assessing Michigan's firearms statute against the principles enunciated by the Michigan Supreme Court, similar statutes around the country and courts interpretation of same, it is unlikely that any local ordinance purporting to regulate firearms beyond what is contained in the statute would be upheld by the courts.
    Concur! Preemption makes these law illegal. Springer is right they can control shooting/discharging, hunting and target shooting. They can not ban the possession of a firearm.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

Posting Permissions

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