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.
