Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Michigan city bans being annoying in public

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Could this trun out to be a round about way to harrass OC in Michigan cities?

    http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/12/...ying_in_public

    Officer! Arrest that man! His openly carried firearm annoys me.



    hmmm..... I wonder if this could turned around and used against the city council members?

    Officer! Arrest than councilperson! I find their stupidity annoying.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Remind me never to visit.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/12/...ying_in_public

    Ticking someone off could get you a ticket in one Michigan city. The Brighton City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance allowing police in the Livingston County community to ticket and fine anyone who is annoying in public "by word of mouth, sign or motions."

    The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell reports the measure is modeled on a similar ordinance in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak.

    A city attorney says there could be situations where the measure would violate freedom of speech, but that those cases will be reviewed by the city.

    The ban takes effect Jan. 2.
    Reviewed by the city in their own good time. 'Cite them all and let the courts sort 'em out' is a short step to letting God sort the good from the bad and ugly.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  6. #6
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Wow, Annoying in Public.....think of all the possibilities!!!!

    Children being loud/obnoxious in restaraunts....take them to jail

    Those Jehovas Witnesses on Saturday mornings...take them to jail

    Telemarketers....take them to jail

    People on cell phones in movie theaters....take them to jail

    Grown men who ride skateboards as a means of transportation...take them to jail

    People with Obama bumper stickers...take them to jail

    And that's just my personal list. I'm sure with a little thought, we could arrest everyone!!!

    I'm waiting for them to pass "stupid in public" next, along with "ugly in public"

    /sarcasm off

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    There "could be" situtations where it violates free speech. Indeed. Well, if flag burning is protected (symbolic) speech - and it is, like it or not - then this law is patently imbecilic, as is the city attorney who has to struggle with this. In fact, his/her very existence is a violation under this law.

    -ljp

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    My post is in the Michigan thread, but this law is an annoyance and alarm prohibition. The law is very vague and is really a police opinion enforcement tool.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Ordinances like this can be struck down by pre-enforcement civil actions as overbroad - case law is very strong on this under First Amendment.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    The very first Michigan OC event organized through this web site was in Brighton. In attendance were myself, Venator, Mastif69, and his wife. A cop saw us, saw a sign on Venator's car that said who we were, and saw Venator's revolver on the dash board, and went by. It is a small, close knit rural community located right by a state park that has lots of hunting going on. I can believe people stupid enough to write this trash live there, but I cannot believe that they give a flying crap about OC. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    These people obviously have way too much time on their hands.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    "Oh, officer you have to arrest that man, his poopy gun is scaring me and it's annoying. Officer guns are scary oh puhleeeze arrest that man." sheesh these people make me ill.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I can't see how this is in anyway Constitutional, I bet they end up getting sued. I know I wouldn't just pay the fine I"d fight it.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/19781.html

Posting Permissions

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