Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Could Brighton's New Anti - Annoy law be used against OCers?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Could Brighton's New Anti - Annoy law be used against OCers? Maybe not but this law is an opinion enforcement tool for police. Bold in article was done by me.

    Link: http://www.livingstondaily.com/artic...EWS01/81219006

    Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton

    BY JIM TOTTEN • DAILY PRESS & ARGUS • December 19, 2008

    The Brighton City Council approved a more stringent code for public conduct, and those who violate the rules – including annoying someone else – could be ticketed and fined. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman previously was employed.One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”Another section states, “It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance but ended upvoting for it.Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.“I’m not sure what alarm or seriously annoy means,” Bohn said.Council member Jim Muzzin asked if he were to stand up and read “War and Peace,” during his five-minute limit at call to the public at numerous meetings, “would I be ticketed or fined?”Paul Burns, city attorney, responded no.Burns said City Council chambers are considered a “bastion of democracy” and the law provides a wide breath for free speech. Burns said there could be a situation where a ticket issued violates someone’s free speech, but he said his office would be reviewing these cases.City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made bypolice officers. However, Foster said the rules are aimed at those who interfere in public areas as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for annoyance’s sake.The amended ordinance takes effect 15 days from approval, which is Jan. 2, 2009.
    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 inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member LaVere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The remains of Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    264

    Post imported post

    “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”

    The city counsel seriously annoy me and serve no legitimate purpose. They all should be fined and removed.


    I can't believe that a person over 12 and at least an 8 grade education could could think up such a stupid and illegal law.
    They all should be impeached for just being stupid and a insult to the human gene pool.

    God I hope the don't multiply
    The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.

    Dalai Lama

    ************************************************** ********************

    http://www.generalnewsgroup.com/

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

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”
    Self defense is a legitimate purpose, so OCing should not be an actionable offense.
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    The revolution is getting closer...
    United we STAND!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    First of all, I doubt this could be applied to firearms due to the pre emption law. Even if it could apply to firearms, I doubt any cops in Brighton would try and harass an OCer with it. I think Brighton is rural and pro gun enough that it should be a non issue.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Could Brighton's New Anti - Annoy law be used against OCers? Maybe not but this law is an opinion enforcement tool for police. Bold in article was done by me.

    Link: http://www.livingstondaily.com/artic...EWS01/81219006

    Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton

    BY JIM TOTTEN • DAILY PRESS & ARGUS • December 19, 2008

    The Brighton City Council approved a more stringent code for public conduct, and those who violate the rules – including annoying someone else – could be ticketed and fined. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman previously was employed.One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”Another section states, “It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance but ended upvoting for it.Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.“I’m not sure what alarm or seriously annoy means,” Bohn said.Council member Jim Muzzin asked if he were to stand up and read “War and Peace,” during his five-minute limit at call to the public at numerous meetings, “would I be ticketed or fined?”Paul Burns, city attorney, responded no.Burns said City Council chambers are considered a “bastion of democracy” and the law provides a wide breath for free speech. Burns said there could be a situation where a ticket issued violates someone’s free speech, but he said his office would be reviewing these cases.City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made bypolice officers. However, Foster said the rules are aimed at those who interfere in public areas as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for annoyance’s sake.The amended ordinance takes effect 15 days from approval, which is Jan. 2, 2009.




    227691
    CHARLES A LONDO V JAN JAY



    Release Date: 3/22/2002
    Panel: WCW KTW BKZ



    Lower Court: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    Lower Court No: 00-011180 PH



    COA Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished
    View Docket Sheet

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cadillac Area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    I don't think you have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this ordinance clearly infringes on the First Amendment rights of Americans. Obviously the city counsel itself or a small, vocal minority was the victim ofan "annoying protest" or some other form of expressing the freedom of speech.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Dan F. wrote:
    I don't think you have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that this ordinance clearly infringes on the First Amendment rights of Americans. Obviously the city counsel itself or a small, vocal minority was the victim ofan "annoying protest" or some other form of expressing the freedom of speech.
    One amendment gives us the Right to Challenge Government ! Case Law Tested in my post .

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    ...
    One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”Another section states, “It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place.”Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance but ended upvoting for it.Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.“I’m not sure what alarm or seriously annoy means,” Bohn said. ...
    This ordinance has some pretty serious implications, but I couldn't help remembering the scene in "Dumb and Dumber" where Lloyd and Harry treat their rider to "the most annoying sound in the world:"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVlTeIATBs

    Too badthe youth of Brighton don't take it upon themselves to adopt this "sound" for the "legitimate" purpose of public dissent.

  10. #10
    Regular Member MI-copperhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Anti-urban, Bible thumping, Tekonsha, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    The revolution is getting closer...
    We can only hope.

    Actually I would hope that the citizenry of Brightron would contact their council persons and let them know if this stupid and unconstitutional law isnt recinded that they could end up being recalled. At least local representitives are easier to confront with their stupidity, unlike state or national ones.

    "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death !" Patrick Henry

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    IMO, this is really no different than the "disturbing the peace" and "inducing panic" threats made toward OC'ers. Shrug your shoulders and carry on.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    IMO, this is really no different than the "disturbing the peace" and "inducing panic" threats made toward OC'ers. Shrug your shoulders and carry on.
    PLEASE the line is on the right just step to launcher..................................then prepare to be tossed under your choice [ bus ,train.truck,tank ]

  13. #13
    Regular Member LaVere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The remains of Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    264

    Post imported post

    Brighton, Michigan Chief of police on Fox national news this Friday Dec 26. explaining the new law. This law has now made international news. The news casters are just ripping into the law and Brighton in general. Worth a watch if you can.
    The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.

    Dalai Lama

    ************************************************** ********************

    http://www.generalnewsgroup.com/

  14. #14
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    One of the sections reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”
    Since carrying a gun for self-defenseis a legitimate purpose for being armed, this ordinance spells out that you would not be doing anything unlawful. Also, where this ordinance may infringe on firearms possession and carrying it runs afoul of the state preemption law and isvoid.

    Remember you may be arrested for anything, as has been said so many times in this forum, but you have a reasonable degree of certainty here in Michigan that charges will be dropped or you won't be convicted so long as you have strictly obeyed the law.

    If you are wrongly detained or arrested, you have the remedy of a civil lawsuit and money damages, which has successfully been usedhere in Michigan.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

Posting Permissions

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