Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Jackson Ordinance

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    Thanks to PilotPTK pointing out the site for searching ordinances I found this:

    http://library5.municode.com:80/defa...infobase=10240

    Sec. 18-184. Discharging weapons. No person shall discharge any firearm, air rifle or air pistol within the city. (Code 1977, § 9.62(19))

    Sec. 18-185. Possession of weapons. No person shall transport, carry or have in his possession in any public place or vehicle any firearm, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon except hunting knives adapted and carried as such. This section shall not apply where such transportation, carrying or possession:
    (1) Is under the authority of a valid concealed weapons permit.
    (2) Occurs within the home, place of business or upon the land of the person engaging in such transportation, carrying or possession.
    (3) Involves the transportation of an encased firearm for hunting or target practice purposes.
    (4) Involves the transportation of an encased firearm, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon from the place of purchase to the home of the purchaser. (Code 1977, § 9.62(20))

    State law references: Carrying firearm or dangerous weapons, MCL 750.226.
    I know Sec. 18-185 is covered by MCL 123.1102 I will be drafting a letter this weekend to the city council.

    But is there anything in state law to cover Sec. 18-184? Preemption doesn't state anything about use of a firearm. From my interpretation of Sec. 18-184 it appears that police officers or citizens needing to protect themselves will be violating the ordinance if they discharge a firearm? Is that how anyone else reads it? Seems rather broad and vague to me and could use some clarification.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    maahes wrote:
    Thanks to PilotPTK pointing out the site for searching ordinances I found this:

    http://library5.municode.com:80/defa...infobase=10240

    Sec. 18-184. Discharging weapons. No person shall discharge any firearm, air rifle or air pistol within the city. (Code 1977, § 9.62(19))

    Sec. 18-185. Possession of weapons. No person shall transport, carry or have in his possession in any public place or vehicle any firearm, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon except hunting knives adapted and carried as such. This section shall not apply where such transportation, carrying or possession:
    (1) Is under the authority of a valid concealed weapons permit.
    (2) Occurs within the home, place of business or upon the land of the person engaging in such transportation, carrying or possession.
    (3) Involves the transportation of an encased firearm for hunting or target practice purposes.
    (4) Involves the transportation of an encased firearm, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon from the place of purchase to the home of the purchaser. (Code 1977, § 9.62(20))

    State law references: Carrying firearm or dangerous weapons, MCL 750.226.
    I know Sec. 18-185 is covered by MCL 123.1102 I will be drafting a letter this weekend to the city council.

    But is there anything in state law to cover Sec. 18-184? Preemption doesn't state anything about use of a firearm. From my interpretation of Sec. 18-184 it appears that police officers or citizens needing to protect themselves will be violating the ordinance if they discharge a firearm? Is that how anyone else reads it?* Seems rather broad and vague to me and could use some clarification.
    What's more important is that if this ordinance is in place, does it rule out your "Stand your ground" protection?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    It absolutely does not rule out your 'stand your ground' protection. Realistically, these laws being on the books of local municipalities are not a big problem - because of pre-emption, they are 100% UNENFORCABLE. You are not breaking any law, because the law isn't legal. They could pass a law that says 'colored people' can't ride their busses, but that law would be meaningless.

    The problem I see with these laws being left on the books is that pre-emption could one day be repealed in Michigan.Unlikely? I hope so. Impossible? No. If we don't get these laws OFF of the books in local cities now, then IF pre-emption is ever repealed, these laws will be back in force.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    It absolutely does not rule out your 'stand your ground' protection.* Realistically, these laws being on the books of local municipalities are not a big problem - because of pre-emption, they are 100% UNENFORCABLE.* You are not breaking any law, because the law isn't legal.* They could pass a law that says 'colored people' can't ride their busses, but that law would be meaningless.

    The problem I see with these laws being left on the books is that pre-emption could one day be repealed in Michigan.**Unlikely?* I hope so.* Impossible?* No.* If we don't get these laws OFF of the books in local cities now, then IF pre-emption is ever repealed, these laws will be back in force.
    The part I'm worried about is the "Discharge of firearm" part. That's not preempted.

    In my opinion, I think it DOES negate your stand your ground rights.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    The problem I see with these laws being left on the books is that pre-emption could one day be repealed in Michigan.Unlikely? I hope so. Impossible? No. If we don't get these laws OFF of the books in local cities now, then IF pre-emption is ever repealed, these laws will be back in force.
    Big letters because this is important. Don't let these ordinances stay on the books.


    They also like to keep them in place to control the uneducated. It's a defacto gun control law. People see it and think they can't have a firearm there. The police can point to it to intimidate the uneducated and say see we have an ordinance against it. It's malfeasance and misinformation on the part of the municipality and should be squelched.

    The other problem and this one is a big one. If you do OC in a park and another community member sees the gun and checks the ordinance they think you are a criminal and may call the police. We have to educate everyone.
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    maahes wrote:
    But is there anything in state law to cover Sec. 18-184? Preemption doesn't state anything about use of a firearm. From my interpretation of Sec. 18-184 it appears that police officers or citizens needing to protect themselves will be violating the ordinance if they discharge a firearm? Is that how anyone else reads it? Seems rather broad and vague to me and could use some clarification.
    They can outlaw discharging a firearm. That is not protected under preemption. If it comes down to life and death I won't let a discharge charge worry me.

    Same for in your house, it's illegal to discharge a firearm in your house if it's within the boundary of the ordinance, but a self defense shooting in your home most likely won't get you charged with the discharge violation.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    PilotPTK wrote:
    It absolutely does not rule out your 'stand your ground' protection. Realistically, these laws being on the books of local municipalities are not a big problem - because of pre-emption, they are 100% UNENFORCABLE. You are not breaking any law, because the law isn't legal. They could pass a law that says 'colored people' can't ride their busses, but that law would be meaningless.

    The problem I see with these laws being left on the books is that pre-emption could one day be repealed in Michigan.Unlikely? I hope so. Impossible? No. If we don't get these laws OFF of the books in local cities now, then IF pre-emption is ever repealed, these laws will be back in force.
    The part I'm worried about is the "Discharge of firearm" part. That's not preempted.

    In my opinion, I think it DOES negate your stand your ground rights.
    My view of ordinances against discharge.. I don't believe that they remove my 'stand my ground' rights. When I chose to use deadly force, I was still legally allowed to be where I was. I hadn't discharged. The fact that I became illegal after the discharge is irrelevant.

    Now.. I suppose some DA could argue that in one case - the case of 'stopping the threat' requiring more than one shot. After the first shot, I may no longer be authorized to use deadly force since I've now committed a crime.

    Ben

Posting Permissions

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