Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Michigan Open Carry Federal Lawsuit

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Anyone have more on this?



    http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=409659



    Michigan Open Carry Civil Rights Suit


    The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC announces federal civil rights suit against City of Grand Haven and Ottawa County over open-carry ordinance.

    The suit, brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, was filed on behalf of Christopher Fetters, an off-duty Air Force Security Officer who was attending the Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven last year. Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

    Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to firearms, (MCL 123.1102.) The public policy goal of the statute is to provide a uniform system of gun laws statewide so that citizens do not have to guess regarding what local rules might exist as they move from one locality to the next.

    The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters’ civil rights under the 2nd , 4th, and 14th, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which reads, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” when he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.

    Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney’s Office, after being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance. No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest. He is demanding damages for violation of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States and of Michigan.

    The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    I'm sure when Preemption came into effect, local municipality were made aware of it. Second It is in my opinion that this is what LE gets when on average, they replace ignorance, with aggression. Would it be a violation of the 2nd A, 4th A. and 5th A. Since they took his handgun unlawfully as well as confiscated said pistol.

    I can't find too much more info on this, But I have read it on several threads on OCDO and a few others off of Google.





  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    BreakingTheMold wrote:
    I'm sure when Preemption came into effect, local municipality were made aware of it. Second It is in my opinion that this is what LE gets when on average, they replace ignorance, with aggression. Would it be a violation of the 2nd A, 4th A. and 5th A. Since they took his handgun unlawfully as well as confiscated said pistol.

    I can't find too much more info on this, But I have read it on several threads on OCDO and a few others off of Google.



    If you read the complaint filed by plaintiff's attorney in the Grand Haven case (separate thread), you'll find alleged violations of the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

    Application of protections guaranteed under the Second and Fourth Amendments are rather obvious in that case. With respect to the right to due process, as I understand it (IANAL), such protections under the 5th Amendment apply only to actions taken by the federal government. Due process as it applies to the states is covered under the 14th Amendment -- which is why the attorney in the Grand Haven case included such alleged 14A violations in his plaintiff's complaint.

    As for the Fifth Amendment protection violations that were alleged in the complaint, I suspect that might be a Miranda issue, but I'm only speculating. Again, IANAL.


Posting Permissions

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