Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Royal Oak Gun Free School Zone

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    While reviewing the local city ordinances, I found that Royal Oak has an ordinance named "Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance". This ordinance is similar in nature to the Federal Law named similarly.

    I can find no such law at the State Level (so far).

    Link: http://ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getS...p?guid=8260270
    §278-40. Firearms; gun-free school zone; violations and penalties. A. Short title. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance."
    B. Possession of firearms in school zones.
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (2) Subsection B(1) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm if any of the following apply:
    (a) The firearm is possessed on private property not part of school grounds.
    (b) The individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State of Michigan.
    (c) The firearm is not loaded and in a locked container, or in a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle.
    (d) The firearm is in the possession of an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual.
    (e) The firearm is in the possession of a law enforcement officer.
    C. Violations and penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 90 days, or be both so fined and imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.
    D. Signs to be posted. The City is authorized to post signs around school zones giving warning of prohibition of the possession of firearms in a school zone.

    Royal Oak defines a School Zone as the following:
    SCHOOL ZONEIn or on the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school.
    So, my questions are the following:

    1. Would the State Preemption Law "trump" this ordinance due to the fact that State Law does not define the 1000' School Zone for Firearms Restrictions?

    2. If #1 is a "yes", how would you suggest contacting the City to inform them of such?
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

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

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    While reviewing the local city ordinances, I found that Royal Oak has an ordinance named "Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance".* This ordinance is similar in nature to the Federal Law named similarly.

    I can find no such law at the State Level (so far).

    Link: http://ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getS...p?guid=8260270
    §*278-40. Firearms; gun-free school zone; violations and penalties. A. Short title. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance."
    B. Possession of firearms in school zones.
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (2) Subsection B(1) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm if any of the following apply:
    (a) The firearm is possessed on private property not part of school grounds.
    (b) The individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State of Michigan.
    (c) The firearm is not loaded and in a locked container, or in a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle.
    (d) The firearm is in the possession of an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual.
    (e) The firearm is in the possession of a law enforcement officer.
    C. Violations and penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 90 days, or be both so fined and imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.
    D. Signs to be posted. The City is authorized to post signs around school zones giving warning of prohibition of the possession of firearms in a school zone.

    Royal Oak defines a School Zone as the following:
    SCHOOL ZONEIn or on the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school.
    So, my questions are the following:

    1. Would the State Preemption Law "trump" this ordinance due to the fact that State Law does not define the 1000' School Zone for Firearms Restrictions?

    2. If #1 is a "yes", how would you suggest contacting the City to inform them of such?*
    Technically speaking, yes, state preemption bars the city of Royal Oak from enforcing any legislation that restricts carrying firearms.

    However, if Royal Oak removes this ordinance, your rights are no less restricted. This law is in effect whether or not Royal Oak has it on the books.

    Anyone with a registered pistol in MI is licensed to purchase, transport, carry, and possess a firearm, per MCL 28.422 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422 . Therefore, they are licensed by the state to carry as directed in State law, which doesn't define a 1000' school zone, and therefore the 1000' school zone doesn't apply.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Thanks Zig!

    I am all about "keeping it simple" and thought this ordinance was not necessary due to the Federal law. My thought is that Royal Oak will be creating a more restrictive rule than the state law in the event that the Federal Law is repealed or determined unconstitutional.

    I will not need to worry about it soon as I will have my CPL (hopefully!).

    I will be contacting the City in any event since the ordinance authorizes the City to post the School Zone via signage, which they have not yet done (at least for the school I live near).

    Thoughts/suggestions about whether I should bring the ordinance and the State Preemption Law to their attention or not?


    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    The school zone statute reads exactly the same as the WI statute (which happens to be valid in WI) I must be a federal statute that was copied by WI and R-O.

    But lets look at section (1) of that statute, it gives a person a chance to claim ignorance of being in a school zone as a way out of being cited becuase of this phrase; "has reasonable cause to believe".
    What many of the guys in WI were doing is carrying a map of the school zones with them so they could avoid them.
    I suggested that a mapin their posession will not allow a claim of ignorance if they happen to step into a school zone and have a cop bent on charging them with a felony arrest them.
    Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, except in the school zone exclusion area and for police that violate our rights.

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Since under MCL 28.422 "License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol" is required prior to acquisition by purchase, gift, or loan, I think anyone carrying a registered pistol would be exempt.

    I am not a lawyer.This information is given for educational purposes only, it is not legal advice.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    I have some questions about jurisdiction with which some of you may be more familiar.

    How would the federal law be enforceable in MI anyway? Michigan schools are not Federal Zones and therefore the fed.gov wouldn't have jurisdiction. When the feds pass a law like this, doesn't it in fact act as a model for other states to follow, if they so choose? Given that MI hasn't reproduced the law on their own books, i.e., the State of Michigan has not incorporated the federal law, then why would the federal law be enforceable anywhere in MI?

    Secondly, and OT, what is it with our legislatures and their predilection for outlawing victimless crimes? There is no corpus delicti! Such legislation only serves to restricted the freedom to act of law-abiding citizens. Where is the crime? Who is the injured party? How can the state show that they've been injured by someone carrying without a license? How does the ability to craft legislation amount allow the state to claim they are a plaintiff with standing?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Since under MCL 28.422 "License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol" is required prior to acquisition by purchase, gift, or loan, I think anyone carrying a registered pistol would be exempt.

    I am not a lawyer.This information is given for educational purposes only, it is not legal advice.
    Not only are I licensed, but I are constitutionaly entitled to keep and bare for selfdefense.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Since under MCL 28.422 "License to purchase, carry, or transport pistol" is required prior to acquisition by purchase, gift, or loan, I think anyone carrying a registered pistol would be exempt.

    I am not a lawyer.This information is given for educational purposes only, it is not legal advice.
    Not only are I licensed, but I are constitutionaly entitled to keep and bare for selfdefense.
    That goes without saying... but recognition of the right is another thing. I still think Michigan's registration system is ripe for a challenge; perhaps an "out-of-stater" will someday actually push it. Those who come to visit are being denied a semblance of a rkba and therefore it wouldn't even really need to be looked at as a question of testing the appropriateness of regulation; its a ban much like DC was.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Posting Permissions

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