• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Royal Oak Gun Free School Zone

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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/getSimple.jsp?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?
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
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/getSimple.jsp?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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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?
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
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?
 

conservative85

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
625
Location
, ,
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
Top