• 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.

warren parks

Generaldet

Generaldet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
1,073
Location
President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
imported post

Update. Here is the response from city council and what was sent after.

received 8-6-09
Mr. ,

You are correct that the sign and ordinance are not enforceable. The police department is aware of this and I have made sure that Mr. Bowman of Parks & Rec is aware of this as well. At this time, I am not sure if he will decide to remove the signs or not. I hope this helps answer your question. Thank You, Mary Kamp - Council President


sent 8-6-09
Council President Kamp,

Thank you for responding to my request. I appreciate the cooperation of the city of Warren and its city council member regarding this issue. My concern is that knowingly having an unenforceable ordinance on the books and signs in your parks that are contrary to state law could be considered an act of malfeasance and open the city up to a lawsuit if an incident ever occurred. As you stated the signs are not enforceable, so keeping them up knowing this is willfully misleading the public. I appreciate that you have checked with the local police department and the parks and rec department and that they understand the nature of the situation. It is the responsibility of every citizen to hold elected officials to their sworn duties and to uphold the law. I ask nothing more thanthe city of Warren to do just that. This is why I am requesting that all signs and or ordinances be either removed or amended within, now 76 days to fully comply with Michigan state law. Thank you,
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

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

CoonDog wrote:
Johnniebravo,

Look here for ordinances pertaining to keyword "Firearm" for the City of Warren:

http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/code_list.asp?stateID=22


I have found that Warren has some really old codes and have not been updated since the 1990 Preemption act or with MI's concealed-carry laws. Somehow, carrying a firearm for protection is an "Offense Against Public Safety".

Sec. 22-165. Carrying loaded firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person, except police officers or any person duly licensed by law, to carry any loaded firearm within the city. (Code 1967, § 8-209(4))

Sec. 22-166. Carrying concealed weapon. It shall be unlawful for any person other than a police officer to carry a firearm thirty (30) inches or less in length on his or her person, concealed or otherwise, in the public streets, the alleys, public shopping centers or places of business frequented by the public, public parks, public school property, property of the Macomb County Community College, locations of religious worship open to the public, or any other public place in the city, unless the bearer possesses a duly authorized unexpired state license to carry a concealed weapon. (Code 1967, § 8-209(7))

Sec. 22-167. Carrying firearm over 30 inches. (a)It shall be unlawful for any person other than a police officer to carry a firearm commonly referred to as a longarm (rifle, shotgun or firearm over thirty (30) inches overall length) on the public streets, alleys, public shopping centers or places of business, public parks, public school property, property of the Macomb County Community College, locations of religious worship open to the public, or any other public place within the city, whether cased or uncased, except under the provisions of this section. (b)Unloaded longarms may be transported from a place of purchase to the residence of the purchaser if enclosed in a carton, container, closed gun case, or wrapped completely in commercial wrapping paper securely closed by tape or string, while being so transported. (c)Unloaded longarms may be transported by motor vehicle to and from hunting and firearms practice or target shooting, but must be fully enclosed in a closed carton, container or gun case or carried in the trunk of the vehicle. (d)Unloaded longarms may be carried by persons seventeen (17) years and older, on foot, to and from a regulated gun range, when the firearm is fully enclosed in a closed carton, container or gun case. Persons so involved shall proceed to and from the gun range without delay by avoiding loitering on the public streets and all other public places within the city. (Code 1967, § 8-209(8))

Sec. 22-168. Dangerous weapons. (a)No person shall possess on their person, on a bicycle, on a motorcycle or motor bike, or in the passenger compartment of any vehicle, any machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, sling shot, sand club, sand bag, switch-blade knife, stiletto, dagger, dirk, razor, knife having a blade over three (3) inches in length, metal knuckles, martial arts weapon, gun, handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, BB gun, pellet gun, air gun, imitation pistol, or any dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, or any instrument attached to or designed to be attached to any firearm for the purpose of silencing, lessening, or muffling the noise of the firing of any firearm; except as otherwise permitted by law. A person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the city such weapon or instrument. (b)No person under the age of eighteen (18) shall possess a blow gun or a crossbow. (c)No person shall sell blow guns or crossbows to any one under the age of eighteen (18). (d)Sections (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession of or sale of a crossbow to physically disabled persons twelve (12) years or older when said possession and/or purchase is pursuant to a permit granted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and such person is in possession of said permit. (Code 1967, § 8-210; Ord. No. 80-452, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 80-502, § 1, 10-22-96)
Click to expand...

Warren desperately needs MOC's help!
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport Pistol serve the purpose of "duly licensed by law"?

A CPL would be needed to be exempt from the Concealed Carry provision; local ordinance matches state law. The issue of "concealed or otherwise" would need to be dealt with. they need to remove "or otherwise" as this is different than state law.

IMHO, The real problem is the sign itself. It appears that it is placed there to deter the general public from carrying a firearm because the lawful carry of a firearm would not really be prohibited. Sort of like saying "Legal carry of a firearm is permitted", but put in the negative to obscure the issue.



 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Generaldet wrote:
. . . I have made sure that Mr. Bowman of Parks & Rec is aware of this . . . I am not sure if he will decide to remove the signs or not. . . .Mary Kamp - Council President . . .
Click to expand...
Another way to say what Ms. Kamp is saying: "I amnot sure if Mr. Bowmanwill decide to quit misleading the public or not."

Amazing!
 
V

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
Michigander wrote:
Given their heavy handed nature I've seen in the past, and given their hugely unnecessary response to the gigantic picnic last year, including the one needless stop and ID of the guy walking by himself home from it, I would be very careful about trying to make friends. They have done lots to prove they can't be trusted by open carriers, and nothing to prove they can be.

In regards to contacting them, I'd say it would still be a good idea. Lingering problems can only be solved with communication. I'd just do it by sending a polite but firm letter to the chief, explaining that you are worried that that officer, and maybe others are misinformed of open carrying legalities, and the fact that a 911 call is not probable cause to stop someone for legally open carrying.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd recommend great caution in contacting police under these circumstances (based on last years picnic, I'd say any circumstances re. the Warren Police). You most certainly should volunteer any info like, "yeah, I'm probably the one you were called about." Best thing to do would be to casually greet them as your walking by, and ask what's going on. If they ask if your the one with the gun, just respond by saying something along the line of, "it's legal"(matter of factly, as if it matters little if you were the one carrying). Is it unfair of me to have an attitude like this toward the Warren PD, I don't think so given in mind what happened last year, and they higher ups response.

Ordinarily I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have been investigating by just driving by, but Warren PD has earned a great amount of not only distrust, but lack of respect for the way they behaved last year (that drive by still leaves me disgusted. With people like that on the force, we're better off with the gangbangers down the block).
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it... but what happened last year in Warren?
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

As I recall, they had about a dozen officers out, including in an RV to monitor the picnic. One officer was reported to have gone up close to the picnic in his cruiser, and he buzzed the crowd, in a manner which sounded dangerous and idiotic.

I wasn't there, but I have seen the way they handled a crowd at a BOC concert on city property where they illegally told people they couldn't bring weapons. (illegal because obviously preemption applies to guns) They monitored the place with constant foot patrolling, and looking at everyone like scum of the earth criminals.

If they want my respect, they should treat my friends and I with respect, and simply do their job. So far, I haven't seen them do that, so I think very poorly of them.
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

Veritas wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
Michigander wrote:
Given their heavy handed nature I've seen in the past, and given their hugely unnecessary response to the gigantic picnic last year, including the one needless stop and ID of the guy walking by himself home from it, I would be very careful about trying to make friends. They have done lots to prove they can't be trusted by open carriers, and nothing to prove they can be.

In regards to contacting them, I'd say it would still be a good idea. Lingering problems can only be solved with communication. I'd just do it by sending a polite but firm letter to the chief, explaining that you are worried that that officer, and maybe others are misinformed of open carrying legalities, and the fact that a 911 call is not probable cause to stop someone for legally open carrying.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd recommend great caution in contacting police under these circumstances (based on last years picnic, I'd say any circumstances re. the Warren Police). You most certainly should volunteer any info like, "yeah, I'm probably the one you were called about." Best thing to do would be to casually greet them as your walking by, and ask what's going on. If they ask if your the one with the gun, just respond by saying something along the line of, "it's legal"(matter of factly, as if it matters little if you were the one carrying). Is it unfair of me to have an attitude like this toward the Warren PD, I don't think so given in mind what happened last year, and they higher ups response.

Ordinarily I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have been investigating by just driving by, but Warren PD has earned a great amount of not only distrust, but lack of respect for the way they behaved last year (that drive by still leaves me disgusted. With people like that on the force, we're better off with the gangbangers down the block).
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it... but what happened last year in Warren?
Click to expand...
First, they stationed the mobile command center there to "protect us".

Then, they stationed an unmarked cruiser with an officer inside with a telephoto lens taking pictures of the picnic goers.

None of that would have been all that bad (although the pics are meant as intimidation. Don't think so? Start taking their pic and see how they like it). It was actually kind of humorous. What was unconscionable was when one of the cruisers "buzzed" the pavilion at a fast speed, next to any picnic goers, including children. This was irresponsible, reprehensible, and downright thuggish. Whoever did that is scum, and will have a special place reserved for him when the good Lord comes. What that officer did was downright dangerous, and that person should not be on any force, including the military. That officer should be in prison, because that is the type of mentality demonstrated by that individual on that day.
 
dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
First, they stationed the mobile command center there to "protect us".

Then, they stationed an unmarked cruiser with an officer inside with a telephoto lens taking pictures of the picnic goers.

None of that would have been all that bad (although the pics are meant as intimidation. Don't think so? Start taking their pic and see how they like it). It was actually kind of humorous. What was unconscionable was when one of the cruisers "buzzed" the pavilion at a fast speed, next to any picnic goers, including children. This was irresponsible, reprehensible, and downright thuggish. Whoever did that is scum, and will have a special place reserved for him when the good Lord comes. What that officer did was downright dangerous, and that person should not be on any force, including the military. That officer should be in prison, because that is the type of mentality demonstrated by that individual on that day.
Click to expand...
Truth, pure and simple.
 
V

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

Sounds like they got away with it then.

I won't mention the city, but I had an officer fly up on my rear once, at night, with no headlights (much less his flashers), then passed me on the left (in a turning lane); slowed down at a stop light, then rolled right through it. As he made an illegal left onto a freeway on ramp, he decided to put his headlights and flashers on. I didn't realize there was anyone behind me until he was already right on my bumper (it was at night... black car). As he passed me, I realized it was a cop... and he was driving fast enough for the wind to shake my vehicle.

I was so pissed off about it that I immediately changed direction and headed towards the police station to complain. I didn't catch the unit number, but I was able to determine what city the vehicle was from. Funny thing is that the city he was in did not correspond with the city the vehicle belonged to (i.e. out of his jurisdiction).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top