• 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.

Troy Firearms Ordinances

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
all i heard for a while was crickets... so i decided to kick the hornet's nest a bit today. you know, just to make sure they hadn't thought i had been intimidated by silence or forgotten about it. i sent this out to all the council, the mayor and the city attorney who wasn't on the original email list. although a council member did forward it to her.
i sent:

"No response yet from city attorney. The city has had 22 years to bring ordinances into compliance with state law."

reply from city attorney lori bluhm:

"Thank you for your e-mail. Your e-mail has been forwarded to our office, and we have done some research. We anticipate that we will have our research completed in the very near future. "

interestingly enough, i found this on the cities website describing her job position:

"The staff of the City Attorney's Office prepares and/or reviews all ordinances, contracts, bonds and other written instruments and prosecutes ordinance violations. They update the Council on all matters of law and changes or recent developments affecting the City."

http://troymi.gov/law/
 
Last edited:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
from dave henderson, the council member who responded previously:

Dan,

Thanks again for the reminder. I notice the city attorney has responded as well. I am staying in touch with this. I’m certain she will have a response for us. Her department has been loaded with a few issues lately that have made prioritizing a little difficult.

Thanks for keeping in touch

Dave
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
from dave henderson, the council member who responded previously:

Dan,

Thanks again for the reminder. I notice the city attorney has responded as well. I am staying in touch with this. I’m certain she will have a response for us. Her department has been loaded with a few issues lately that have made prioritizing a little difficult.

Thanks for keeping in touch

Dave
Why does that appear to read, at least to me anyway, as....... "Buzz off. We are trying to sweep this under the rug."

Maybe I'm wrong?
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
i think you're wrong, i think henderson wants to help... everyone else, i'm not so sure. henderson says he's got a CPL, so it's in his interest to see that these ordinances go away.
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Well it doesn't hurt to hope...

i think you're wrong, i think henderson wants to help... everyone else, i'm not so sure. henderson says he's got a CPL, so it's in his interest to see that these ordinances go away.

I hope you are right. However Bikenut may also be correct. My experience with city council's in the metro Detroit area is they often enjoy 'special' privileges that the common folk do not. In my city until recently they were even given 'honorary' police badges. So even though Henderson maybe a CPL holder he will never have to worry about being harassed in the city of Troy like a 'common' citizen would. Let's not forget that they often fain powerlessness, when they can dictate many things as they are in fact the lawmakers of a city. Sadly most city council people cannot give you a accurate description of their duties when pressed for them. Often this deficiency follows along with them as they move to the state house and in some cases to Washington D.C.

If you ever want to have some real fun, attend a meeting and ask any random member to tell you the first 10 amendments [The Bill of Rights] to the US Constitution during the open comments/questions from the public portion of the meeting. I find that 90% of the time they cannot. At least not without trying to use a web-phone or a laptop to get the answers. SAD..
 

Attachments

  • billofrights.pdf
    72.6 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
ok, so here is the latest after i requested an update, this is from lori bluhm troy city attorney:

We were hoping to get the proposed comprehensive amendments to chapter 8, disaster control, on this next agenda. However, there were a few other intervening and pressing matters. Chapter 98 does not need to be amended. It is our goal to have this as an informational item for the March 20 agenda, then voted on at the next meeting. In the meantime, we are aware of the state law provisions should it be necessary to use chapter 8.

My response:

So in regards to Chapter 98.13.03 and 04, is Troy somehow exempt from the following?:
123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Sec. 2. A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]pertaining to, or[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial, sans-serif]Unless I missed something, the state law does not have a clause that says that a local unit of government cannot enact a regulation, but it's ok if it mirrors existing state law. The state already regulates all aspects covered in chapter 98 with the exception of firearms discharge which is relegated to municipalities[FONT=arial, sans-serif].[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
Her response:
[/FONT]We will present our analysis as part of the March 20, 2012 city council meeting agenda.
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
here is the full text of the offending section that the attorney says does not need modified:

98.13.01 Transport or Possess Firearms.
No person shall transport or possess a firearm in a vehicle unless the firearm is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and carried in the luggage compartment of the vehicle. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $500, or both.
Exception. This section does not apply to persons authorized by federal or state law to transport or possess firearms.
98.13.02 Firearms in Public.
No person shall carry a firearm in any public place unless it is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and in a case. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $500, or both.
Exception. This section does not apply to persons authorized by federal or state law to carry firearms.
98.13.03 Person Under 18 - Purchase Firearms.
No person under 18 years of age shall purchase, carry or transport a firearm in any public place. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $500, or both.
98.13.04 Sell Firearms to Person Under 18.
No person shall sell a firearm to any person under 18 years of age. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $500, or both.
98.13.05 Discharge of Firearms.
No person shall discharge any firearm or bow and arrow in the City. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $500, or both.
Exception. This section does not apply to persons lawfully acting in the defense of persons or property or the enforcement of law or at an established range that has been approved by the Troy City Council.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
at least they are getting to it, but it sounds like the woman who emailed you didnt want to deal with the whole thing and pass it off. I like her short follow to your reply quoting preemption, hopefully that changed her mind about addressing everything that needs to be addressed.

Thanks for the updates
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
In regards to the ordinances that prohibit certain activities unless "authorized" by state law, it is in the best interest of the city to NOT make any changes. The reason for this is that, although the behavior is already covered under state law, the city would not be able to receive any money from the fines involved for a violation. That is why cities typically have many ordinances that seem to be already covered under state law in their ordinances; it is a necessity if the city wants to get "their piece of the pie". The city is definitely exceeding their lawful authority in regards to the "state of emergency" ordinance, though. Remember, too, that local units of government may prohibit the discharge of firearms under the preemption statute.

see MCL 123.1104,
Prohibiting discharge of pistol or other firearm.Sec. 4.
This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearm within the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.




 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
yes, i understand that discharge is allowed to be regulated by cities, however, purchase and/or sale to/by those under 18 is not

I thought purchase/possession by people under age 18 was regulated by the state and Feds, and could therefore be regulated by the city:

MCL123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2. A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state..
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
hmmm, i see where you're going with that. i guess i was thinking of that as NOT allowing regulation, but perhaps it IS.
i guess more of this is needed :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
These people are COCKROACHES :(

hmmm, i see where you're going with that. i guess i was thinking of that as NOT allowing regulation, but perhaps it IS.
i guess more of this is needed :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

SML - This is the sort of crap many municipalities try, fain interest in addressing something, then oh, once we have time, then well we will change some of it, then F.U. we don't have to do anything! {Which under state law they do not, sadly} or worse yet they can change the verbiage to be even more confusing or misleading to the public, like my town did after stalling for six months.

These people are COCKROACHES in my honest opinion they will scramble for the shadows once a spotlight is turned on them, but the second the light is off they scurry back to their comfortable positions prior to you (a little "common man" in their narrow minds) dared to question their authority. So it appears you and other patriots will have to force them via media attention to deal with this. I caution you here though if this is your hometown, as you will undoubtedly be targeted by them. You know what I'm talking about here I'm sure of.

Take care and keep up the good fight. - G9OS
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Mcl 123.1103

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1103

123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.

Sec. 3.

This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

As someone already mentioned, if a person is found to be violating State Law this ordinance lets the city hit them up with violating the city ordinance as well -- so the city can get their fine.
 

Onnie

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Maybee, Michigan
In the words of the erudite philosopher Puff Daddy, "It's all about the Benjamins".

yep and also if one day the state drops the preemption MCL and steps back in to the dark ages, those who kept the unenforceable laws on the book, are one step ahead of those who took them off
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1103



As someone already mentioned, if a person is found to be violating State Law this ordinance lets the city hit them up with violating the city ordinance as well -- so the city can get their fine.

Just for my own clarity:

So, their unenforceable ordinance still applies only if the person is also in violation of state law?

Or is it, they can enforce the "discharge" ordinance if the person is found to be in violation?

Thanks for trying to get this through my thick skull.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Discharge ordinances are not preempted. Any ordinance related to possession, transport, and sales are -- except they can be enforced if the person also violates a corresponding state law.

Read MCL 124.1101-1103 -- the language is pretty straight forward.
 
Last edited:
Top