Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: This is where we currently stand in South Haven

  1. #1
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Note below is the report on the AD at the SH Picnic as well as the proposed ordinance amendments.

    Also note the last document is a resolution calling for the legislature to give the city back the ability to ban firearms from public places.

    Note this is all proposals at this time and will be discussed at the Nov 2nd meeting @7:00 PM

    I know this is long but please read the whole thing before you comment....


    This came from here http://www.south-haven.com/csh%20fol...l%20Agenda.pdf






    Background Information:


    As part of the report provided to City Council in the October 19, 2009 agenda packet, it was


    noted by staff that the city’s adopted ordinances may require amendment, so as to comply


    with state law. For tonight’s meeting, staff is requesting the City Council consider taking


    action to amend two existing ordinances.


    At the October 19, 2009 regular meeting of the City Council, council received a staff report


    which related to the “Open Carry” picnic, which was held in South Haven and advocated for


    gun owner’s rights. As part of the report, it was noted by staff that the city’s adopted


    ordinances may require amendment, so as to comply with state law. Within the report staff


    notes that the City of South Haven has received complaints that existing ordinances violate


    adopted state law and should be amended to comply with the State of Michigan. The


    ordinances are Section 18.34 and Section 58.83; which address individuals carrying or


    using firearms within the city’s cemetery or within any of the city’s parks. An opinion was


    sought from the city’s attorney regarding the ordinances and the city’s right to regulate


    firearms within designated areas. Attorney Scott G. Smith references MCLA (Michigan


    Complied Laws Annotated) 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 which states, “Section 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.” This position was bolstered by


    Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale in which the court ruled


    that the City of Ferndale could not establish certain prohibited areas wherein concealed


    weapons permit holders could not carry (if such area was not already designated by state


    statute). MCLA 28.425 specifically lists “no gun zones” in statute, city buildings and city


    parks or cemeteries are not included in the “no gun zones”.


    Staff has requested assistance from our local state representative, in acquiring an Attorney


    General’s opinion on this issue. Rep. Schuitmaker was contacted regarding this issue. Rep.


    Schuitmaker, although currently a member of the state house of representatives, is also a


    licensed attorney in the State of Michigan. Aside from researching the issue herself, she did


    make contact with the Attorney General, and they both concluded, absent a formal opinion,


    that MCLA 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 is controlling on this issue. In essence, the City


    Ordinances/Codes are in violation of state statute and invalid.


    Therefore, it is my recommendation that Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,


    Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 be amended to strike the “carry or use of any


    firearm” in those selected locations as a matter of law.


    City Council Agenda


    Manager’s Report


    November 2, 2009


    Clearly, the State of Michigan, through its elected representatives, has decided that local


    regulations concerning both “concealed carry” and “open carry” as it related to “no gun


    zones” is within their purview alone, and not subject to local control or option.


    Additionally, as staff has updated the City Council on the proposed amendments to the


    referenced ordinances, it was noted by both council and staff members that Section 58.83


    contains restrictive language related to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Based


    on those observations, the proposed ordinance amendment strikes the prohibitions on


    speech and assembly from the updated document.


    Finally, staff has noted in various reports to the City Council that the City of South Haven


    lacks the authority to restrict possession of firearms on property owned by the city. As a


    result, the following ordinances amendments are put forth for consideration. In addition to


    the ordinance amendments, staff has prepared the attached resolution, which encourages


    the Legislature for the State of Michigan to consider enacting legislation which grants


    authority to municipal corporations to restrict possession of firearms on property owned by


    the municipality.


    Recommendation:


    The city’s staff recommends that the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,


    Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 (parks) be introduced as presented, to allow


    an amendment which shall strike the “carry or use of any firearm” in those selected locations


    as a matter of law.


    The city’s staff recommends that the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,


    Section 58.83 (parks) be introduced as presented, to allow an amendment which shall strike


    the “Speak publicly or deliver oration, address, speech, sermon or lecture,” and “Hold or


    participate in any public function other than those conducted by the city” so as to fully


    comply with freedom of speech and assembly rights.


    Further, the city’s staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution


    2009-65: A Resolution urging the Legislature for the State of Michigan to enact legislation


    allowing municipal corporations to restrict the possession of firearms on property owned by


    municipal corporations.


    Thank you for your time and attention.


    Support Material:


    CPL Report


    Clark Hill Firearms Memo


    Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Section 18-34


    Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Section 58-83


    Proposed Resolution


    City Council Agenda


    Manager’s Report


    November 2, 2009


    Date: October 13, 2009


    To: City Manager Brian Dissette


    From: Chief Rod A. Somerlott


    Re: Review of Open Carry Picnic and pertinent City Code Issues


    As you are aware Open Carry of Michigan held a picnic near the South Beach (the


    pavilion near the South Beach Restrooms) on Sunday, September 13, 2009. This event


    was scheduled to run from approximately 1:00PM until 4:00PM. The organizers


    indicated that this was merely to attempt to educate the public regarding citizen’s right to


    keep and bear arms. More importantly, that under color of law, a citizen may “openly”


    carry a firearm within the State of Michigan except for designated areas as declared in


    statute by the Michigan Legislature.


    This event went on without much fanfare. A reasonable sized group attended the picnic,


    most of which were openly carrying firearms. At the conclusion of the picnic, a number


    of attendees had parked their vehicles in the South Beach Parking area. Their vehicles


    were co-mingled with the usual beach going public enjoying the South Beach on a warm


    afternoon. At approximately 4:26PM, the South Haven Dispatch Center received reports


    of shots being fired on the South Beach. The on duty officers immediately responded to


    the location, in addition to the arriving oncoming shift officers whom also responded to


    the report. As soon as proper information was gathered, a radio message was sent


    regarding the suspect vehicle, direction of travel, and that it was occupied by more than


    one individual. Several officers remained at South Beach to process the scene, while


    other officers were alerted and attempting to locate the suspect vehicle.


    The suspect vehicle was located on LeGrange Street, near the old Movie Outpost


    business, and was subsequently stopped in that parking lot. The vehicle was occupied by


    four individuals. All four were questioned and gave permission for our officers to inspect


    their firearms.


    These individuals had all attended the Open Carry Picnic at South Beach. One of the


    individuals, Jonathan Wayne Sager, indicated that he is the one that had the “accidental”


    discharge of his firearm. Mr. Sager advised the officers that after attending the Open


    Carry picnic, he and his friends were returning to their parked vehicle (spot #24 on South


    Beach) wherein each of his friends unloaded their respective weapons one at a time and


    secured them in the appropriate weapons box in the back of their vehicle (a pickup truck).


    Mr. Sager advise he was the last to unload (each subject unloaded their weapon, one by


    one) and after removing the magazine, he attempted to pull back the slide to remove the


    ammunition from the breech, when the firearm discharged. He was able to secure the


    weapon and then they attempted to locate the police department to report the incident.


    First of all, the individuals did not have concealed pistol permits and entering a vehicle


    and leaving the south beach while still “carrying” a firearm, would have subjected them


    to criminal prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Therefore, the


    logic in unloading and securing the weapons was well conceived, the execution of such a


    plan was not. Secondly, the weapon, a Springfield XD handgun, upon inspection was


    found to be in sound working order. The weapon itself contains an internal safety that


    will not allow a discharge to occur without someone depressing the trigger to a firing


    position. Mr. Sager was allowed to leave of his own accord and his weapon was returned


    to him. The report was forwarded to the Van Buren County Prosecutor’s Office where a


    warrant was authorized for one count of Reckless Use of a Firearm (a misdemeanor). Mr.


    Sager turned himself into the court and was arraigned on the charge.


    Prior to all of this occurring, the City was put on notice concerning to City Codes that


    were thought to be in violation of current law. The ordinances Section 18.34 and Section


    58.83, speak to individuals carrying or using firearms in the city cemetery or in any city


    park. A legal opinion was requested from City Attorney Manning. In his opinion, he felt


    that the State of Michigan “grants municipalities the right to enact and enforce ordinances


    and regulations relative to the management and control of municipal property; this


    includes the discharge and use of firearms, including pistols, and may regulate “open


    carry” or “plain sight displays” of firearms, including pistols, in other public areas,


    including their own property.” In that statement, Attorney Manning concludes that the


    City can regulate “open carry”, but, cannot regulate those who have received a Concealed


    Pistol License (CPL). Therefore if a person is carrying a firearm in the cemetery or park,


    openly, without a Concealed Pistol License they would be subject to prosecution under


    our existing ordinance.


    Corporate Council Scott Smith’s view of the code/ordinances is strikingly opposite of


    Attorney Manning. Smith relies on MCLA (Michigan Complied Laws Annotated)


    123.1101, which states, “Section 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.” This position was bolstered by Michigan Coalition for Responsible


    Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale, 256 App 401 (2003), in which the court ruled that the


    City of Ferndale could not establish certain prohibited areas wherein CPL holders could


    not carry (if such area was not already designated by state statute). MCLA 28.425o


    specifically lists “no gun zones” in statute, city buildings and city parks or cemeteries are


    not included in the “no gun zones”. Further, as previously stated (MCLA 123.1101, et


    seq, subsection 2), the legislature made it very clear in the passing of that statute that


    City’s cannot regulate the carry of firearms, only the state can do that.


    Although Manning’s argument is clearly on an “open carry” issue, Smith’s argument, as


    backed up by further research, is that both “concealed carry “and “open carry” are


    regulated by state statute, not local ordinance. Although the question to the Attorney


    General was clearly on the “open carry” issue, the request must be made through our


    local legislator. Rep. Schuitmaker was contacted regarding this issue. Rep. Schuitmaker,


    although currently a member of the state house of representatives, is also a licensed


    attorney in the state of Michigan. Aside from researching the issue herself, she did make


    contact with the Attorney General, and they both concluded, absent a formal opinion, that


    MCLA 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 is controlling on this issue. In essence, the City


    Ordinances/Codes are in violation of state statute and invalid.


    Therefore, it is my recommendation that Code of Ordinances for the City of South


    Haven, Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 be amended to strike the “carry or


    use of any firearm” in those selected locations as a matter of law.


    Clearly, the State of Michigan, through its elected representatives, has decided that local


    regulations concerning both “concealed carry” and “open carry” as it related to “no gun


    zones” is within their purview alone, and not subject to local control or option.


    Attachments


    LEAF Newsletter


    SHPD Comp # 1913-09


    CONFIDENTIAL


    MEMORANDUM


    5927502.1
    26369/105143


    TO:
    Mr. Brian Dissette


    City Manager


    City of South Haven


    FROM:
    Scott G. Smith


    Kenneth P. Lane


    DATE:
    July 9, 2009


    SUBJECT:
    Carrying of firearms in City parks and cemeteries


    Background


    Residents and others have recently contacted the City suggesting that two sections of the City’s code of


    ordinances impose an improper restriction on the carrying and possession of firearms in violation of state


    law. City ordinance Section 58-83(3) prohibits the carrying or use of any firearm in any City park.
    1 City


    ordinance Section 18-34 prohibits the possession of any firearm in any City cemetery.
    2 Accordingly, the


    question has become: does state law preempt the City from prohibiting the carrying or possessing of


    firearms in City parks and cemeteries?


    Analysis


    With limited exception,
    3 Michigan law prohibits a local unit of government4 from regulating by local


    ordinance the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation or possession of pistols or


    other firearms.
    5 Michigan courts have interpreted this prohibition to mean that only the state has the


    authority to regulate the possession of firearms.
    6 “Possession” has been defined to include open7 and


    concealed carrying.
    8


    Michigan law requires an individual to obtain a license to possess and carry a pistol.
    9 Once the pistol is


    licensed, an individual may openly
    10 carry it anywhere in the state, except in those areas expressly


    1
    Code of Ordinances, City of South Haven, Michigan, Section 58-83(3).


    2
    Code of Ordinances, City of South Haven, Michigan, Section 18-34.


    3
    Exceptions include: 1) prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law;


    e.g.
    , possession without a license, possession with the intent to commit a criminal act, possession by a minor, or the


    “brandishing” of a firearm (“brandishing is defined as waving or flourishing a weapon in a menacing manner,
    See, Mich OAG


    7101, 2002); 2) prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying or possession of pistols or firearms by City employees; and


    3) prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or firearm (City Ordinance Section 54-181 prohibits the discharging of firearms within the


    City). MCL 123.1103, MCL 123.1104.


    4
    A city, village, township or county. MCL 123.1101.


    5
    MCL 123.1102.


    6
    Subject to the exceptions listed above. See, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v Ferndale, 256 Mich App 401,


    418 (2003).


    7
    “Open carrying” is recognized as within a holster that is in plain view. Mich OAG, No. 7113, 2002.


    8
    People v Womack, 2009 Mich App LEXIS 158, citing, People v Green, 260 Mich App 392 (2004), Mich OAG, No. 7113, 2002,


    Mich OAG 7101, 2002.


    9
    MCL 28.442. A “pistol” is defined as a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 30 inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded


    firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm. MCL 28.421(e). A “firearm” is defined as a weapon


    from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air, excluding a rifle or handgun designed and


    manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BB’s not exceeding .177 caliber. MCL 28.421(b).


    10
    Again, it is important to note that “open carrying” is recognized as within a holster that is in plain view. Mich OAG, No. 7113,


    2002.


    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    PAGE 2


    5927502.1
    26369/105143


    prohibited by state law.
    11 Additionally, an individual may obtain a separate license to carry a pistol


    concealed on their person anywhere in the state, except in those areas expressly prohibited by state law.
    12


    City parks, cemeteries and buildings are not recognized as prohibited areas.


    An individual without a license may not legally possess or carry a pistol.
    13


    Conclusion


    With limited exception, Michigan law preempts the City from regulating the carrying or possession of


    pistols and other firearms. Michigan law permits an individual to openly carry a licensed pistol on City


    property. Additionally, Michigan law permits a licensed individual to carry a pistol concealed on their


    person on City property. As such, state law does preclude the City from enforcing Ordinance Sections


    58-83(3) and 18-34 against individual who have obtained the required license. However, both sections


    may be enforced against individuals carrying a pistol in a City park or cemetery without the required


    license. Both sections can be modified to comply with state law by including the phrase “except as


    otherwise permitted by law”. We would be happy to assist you with the formal amendment of both


    sections upon your request.


    11
    MCL 28.442. Prohibited areas are: banks, churches or other houses of worship, courts, theatres, schools and day care centers,


    sports arenas or stadiums, bars or taverns, and hospitals. MCL 750.234d.


    12
    MCL 28.425c(2). Prohibited areas are: schools, day care centers, sports arenas or stadiums, bars or taverns, religious facilities


    owned or operated by a religious entity, entertainment facilities, hospitals, and college buildings. MCL 28.425o.


    13
    MCL 28.422, MCL 28.422a, MCL 750.227, MCL 750.234d(2)(c).


    CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN


    VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN


    ORDINANCE NO. ____


    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-34 OF THE


    CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN CODE OF ORDINANCES


    WHEREAS, the Michigan Legislature has adopted MCLA 123.1102, which prohibits a


    municipality from enacting or enforcing 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.


    THEREFORE, The City of South Haven Ordains:


    SECTION 1


    That Section 18-34 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven is hereby amended


    to read as follows:


    Sec. 18-34. Enumeration of forbidden acts.


    Within the cemetery, no person shall loiter, litter, use profane language, bring in or


    consume any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance, peddle or solicit the sale of any


    commodity unconnected to cemetery usage, place signs or notices, allow animals to run at


    large or otherwise beyond his control, or engage in any play or recreational activity.


    SECTION 2


    If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the


    validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.


    SECTION 3


    Any ordinance or part thereof in conflict with the provision of this ordinance is hereby repealed


    to the extent of such conflict.


    SECTION 4


    The effective date of this ordinance shall not be earlier than ten (10) days after enactment and


    not before publication in the
    South Haven Tribune.


    INTRODUCED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____


    day of _____________, 2009.


    ADOPTED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____ day of


    _______________, 2009.


    Ordinance No. ____


    -1-


    Ordinance No. ____


    -2-


    Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor


    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk


    CERTIFICATION


    I, Amanda Morgan, Clerk of the City of South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan do hereby


    certify that the above Ordinance was adopted by the South Haven City Council on the ___ day


    of ______, 2009; and the same was published in a paper of general circulation in the City, being


    the
    South Haven Tribune, on the ___ day of _____________, 2009.


    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk


    CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN


    VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN


    ORDINANCE NO. ____


    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 58-83 OF THE


    CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN CODE OF ORDINANCES


    WHEREAS, the Michigan Legislature has adopted MCLA 123.1102, which prohibits a


    municipality from enacting or enforcing 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.


    THEREFORE, The City of South Haven Ordains:


    SECTION 1


    That Section 58-83 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven is hereby amended


    to read as follows:


    Sec. 58-83. Prohibited activities.


    No person or organization shall do any of the following activities in a park without the written


    consent of the city manager. The person or organization may appeal the city manager’s


    decision to the city council should they feel the need to do so.


    (1) Carry or use air rifles or slingshots or discharge any fireworks or explosive devices of any


    nature.


    (2) Erect any structure.


    (3) Canvass, advertise, solicit, vend or rent any service, merchandise or object of any kind,


    except as allowed by City Ordinance Section 14-44.1, et seq.


    (4) For any gatherings in excess of 500 people, chapter 42 of this Code shall apply.


    (5) Consume or have in their possession, in an open or closed container, any vinous; malt,


    brewed, fermented, spirituous, or alcoholic liquors.


    SECTION 2


    If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the


    validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.


    SECTION 3


    Any ordinance or part thereof in conflict with the provision of this ordinance is hereby repealed


    to the extent of such conflict.


    SECTION 4


    Ordinance No. ____


    -1-


    Ordinance No. ____


    -2-


    The effective date of this ordinance shall not be earlier than ten (10) days after enactment and


    not before publication in the
    South Haven Tribune.


    INTRODUCED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____


    day of _____________, 2009.


    ADOPTED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____ day of


    _______________, 2009.


    Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor


    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk


    CERTIFICATION


    I, Amanda Morgan, Clerk of the City of South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan do hereby


    certify that the above Ordinance was adopted by the South Haven City Council on the ___ day


    of ______, 2009; and the same was published in a paper of general circulation in the City, being


    the
    South Haven Tribune, on the ___ day of _____________, 2009.


    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk


    CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN


    VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN


    RESOLUTION NO. 2009-65


    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CONTROL OVER FIREARMS


    ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PROPERTY


    Minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South Haven, Van Buren


    and Allegan Counties, Michigan, held in the City Hall, 539 Phoenix Street, South Haven,


    Michigan 49090 on November, 2, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. local time.


    PRESENT:


    ABSENT:


    The following preamble and resolution was offered by Member and


    supported by Member .


    WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Michigan has enacted the Firearms and Ammunition


    Act, Act 319 of 1990, relating to firearms and ammunition; and,


    WHEREAS, the Act removes local control over the carrying of firearms on property owned by


    municipal corporations; and,


    WHEREAS, property owned by municipal corporations includes areas not generally open to the


    public such as utility facilities, administrative offices and public safety facilities where security is


    important; and,


    WHEREAS, property owned by municipal corporations includes areas such as parks and


    recreation facilities which are typically governed by park rules and may have high


    concentrations of people in small areas; and,


    WHEREAS, private individuals and corporations are allowed to restrict the use and possession


    of firearms on private property; and,


    WHEREAS, the law creates a disparity between the rights of municipal corporations and the


    rights of private individuals and corporations; and,


    WHEREAS, Open Carry advocates have become increasingly more active; and,


    WHEREAS, at a recent Open Carry Picnic on a public beach in South Haven, one of the


    advocates had an accidental discharge of his weapon in a public place that was occupied by


    numerous people not associated with the Open Carry Picnic; and,


    WHEREAS, there are no training or marksmanship requirements for Open Carry; and,


    WHEREAS, local units of government desire to protect officials and employees from assault


    with firearms; and,


    Resolution 2009-65


    - 1 -


    Resolution 2009-65


    - 2 -


    WHEREAS, local units of government find it extremely difficult to protect their citizenry because


    of the restrictions in the Firearms and Ammunition Act, and,


    WHEREAS, the ability to restrict possession of firearms in certain areas should be restored to


    local units of government.


    BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of South Haven believes that it is in the


    public interest that a municipal corporation have the authority to restrict possession of firearms


    on property owned by the municipal corporation.


    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council urges the Legislature for the State of


    Michigan to enact legislation allowing municipal corporations to restrict the possession of


    firearms on property owned by municipal corporations.


    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect upon passage by the City


    Council.


    RECORD OF VOTE:


    Yeas:


    Nays:


    RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.


    Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor


    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk


    CERTIFICATION


    I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the


    City Council at a meeting held on the ____ day of _________, 2009, at which meeting a quorum


    was present, and that this resolution was ordered to take immediate effect. Public notice of said


    meeting was given pursuant to and in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Act No. 167 of


    the Public Acts of Michigan 1976 (MCL 15.261
    et seq).

    Amanda Morgan, City Clerk




    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    That is an extremely uppity town. I'd expect nothing less from them than calling for a new law to satisfy them.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    So, this proposal to outlaw firearms...the only way that could get it to pass would be to have THE STATE make the change, correct? I obviously see what they are trying to accomplish here, but how are they planning on getting the state to change it? Maybe it was in this document, but I failed to see it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    The resolution at the end askes for the state to basically rescind premption....



    And yes they are uppity ....
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  5. #5
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    I'd like to think this attempt is going to fall on deaf ears, considering the passage of preemption years ago, and the continued acceptance of every other municipality and unit of government to this point, including Warren, but it's going to fall on our shoulders to be sure it falls on deaf ears. Talk about gall.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    I agree Taurus and that is why I posted this here so that everyone knows what is going on...
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    And yes they are uppity ....
    In my experiences on the Michigander going through that city, I have taken my fair share of crap off them, and then some. They seem to really, really, really enjoy pushing people around. They wouldn't allow markers on the street, so people got lost in droves. They warned us we could get tickets if too many riders were in one area at once. They seemed to get off on this.

    The one time they can't push people around, they want to change state law so they can. It is really hard to describe my feelings on the city and many of the people in it without a lot of curse words. They have gone out of their way to piss me off in the past, and now they've done it again.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  8. #8
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post


    Sager sure is helping them....

  9. #9
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Yep Doug unfortunately he is... but they might have done this anyway.... libs tend to think this way anyhow...
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hartford, MI, ,
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Wow.

    RAAAGGGEE.

    I can't believe they're trying to get away with this.

    We need to picket city hall immediately.

    -Richard-

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    They wouldn't allow markers on the street, so people got lost in droves. They warned us we could get tickets if too many riders were in one area at once. They seemed to get off on this.
    What are markers?

    And was it South Haven or Grand Haven were that one OCer won the lawsuit (something to do with a Coast Guard Festival)?

  12. #12
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    I would imagine painted arrows... I have seen them other places when the tour comes through. They are small and wear off quickly.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  13. #13
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    They wouldn't allow markers on the street, so people got lost in droves. They warned us we could get tickets if too many riders were in one area at once. They seemed to get off on this.
    What are markers?

    And was it South Haven or Grand Haven were that one OCer won the lawsuit (something to do with a Coast Guard Festival)?
    it was Grand Haven and the suit is still pending....

  14. #14
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Painted arrows, signs with poles temporarily in the dirt, or signs temporarily duct taped or stapled to poles. That's what they mark the route with.

    As for whether it's south haven or Grand Haven, I have suddenly realized I've been getting the 2 mixed up, so thank you for pointing that out. :what:

    They're both on the water, and they're both stuck up resort towns, right? Basically the northern LP's answer to gross point?

    At this point I'm going to take a guess that I was remembering wrong and meant grand haven, but I'm not sure. :?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    They're both on the water, and they're both stuck up resort towns, right? Basically the northern LP's answer to gross point?
    Acctually South Haven is in the southern LP, and Grand Haven is in the middle LP.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I've been to both, but it's been like 4 years since I went to either. :?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    MOC IT / Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    i have been to south haven several times this year and oc'ed without problems... hmm....

  18. #18
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    viperar15 wrote:
    i have been to south haven several times this year and oc'ed without problems... hmm....
    They know it's legal... they just don't like it and the Sager AD didn't help.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Post imported post

    Ps. When the wife and i ride the motorcycle i OC everywhere, and i am Positive that i have been thru both of those towns Oc and have not had a problem. I have yet to get pulled over OCing on the motorcycle.

    Maybe they don't see us, or the firearm is NOT visual enough ?

    Venator should i paint the firearm Fluorescent yellow ?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    mastiff69 wrote:
    Ps. When the wife and i ride the motorcycle i OC everywhere, and i am Positive that i have been thru both of those towns Oc and have not had a problem. I have yet to get pulled over OCing on the motorcycle.

    Maybe they don't see us, or the firearm is NOT visual enough ?

    Venator should i paint the firearm Fluorescent yellow ?
    Just OC an AK-47 next time you ride through (as long as it is registered as a handgun)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Post imported post

    Makes me want to OC all 3 of my pistols at the same time in front of their City Hall. **********.

  22. #22
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Get in on video

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bangor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    They're both on the water, and they're both stuck up resort towns, right? Basically the northern LP's answer to gross point?
    Acctually South Haven is in the southern LP, and Grand Haven is in the middle LP.
    I have worked in South Haven for the last 22 years. I don't live there.

    I, too feel like they are stuck up, not very friendly to industry. Until recently, their attitude towards firearms didn't mean much to me, but now, I have begun OCing on occasion.

    I don't really do much in that town, beside work, and I can't carry at work yet, so usually it's in the truck.

Posting Permissions

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