• 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.

This is where we currently stand in South Haven

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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:cuss:.

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%20folder/csh/PDFs/Council%20Agendas%20PDF/Agendas2009/11-02-09%20Council%20Agenda.pdf






[align=left]Background Information:[/align]

[align=left]As part of the report provided to City Council in the October 19, 2009 agenda packet, it was[/align]

[align=left]noted by staff that the city’s adopted ordinances may require amendment, so as to comply[/align]

[align=left]with state law. For tonight’s meeting, staff is requesting the City Council consider taking[/align]

[align=left]action to amend two existing ordinances.[/align]

[align=left]At the October 19, 2009 regular meeting of the City Council, council received a staff report[/align]

[align=left]which related to the “Open Carry” picnic, which was held in South Haven and advocated for[/align]

[align=left]gun owner’s rights. As part of the report, it was noted by staff that the city’s adopted[/align]

[align=left]ordinances may require amendment, so as to comply with state law. Within the report staff[/align]

[align=left]notes that the City of South Haven has received complaints that existing ordinances violate[/align]

[align=left]adopted state law and should be amended to comply with the State of Michigan. The[/align]

[align=left]ordinances are Section 18.34 and Section 58.83; which address individuals carrying or[/align]

[align=left]using firearms within the city’s cemetery or within any of the city’s parks. An opinion was[/align]

[align=left]sought from the city’s attorney regarding the ordinances and the city’s right to regulate[/align]

[align=left]firearms within designated areas. Attorney Scott G. Smith references MCLA (Michigan[/align]

[align=left]Complied Laws Annotated) 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 which states, “Section 2. A local[/align]

[align=left]unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or[/align]

[align=left]regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration,[/align]

[align=left]purchase, sale, transfer, transportation or possession of pistols or other firearms,[/align]

[align=left]ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except[/align]

[align=left]as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.” This position was bolstered by[/align]

[align=left]Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale in which the court ruled[/align]

[align=left]that the City of Ferndale could not establish certain prohibited areas wherein concealed[/align]

[align=left]weapons permit holders could not carry (if such area was not already designated by state[/align]

[align=left]statute). MCLA 28.425 specifically lists “no gun zones” in statute, city buildings and city[/align]

[align=left]parks or cemeteries are not included in the “no gun zones”.[/align]

[align=left]Staff has requested assistance from our local state representative, in acquiring an Attorney[/align]

[align=left]General’s opinion on this issue. Rep. Schuitmaker was contacted regarding this issue. Rep.[/align]

[align=left]Schuitmaker, although currently a member of the state house of representatives, is also a[/align]

[align=left]licensed attorney in the State of Michigan. Aside from researching the issue herself, she did[/align]

[align=left]make contact with the Attorney General, and they both concluded, absent a formal opinion,[/align]

[align=left]that MCLA 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 is controlling on this issue. In essence, the City[/align]

[align=left]Ordinances/Codes are in violation of state statute and invalid.[/align]

[align=left]Therefore, it is my recommendation that Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,[/align]

[align=left]Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 be amended to strike the “carry or use of any[/align]

[align=left]firearm” in those selected locations as a matter of law.[/align]


[align=left]City Council Agenda[/align]

[align=left]Manager’s Report[/align]

[align=left]November 2, 2009[/align]


[align=left]Clearly, the State of Michigan, through its elected representatives, has decided that local[/align]

[align=left]regulations concerning both “concealed carry” and “open carry” as it related to “no gun[/align]

[align=left]zones” is within their purview alone, and not subject to local control or option.[/align]

[align=left]Additionally, as staff has updated the City Council on the proposed amendments to the[/align]

[align=left]referenced ordinances, it was noted by both council and staff members that Section 58.83[/align]

[align=left]contains restrictive language related to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Based[/align]

[align=left]on those observations, the proposed ordinance amendment strikes the prohibitions on[/align]

[align=left]speech and assembly from the updated document.[/align]

[align=left]Finally, staff has noted in various reports to the City Council that the City of South Haven[/align]

[align=left]lacks the authority to restrict possession of firearms on property owned by the city. As a[/align]

[align=left]result, the following ordinances amendments are put forth for consideration. In addition to[/align]

[align=left]the ordinance amendments, staff has prepared the attached resolution, which encourages[/align]

[align=left]the Legislature for the State of Michigan to consider enacting legislation which grants[/align]

[align=left]authority to municipal corporations to restrict possession of firearms on property owned by[/align]

[align=left]the municipality.[/align]

[align=left]Recommendation:[/align]

[align=left]The city’s staff recommends that the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,[/align]

[align=left]Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 (parks) be introduced as presented, to allow[/align]

[align=left]an amendment which shall strike the “carry or use of any firearm” in those selected locations[/align]

[align=left]as a matter of law.[/align]

[align=left]The city’s staff recommends that the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven,[/align]

[align=left]Section 58.83 (parks) be introduced as presented, to allow an amendment which shall strike[/align]

[align=left]the “Speak publicly or deliver oration, address, speech, sermon or lecture,” and “Hold or[/align]

[align=left]participate in any public function other than those conducted by the city” so as to fully[/align]

[align=left]comply with freedom of speech and assembly rights.[/align]

[align=left]Further, the city’s staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution[/align]

[align=left]2009-65: A Resolution urging the Legislature for the State of Michigan to enact legislation[/align]

[align=left]allowing municipal corporations to restrict the possession of firearms on property owned by[/align]

[align=left]municipal corporations.[/align]

[align=left]Thank you for your time and attention.[/align]

[align=left]Support Material:[/align]

[align=left]CPL Report[/align]

[align=left]Clark Hill Firearms Memo[/align]

[align=left]Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Section 18-34[/align]

[align=left]Proposed Ordinance Amendment: Section 58-83[/align]

[align=left]Proposed Resolution[/align]


[align=left]City Council Agenda[/align]

[align=left]Manager’s Report[/align]

[align=left]November 2, 2009[/align]


[align=left]Date: October 13, 2009[/align]

[align=left]To: City Manager Brian Dissette[/align]

[align=left]From: Chief Rod A. Somerlott[/align]

[align=left]Re: Review of Open Carry Picnic and pertinent City Code Issues[/align]

[align=left]As you are aware Open Carry of Michigan held a picnic near the South Beach (the[/align]

[align=left]pavilion near the South Beach Restrooms) on Sunday, September 13, 2009. This event[/align]

[align=left]was scheduled to run from approximately 1:00PM until 4:00PM. The organizers[/align]

[align=left]indicated that this was merely to attempt to educate the public regarding citizen’s right to[/align]

[align=left]keep and bear arms. More importantly, that under color of law, a citizen may “openly”[/align]

[align=left]carry a firearm within the State of Michigan except for designated areas as declared in[/align]

[align=left]statute by the Michigan Legislature.[/align]

[align=left]This event went on without much fanfare. A reasonable sized group attended the picnic,[/align]

[align=left]most of which were openly carrying firearms. At the conclusion of the picnic, a number[/align]

[align=left]of attendees had parked their vehicles in the South Beach Parking area. Their vehicles[/align]

[align=left]were co-mingled with the usual beach going public enjoying the South Beach on a warm[/align]

[align=left]afternoon. At approximately 4:26PM, the South Haven Dispatch Center received reports[/align]

[align=left]of shots being fired on the South Beach. The on duty officers immediately responded to[/align]

[align=left]the location, in addition to the arriving oncoming shift officers whom also responded to[/align]

[align=left]the report. As soon as proper information was gathered, a radio message was sent[/align]

[align=left]regarding the suspect vehicle, direction of travel, and that it was occupied by more than[/align]

[align=left]one individual. Several officers remained at South Beach to process the scene, while[/align]

[align=left]other officers were alerted and attempting to locate the suspect vehicle.[/align]

[align=left]The suspect vehicle was located on LeGrange Street, near the old Movie Outpost[/align]

[align=left]business, and was subsequently stopped in that parking lot. The vehicle was occupied by[/align]

[align=left]four individuals. All four were questioned and gave permission for our officers to inspect[/align]

[align=left]their firearms.[/align]

[align=left]These individuals had all attended the Open Carry Picnic at South Beach. One of the[/align]

[align=left]individuals, Jonathan Wayne Sager, indicated that he is the one that had the “accidental”[/align]

[align=left]discharge of his firearm. Mr. Sager advised the officers that after attending the Open[/align]

[align=left]Carry picnic, he and his friends were returning to their parked vehicle (spot #24 on South[/align]

[align=left]Beach) wherein each of his friends unloaded their respective weapons one at a time and[/align]

[align=left]secured them in the appropriate weapons box in the back of their vehicle (a pickup truck).[/align]

[align=left]Mr. Sager advise he was the last to unload (each subject unloaded their weapon, one by[/align]

[align=left]one) and after removing the magazine, he attempted to pull back the slide to remove the[/align]

[align=left]ammunition from the breech, when the firearm discharged. He was able to secure the[/align]

[align=left]weapon and then they attempted to locate the police department to report the incident.[/align]

[align=left]First of all, the individuals did not have concealed pistol permits and entering a vehicle[/align]

[align=left]and leaving the south beach while still “carrying” a firearm, would have subjected them[/align]

[align=left]to criminal prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Therefore, the[/align]

[align=left]logic in unloading and securing the weapons was well conceived, the execution of such a[/align]

[align=left]plan was not. Secondly, the weapon, a Springfield XD handgun, upon inspection was[/align]

[align=left]found to be in sound working order. The weapon itself contains an internal safety that[/align]

[align=left]will not allow a discharge to occur without someone depressing the trigger to a firing[/align]

[align=left]position. Mr. Sager was allowed to leave of his own accord and his weapon was returned[/align]

[align=left]to him. The report was forwarded to the Van Buren County Prosecutor’s Office where a[/align]

[align=left]warrant was authorized for one count of Reckless Use of a Firearm (a misdemeanor). Mr.[/align]

[align=left]Sager turned himself into the court and was arraigned on the charge.[/align]

[align=left]Prior to all of this occurring, the City was put on notice concerning to City Codes that[/align]

[align=left]were thought to be in violation of current law. The ordinances Section 18.34 and Section[/align]

[align=left]58.83, speak to individuals carrying or using firearms in the city cemetery or in any city[/align]

[align=left]park. A legal opinion was requested from City Attorney Manning. In his opinion, he felt[/align]

[align=left]that the State of Michigan “grants municipalities the right to enact and enforce ordinances[/align]

[align=left]and regulations relative to the management and control of municipal property; this[/align]

[align=left]includes the discharge and use of firearms, including pistols, and may regulate “open[/align]

[align=left]carry” or “plain sight displays” of firearms, including pistols, in other public areas,[/align]

[align=left]including their own property.” In that statement, Attorney Manning concludes that the[/align]

[align=left]City can regulate “open carry”, but, cannot regulate those who have received a Concealed[/align]

[align=left]Pistol License (CPL). Therefore if a person is carrying a firearm in the cemetery or park,[/align]

[align=left]openly, without a Concealed Pistol License they would be subject to prosecution under[/align]

[align=left]our existing ordinance.[/align]

[align=left]Corporate Council Scott Smith’s view of the code/ordinances is strikingly opposite of[/align]

[align=left]Attorney Manning. Smith relies on MCLA (Michigan Complied Laws Annotated)[/align]

[align=left]123.1101, which states, “Section 2. A local unit of government shall not impose special[/align]

[align=left]taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any[/align]

[align=left]other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation or[/align]

[align=left]possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or[/align]

[align=left]components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a[/align]

[align=left]law of this state.” This position was bolstered by Michigan Coalition for Responsible[/align]

[align=left]Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale, 256 App 401 (2003), in which the court ruled that the[/align]

[align=left]City of Ferndale could not establish certain prohibited areas wherein CPL holders could[/align]

[align=left]not carry (if such area was not already designated by state statute). MCLA 28.425o[/align]

[align=left]specifically lists “no gun zones” in statute, city buildings and city parks or cemeteries are[/align]

[align=left]not included in the “no gun zones”. Further, as previously stated (MCLA 123.1101, et[/align]

[align=left]seq, subsection 2), the legislature made it very clear in the passing of that statute that[/align]

[align=left]City’s cannot regulate the carry of firearms, only the state can do that.[/align]

[align=left]Although Manning’s argument is clearly on an “open carry” issue, Smith’s argument, as[/align]

[align=left]backed up by further research, is that both “concealed carry “and “open carry” are[/align]

[align=left]regulated by state statute, not local ordinance. Although the question to the Attorney[/align]

[align=left]General was clearly on the “open carry” issue, the request must be made through our[/align]

[align=left]local legislator. Rep. Schuitmaker was contacted regarding this issue. Rep. Schuitmaker,[/align]

[align=left]although currently a member of the state house of representatives, is also a licensed[/align]

[align=left]attorney in the state of Michigan. Aside from researching the issue herself, she did make[/align]

[align=left]contact with the Attorney General, and they both concluded, absent a formal opinion, that[/align]

[align=left]MCLA 123.1101, et seq, subsection 2 is controlling on this issue. In essence, the City[/align]

[align=left]Ordinances/Codes are in violation of state statute and invalid.[/align]

[align=left]Therefore, it is my recommendation that Code of Ordinances for the City of South[/align]

[align=left]Haven, Section 18.34 (cemeteries) and Section 58.83 be amended to strike the “carry or[/align]

[align=left]use of any firearm” in those selected locations as a matter of law.[/align]

[align=left]Clearly, the State of Michigan, through its elected representatives, has decided that local[/align]

[align=left]regulations concerning both “concealed carry” and “open carry” as it related to “no gun[/align]

[align=left]zones” is within their purview alone, and not subject to local control or option.[/align]

[align=left]Attachments[/align]

[align=left]LEAF Newsletter[/align]

[align=left]SHPD Comp # 1913-09[/align]


[align=left]CONFIDENTIAL[/align]

[align=left]MEMORANDUM[/align]


[align=left]5927502.1
26369/105143[/align]

[align=left]TO:
Mr. Brian Dissette[/align]

[align=left]City Manager[/align]

[align=left]City of South Haven[/align]


[align=left]FROM:
Scott G. Smith[/align]

[align=left]Kenneth P. Lane[/align]


[align=left]DATE:
July 9, 2009[/align]

[align=left]SUBJECT:
Carrying of firearms in City parks and cemeteries[/align]

[align=left]Background[/align]

[align=left]Residents and others have recently contacted the City suggesting that two sections of the City’s code of[/align]

[align=left]ordinances impose an improper restriction on the carrying and possession of firearms in violation of state[/align]

[align=left]law. City ordinance Section 58-83(3) prohibits the carrying or use of any firearm in any City park.
1 City[/align]

[align=left]ordinance Section 18-34 prohibits the possession of any firearm in any City cemetery.
2 Accordingly, the[/align]

[align=left]question has become: does state law preempt the City from prohibiting the carrying or possessing of[/align]

[align=left]firearms in City parks and cemeteries?[/align]

[align=left]Analysis[/align]

[align=left]With limited exception,
3 Michigan law prohibits a local unit of government4 from regulating by local[/align]

[align=left]ordinance the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation or possession of pistols or[/align]

[align=left]other firearms.
5 Michigan courts have interpreted this prohibition to mean that only the state has the[/align]

[align=left]authority to regulate the possession of firearms.
6 “Possession” has been defined to include open7 and[/align]

[align=left]concealed carrying.
8[/align]

[align=left]Michigan law requires an individual to obtain a license to possess and carry a pistol.
9 Once the pistol is[/align]

[align=left]licensed, an individual may openly
10 carry it anywhere in the state, except in those areas expressly[/align]

[align=left]1
Code of Ordinances, City of South Haven, Michigan, Section 58-83(3).[/align]

[align=left]2
Code of Ordinances, City of South Haven, Michigan, Section 18-34.[/align]

[align=left]3
Exceptions include: 1) prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law;[/align]

[align=left]e.g.
, possession without a license, possession with the intent to commit a criminal act, possession by a minor, or the[/align]

[align=left]“brandishing” of a firearm (“brandishing is defined as waving or flourishing a weapon in a menacing manner,
See, Mich OAG[/align]

[align=left]7101, 2002); 2) prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying or possession of pistols or firearms by City employees; and[/align]

[align=left]3) prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or firearm (City Ordinance Section 54-181 prohibits the discharging of firearms within the[/align]

[align=left]City). MCL 123.1103, MCL 123.1104.[/align]


[align=left]4
A city, village, township or county. MCL 123.1101.[/align]

[align=left]5
MCL 123.1102.[/align]

[align=left]6
Subject to the exceptions listed above. See, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v Ferndale, 256 Mich App 401,[/align]

[align=left]418 (2003).[/align]


[align=left]7
“Open carrying” is recognized as within a holster that is in plain view. Mich OAG, No. 7113, 2002.[/align]

[align=left]8
People v Womack, 2009 Mich App LEXIS 158, citing, People v Green, 260 Mich App 392 (2004), Mich OAG, No. 7113, 2002,[/align]

[align=left]Mich OAG 7101, 2002.[/align]


[align=left]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[/align]

[align=left]firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm. MCL 28.421(e). A “firearm” is defined as a weapon[/align]

[align=left]from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air, excluding a rifle or handgun designed and[/align]

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


[align=left]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,[/align]

[align=left]2002.[/align]


[align=left]CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
PAGE 2[/align]

[align=left]5927502.1
26369/105143[/align]

[align=left]prohibited by state law.
11 Additionally, an individual may obtain a separate license to carry a pistol[/align]

[align=left]concealed on their person anywhere in the state, except in those areas expressly prohibited by state law.
12[/align]

[align=left]City parks, cemeteries and buildings are not recognized as prohibited areas.[/align]

[align=left]An individual without a license may not legally possess or carry a pistol.
13[/align]

[align=left]Conclusion[/align]

[align=left]With limited exception, Michigan law preempts the City from regulating the carrying or possession of[/align]

[align=left]pistols and other firearms. Michigan law permits an individual to openly carry a licensed pistol on City[/align]

[align=left]property. Additionally, Michigan law permits a licensed individual to carry a pistol concealed on their[/align]

[align=left]person on City property. As such, state law does preclude the City from enforcing Ordinance Sections[/align]

[align=left]58-83(3) and 18-34 against individual who have obtained the required license. However, both sections[/align]

[align=left]may be enforced against individuals carrying a pistol in a City park or cemetery without the required[/align]

[align=left]license. Both sections can be modified to comply with state law by including the phrase “except as[/align]

[align=left]otherwise permitted by law”. We would be happy to assist you with the formal amendment of both[/align]

[align=left]sections upon your request.[/align]


[align=left]11
MCL 28.442. Prohibited areas are: banks, churches or other houses of worship, courts, theatres, schools and day care centers,[/align]

[align=left]sports arenas or stadiums, bars or taverns, and hospitals. MCL 750.234d.[/align]


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

[align=left]owned or operated by a religious entity, entertainment facilities, hospitals, and college buildings. MCL 28.425o.[/align]


[align=left]13
MCL 28.422, MCL 28.422a, MCL 750.227, MCL 750.234d(2)(c).[/align]

[align=left]CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN[/align]

[align=left]VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN[/align]

[align=left]ORDINANCE NO. ____[/align]

[align=left]AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-34 OF THE[/align]

[align=left]CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN CODE OF ORDINANCES[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the Michigan Legislature has adopted MCLA 123.1102, which prohibits a[/align]

[align=left]municipality from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in[/align]

[align=left]any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or[/align]

[align=left]possession of pistols or other firearms.[/align]

[align=left]THEREFORE, The City of South Haven Ordains:[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 1[/align]

[align=left]That Section 18-34 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven is hereby amended[/align]

[align=left]to read as follows:[/align]


[align=left]Sec. 18-34. Enumeration of forbidden acts.[/align]


[align=left]Within the cemetery, no person shall loiter, litter, use profane language, bring in or[/align]

[align=left]consume any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance, peddle or solicit the sale of any[/align]

[align=left]commodity unconnected to cemetery usage, place signs or notices, allow animals to run at[/align]

[align=left]large or otherwise beyond his control, or engage in any play or recreational activity.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 2[/align]

[align=left]If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the[/align]

[align=left]validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 3[/align]

[align=left]Any ordinance or part thereof in conflict with the provision of this ordinance is hereby repealed[/align]

[align=left]to the extent of such conflict.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 4[/align]

[align=left]The effective date of this ordinance shall not be earlier than ten (10) days after enactment and[/align]

[align=left]not before publication in the
South Haven Tribune.[/align]

[align=left]INTRODUCED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____[/align]

[align=left]day of _____________, 2009.[/align]

[align=left]ADOPTED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____ day of[/align]

[align=left]_______________, 2009.[/align]


[align=left]Ordinance No. ____[/align]

[align=left]-1-[/align]

[align=left]Ordinance No. ____[/align]

[align=left]-2-[/align]


[align=left]Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor[/align]

[align=left]Amanda Morgan, City Clerk[/align]

[align=left]CERTIFICATION[/align]

[align=left]I, Amanda Morgan, Clerk of the City of South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan do hereby[/align]

[align=left]certify that the above Ordinance was adopted by the South Haven City Council on the ___ day[/align]

[align=left]of ______, 2009; and the same was published in a paper of general circulation in the City, being[/align]

[align=left]the
South Haven Tribune, on the ___ day of _____________, 2009.[/align]

[align=left]Amanda Morgan, City Clerk[/align]


[align=left]CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN[/align]

[align=left]VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN[/align]

[align=left]ORDINANCE NO. ____[/align]

[align=left]AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 58-83 OF THE[/align]

[align=left]CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN CODE OF ORDINANCES[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the Michigan Legislature has adopted MCLA 123.1102, which prohibits a[/align]

[align=left]municipality from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in[/align]

[align=left]any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or[/align]

[align=left]possession of pistols or other firearms.[/align]

[align=left]THEREFORE, The City of South Haven Ordains:[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 1[/align]

[align=left]That Section 58-83 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of South Haven is hereby amended[/align]

[align=left]to read as follows:[/align]


[align=left]Sec. 58-83. Prohibited activities.[/align]


[align=left]No person or organization shall do any of the following activities in a park without the written[/align]

[align=left]consent of the city manager. The person or organization may appeal the city manager’s[/align]

[align=left]decision to the city council should they feel the need to do so.[/align]

[align=left](1) Carry or use air rifles or slingshots or discharge any fireworks or explosive devices of any[/align]

[align=left]nature.[/align]

[align=left](2) Erect any structure.[/align]

[align=left](3) Canvass, advertise, solicit, vend or rent any service, merchandise or object of any kind,[/align]

[align=left]except as allowed by City Ordinance Section 14-44.1, et seq.[/align]

[align=left](4) For any gatherings in excess of 500 people, chapter 42 of this Code shall apply.[/align]

[align=left](5) Consume or have in their possession, in an open or closed container, any vinous; malt,[/align]

[align=left]brewed, fermented, spirituous, or alcoholic liquors.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 2[/align]

[align=left]If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the[/align]

[align=left]validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 3[/align]

[align=left]Any ordinance or part thereof in conflict with the provision of this ordinance is hereby repealed[/align]

[align=left]to the extent of such conflict.[/align]

[align=left]SECTION 4[/align]


[align=left]Ordinance No. ____[/align]

[align=left]-1-[/align]

[align=left]Ordinance No. ____[/align]

[align=left]-2-[/align]


[align=left]The effective date of this ordinance shall not be earlier than ten (10) days after enactment and[/align]

[align=left]not before publication in the
South Haven Tribune.[/align]

[align=left]INTRODUCED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____[/align]

[align=left]day of _____________, 2009.[/align]

[align=left]ADOPTED by the City Council of the CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN on this ____ day of[/align]

[align=left]_______________, 2009.[/align]

[align=left]Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor[/align]

[align=left]Amanda Morgan, City Clerk[/align]

[align=left]CERTIFICATION[/align]

[align=left]I, Amanda Morgan, Clerk of the City of South Haven, Van Buren County, Michigan do hereby[/align]

[align=left]certify that the above Ordinance was adopted by the South Haven City Council on the ___ day[/align]

[align=left]of ______, 2009; and the same was published in a paper of general circulation in the City, being[/align]

[align=left]the
South Haven Tribune, on the ___ day of _____________, 2009.[/align]

[align=left]Amanda Morgan, City Clerk[/align]


[align=left]CITY OF SOUTH HAVEN[/align]

[align=left]VAN BUREN AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, MICHIGAN[/align]

[align=left]RESOLUTION NO. 2009-65[/align]

[align=left]MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CONTROL OVER FIREARMS[/align]

[align=left]ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PROPERTY[/align]

[align=left]Minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South Haven, Van Buren[/align]

[align=left]and Allegan Counties, Michigan, held in the City Hall, 539 Phoenix Street, South Haven,[/align]

[align=left]Michigan 49090 on November, 2, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. local time.[/align]

[align=left]PRESENT:[/align]

[align=left]ABSENT:[/align]

[align=left]The following preamble and resolution was offered by Member and[/align]

[align=left]supported by Member .[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Michigan has enacted the Firearms and Ammunition[/align]

[align=left]Act, Act 319 of 1990, relating to firearms and ammunition; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the Act removes local control over the carrying of firearms on property owned by[/align]

[align=left]municipal corporations; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, property owned by municipal corporations includes areas not generally open to the[/align]

[align=left]public such as utility facilities, administrative offices and public safety facilities where security is[/align]

[align=left]important; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, property owned by municipal corporations includes areas such as parks and[/align]

[align=left]recreation facilities which are typically governed by park rules and may have high[/align]

[align=left]concentrations of people in small areas; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, private individuals and corporations are allowed to restrict the use and possession[/align]

[align=left]of firearms on private property; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the law creates a disparity between the rights of municipal corporations and the[/align]

[align=left]rights of private individuals and corporations; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, Open Carry advocates have become increasingly more active; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, at a recent Open Carry Picnic on a public beach in South Haven, one of the[/align]

[align=left]advocates had an accidental discharge of his weapon in a public place that was occupied by[/align]

[align=left]numerous people not associated with the Open Carry Picnic; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, there are no training or marksmanship requirements for Open Carry; and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, local units of government desire to protect officials and employees from assault[/align]

[align=left]with firearms; and,[/align]


[align=left]Resolution 2009-65[/align]

[align=left]- 1 -[/align]

[align=left]Resolution 2009-65[/align]

[align=left]- 2 -[/align]


[align=left]WHEREAS, local units of government find it extremely difficult to protect their citizenry because[/align]

[align=left]of the restrictions in the Firearms and Ammunition Act, and,[/align]

[align=left]WHEREAS, the ability to restrict possession of firearms in certain areas should be restored to[/align]

[align=left]local units of government.[/align]

[align=left]BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of South Haven believes that it is in the[/align]

[align=left]public interest that a municipal corporation have the authority to restrict possession of firearms[/align]

[align=left]on property owned by the municipal corporation.[/align]

[align=left]BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council urges the Legislature for the State of[/align]

[align=left]Michigan to enact legislation allowing municipal corporations to restrict the possession of[/align]

[align=left]firearms on property owned by municipal corporations.[/align]

[align=left]BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect upon passage by the City[/align]

[align=left]Council.[/align]

[align=left]RECORD OF VOTE:[/align]

[align=left]Yeas:[/align]

[align=left]Nays:[/align]

[align=left]RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.[/align]

[align=left]Dorothy Appleyard, Mayor[/align]

[align=left]Amanda Morgan, City Clerk[/align]

[align=left]CERTIFICATION[/align]

[align=left]I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the[/align]

[align=left]City Council at a meeting held on the ____ day of _________, 2009, at which meeting a quorum[/align]

[align=left]was present, and that this resolution was ordered to take immediate effect. Public notice of said[/align]

[align=left]meeting was given pursuant to and in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Act No. 167 of[/align]

[align=left]the Public Acts of Michigan 1976 (MCL 15.261
et seq).[/align]
Amanda Morgan, City Clerk
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Michigander

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

office888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
352
Location
Hartford, MI, ,
imported post

Wow.

RAAAGGGEE. :banghead::cuss:

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

We need to picket city hall immediately.

-Richard-
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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)?
 

dougwg

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

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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. :?
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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.:lol:
 

mastiff69

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
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 ?
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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) ;)
 
Top