Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Pinckney Ordinances

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    They seem to be good to go with their firearm ordinances. What do you think about this though.

    § 132.041 RECKLESS USE OF FIREARMS.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly, heedlessly, willfully or wantonly, carry or handle any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.

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

    Post imported post

    Totally in line with state law, and an ordinance that I'd have voted to pass if I was on the council.
    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

    Yeah, it sounded good to me, just wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading it.

    I did find this ordinance in Hamburg township though in reference to a park they have.

    "2. No persons, except employees or officers of the Township, shall carry firearms of any description, or air rifle, or slingshot, or bow within the park, or discharge any firearms, fireworks or explosive substances, or air rifle therein without specific permit from the Township."

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Some believe that openly carrying a sidearm is reckless.

    So would you still have voted for it?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Yes, because state law preemptively dictates that safe and proper OC isn't reckless.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    So you agree it's still not right.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    This ordinance is waaaaaaay too vague...

    Crickey -

    "Reckless"
    "Heedless"
    "Wantonly"
    "Circumspection"
    "Handle"
    "Due Caution"


    Carry on

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    They seem to be good to go with their firearm ordinances. What do you think about this though.

    § 132.041 RECKLESS USE OF FIREARMS.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly, heedlessly, willfully or wantonly, carry or handle any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.
    T Vance - I think it is too vague and could be used against someone OC'ing. I have seen several cities have this same EXACT ordinance. The following is what I posted after TheSzerdi was detained at Fairlane Mall:

    Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to recklessly, heedlessly, wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.


    Definitions:

    willfully = done deliberately
    due = satisfying or capable of satisfying a need, obligation, or duty
    caution = prudent forethought to minimize risk
    circumspection = careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences

    So:

    1. I do carry deliberately, as I gave much thought to carrying a firearm OC or otherwise prior to doing so.

    2. I do consider the possible risks of OC and have learned all I can about PFZ's, LEO Interaction, Situational Awareness, and am now using a Retention Holster.

    *HOWEVER*

    3. I can see some LEO using the "safety of others" argument that because they did not "feel safe", I violated this ordinance.

    Therefore, I would re-write this ordinance this way:

    RECKLESS USE OF FIREARMS.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly carry, handle, or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.


    The LEO would then have to PROVE that I was acting recklessly, which Michiganer has pointed out is already covered for lawful OC. I just think it best to give a LEO less ammunition in which to "jam-up" a lawful OC'er.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    T Vance - I think it is too vague and could be used against someone OC'ing. I have seen several cities have this same EXACT ordinance. The following is what I posted after TheSzerdi was detained at Fairlane Mall:

    Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to recklessly, heedlessly, wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.


    Definitions:

    willfully = done deliberately
    due = satisfying or capable of satisfying a need, obligation, or duty
    caution = prudent forethought to minimize risk
    circumspection = careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences

    So:

    1. I do carry deliberately, as I gave much thought to carrying a firearm OC or otherwise prior to doing so.

    2. I do consider the possible risks of OC and have learned all I can about PFZ's, LEO Interaction, Situational Awareness, and am now using a Retention Holster.

    *HOWEVER*

    3. I can see some LEO using the "safety of others" argument that because they did not "feel safe", I violated this ordinance.

    Therefore, I would re-write this ordinance this way:

    RECKLESS USE OF FIREARMS.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly carry, handle, or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others.


    The LEO would then have to PROVE that I was acting recklessly, which Michiganer has pointed out is already covered for lawful OC. I just think it best to give a LEO less ammunition in which to "jam-up" a lawful OC'er.
    Any suggestions on wording a letter to the township about this ordinance?

  10. #10
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    CRAP!

    I found this while searching the MCL's:

    752.863a Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.
    Sec. 3.
    Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    History: Add. 1955, Act 14, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955
    Compiler's Notes: Section 3, as added by Act 14 of 1955, was compiled as MCL 752.863[a] to distinguish it from another section 3, deriving from Act 45 of 1952 and pertaining to the repeal of MCL 750.235a. The compilation number formerly assigned to this section was MCL 752.a863.

    It looks like Pinckney is in line with MI Laws. I STILL DO NOT LIKE IT THOUGH!!!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    I don't believe the city can regulate "carry".


  12. #12
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    I don't believe the city can regulate "carry".
    Based upon the 1990 MI Preemption Law, they can as long as the state or federal law allows it. In my previous post, the MI law pretty closely matches their law.

    752.863a is the MI Law.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

Posting Permissions

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