Detroit Firearm Ordinance

imported post

Below is directy copied out of the most current copy of Detroit's code of ordinances.

DIVISION 4. FIREARMS*


__________

*Cross references: Use of firearms in parks, § 40-1-26.


__________

Sec. 38-10-57. Reserved.

Editor's note: Ord. No. 25-86, § 1, adopted Nov. 26, 1986, repealed § 38-10-57, defining "firearm," as derived from § 66-4-1 of the 1964 Code. Firearm is defined in § 38-10-1.


Sec. 38-10-58. Transportation in vehicles; carrying in public.

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by him or her, contrary to the State Concealed Weapons Licensing law. Except for a pistol carried or transported lawfully under the State Concealed Weapons Licensing Law, it shall be unlawful for any person to carry a firearm on any public street or in a public place unless it is unloaded and in a case, or to transport or have in or upon any vehicle occupied by him or her any firearm unless the firearm is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and is taken down, enclosed in a case, carried in the luggage compartment of the vehicle or inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.

(Code 1964, § 66-4-2; Ord. No. 25-86, § 1, 11-26-86)

Cross references: Traffic and motor vehicles, Ch. 55.


Sec. 38-10-59. Exemptions.

Police officers, peace officers and persons in the military service, in pursuit of official duty, and persons duly authorized by federal or state law to carry firearms, are exempt from the provisions of this division.

(Code 1964, § 66-4-3)



To me the area I put in bold text contradicts the pre-emption law of the state.Also there is a section that states firearm laws are not pre empted by the state. Unfortunately their site stopped functioning so I was unable to copy and paste it here.


I am currently writing a brief to the city council as is their requirement for any matter that is brought before them. I will be turning the brief in on Monday. By submitting this brief I will be entitled to speak at a city council meeting.



Any input would be appreciated. Also anyone who would be willing to go to the meeting please PM me. It may get scheduled for Tuesday January 5. If not it will be on February's calendar. Hopefully this small step will help get Detroit moving in the right directon concerning open carry.

imported post

Make sure u let us know when u go in front of council, will try to go also

imported post

Sec. 38-10-59. Exemptions.

Police officers, peace officers and persons in the military service, in pursuit of official duty, and persons duly authorized by federal or state law to carry firearms, are exempt from the provisions of this division.

I see two ways around this, 1. I am authorized by the state with my CPL, & 2. By the constitution of the state OC is legal

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Sec. 38-10-59. Exemptions.

Police officers, peace officers and persons in the military service, in pursuit of official duty, and persons duly authorized by federal or state law to carry firearms, are exempt from the provisions of this division.

I see two ways around this, 1. I am authorized by the state with my CPL, & 2. By the constitution of the state OC is legal

Click to expand...

BINGO!Of course the DPD know this,but they can use our money to cover lawyer fee's and court cost's and suit's.Remember the governments bottomless pockets (our tax dollars)?

imported post

here is the opening paragraph to their weapons section

ARTICLE X. WEAPONS*
__________ Regulation of firearms is not preempted by state law; Detroit v. Judge, Recorder's Court, 56 Mich. App. 224, 223 N.W. 2d 722 (1974)

imported post

sprinklerguy28 wrote:

here is the opening paragraph to their weapons section

ARTICLE X. WEAPONS*
__________ Regulation of firearms is not preempted by state law; Detroit v. Judge, Recorder's Court, 56 Mich. App. 224, 223 N.W. 2d 722 (1974)

Click to expand...

MCRGO v. Ferndale,4/29/03, State of Michigan Court of Appeals, IV. Conclusion

In sum, we conclude that MCL.123.1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms,and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly 5c and 5o,which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of 1102,do not repeal 1102 or otherwise reopen this arera to local regulation of the carrying of firearms.Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and,consequently,we reverse.

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

/s/ Hilda R. Gage

The Michigan Supreme Court let it stand as Decided.

imported post

Spoke with the city council office today. I will be attending the meeting tomorrow Thursday January 7,2010 at 10 a.m. I would like to have a group of people go in support and someone to film if possible. Please PM if you can attend.

imported post

Are u going toalso address O.C. and issues with the DPD

imported post

In the packet of info I have put together for each member of council OC is covered. However I am only allotted 2 minutes to address the council. I feel addressing these ordinances is priority. In discussing the first ordinance it states following concealed permit laws. I will be mentioning that OC is legal and no permit is required. So it will be addressed but will not be the only focus. Once we get these ordinances changed then we can look at sending a copy of these changes along with the MOC LEO packets to the chief of police, and all districts.

imported post

I sent u pm

imported post

When you go to the council meeting, be sure to call out that if they continue to let their PD (police chiefs are appointed!) harass people they will opening the city up to liability.

imported post

Just as a heads up I'm going to be planning a HUGE oc event in Detroit as soon as the weather warms up. It'll be a nice way to kick off the upcoming summer events. It would be great if we could get at least 200 people. More details to follow.

imported post

I thought I heard that at least three of the council members carry. How is that possible if Detroit has this tougher law in place? Are they in violation? If so, they may be interested in hearing your brief. Good luck!

imported post

Currently based on public comments by council members 5 of them have CPls. Trust me this will be mentioned. I hope seeing that the majority of council has publicly announced they carry that they will support this and make it happen without having to take it further.

imported post

Count me in. Let me know if I can be of any help. I live in Clinton Township.

imported post

Count me in.Let me know if I can be of any help. I live in Clinton Township

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

Just as a heads up I'm going to be planning a HUGE oc event in Detroit as soon as the weather warms up. It'll be a nice way to kick off the upcoming summer events. It would be great if we could get at least 200 people. More details to follow.

Click to expand...

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

Just as a heads up I'm going to be planning a HUGE oc event in Detroit as soon as the weather warms up. It'll be a nice way to kick off the upcoming summer events. It would be great if we could get at least 200 people. More details to follow.

Click to expand...

A picnic in warm weather will be good, The last one a couple years ago on Belle Islethat i attendedwas to cold and only a hand full of people showed up.

imported post

I attended the council meeting today. First let me say thank you to bossbart and jamesian for attending as well. I covered the ordinances in question in relation to the state's preemption law. To no surprise no questions or comments were made from the council. After the meeting I first spoke with Council President Pro-Tem GAry Brown. I asked for him a commitment to having this addressed in a timely fashion. He expressed his concern in getting it corrected and getting DPD trained most importantly. He stated as chairman of the police and safety committee he will see to getting this addressed as need. He also suggested that I set up a meeting with the Mayor Bing, and Chief of Police Evans. After speaking with him I spoke with councilwoman Saunteel Jenkins. She stated that it is best to follow up through Brown as his committe would be referred this matter and that she appreciated the concerns and believes they can get this resolved. While speaking with her and making my concerns about OC known, and the instances where citizens have been wronged by LEO the DPD security guard decided to chime in, He tried arguing that there are laws against OC as far as it relates to distances you must stay away from certain venues. I politely informed him no such law exists. Either my tone of voice or good sense on his part made him reconsider his position and he suddenly agreed with my intentions. At this time the representative from the city law department who was present at the meeting at left immediately after walked back into the room and up to me. He apologized if I thought he may have not taken any interest in the matter earlier during the meeting. He stated that they are aware of the preemption law and the city will not enforce their ordinances that are preempted. He also stated that they are "in the process of removing them from the books". I asked if I could recieve that in writing as an official communication from the city. As expected I was told no but not to worry.

A very mixed reaction and impression from the city as I had expected. I knew this would be a challenge. I do feel though with a little patience and consistent follow through on my part we will see these ordinances amended. I have called a setup meetings with the Mayor's office and Chief of Police. WE have several dates chosen and just waiting on confirmation which of those dates work for all involved. I will update when it is set.