22-250
Regular Member
imported post
I want to attend, where and when on the 26th?
I want to attend, where and when on the 26th?
-
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.
-
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.
City of Rochester Hills illegal Ordinance
- Thread starter sasha601
- Start date
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
I got a very quick response from Council President, Mr. Hooper. He informed me that the topic is tentatively scheduled for the May 3 City Council meeting. So, I will attend on May 3-rd. Anyody interested are wellcome to come. It will take place at 7p.m. on May 3-rd at:
1000 Rochester Hills Drive
Rochester Hills, MI 48309
We will be able to speak at the beginning of the meeting during "public comments" part. Everyone will have 3 minutes. They have sign up sheets that need to be filled prior to 7 p.m.by anyone who wants to speak. I will encourage to voice support to repeal the ordinance. I do not see how any member of City Council can vote "no". This will bein direct defiance of the State Law. However, it is possible, so speak up.
I will confirm prior to May 3-rd and let everyone knowif subject is still on the Agenda. Just check this post periodically.
I got a very quick response from Council President, Mr. Hooper. He informed me that the topic is tentatively scheduled for the May 3 City Council meeting. So, I will attend on May 3-rd. Anyody interested are wellcome to come. It will take place at 7p.m. on May 3-rd at:
1000 Rochester Hills Drive
Rochester Hills, MI 48309
We will be able to speak at the beginning of the meeting during "public comments" part. Everyone will have 3 minutes. They have sign up sheets that need to be filled prior to 7 p.m.by anyone who wants to speak. I will encourage to voice support to repeal the ordinance. I do not see how any member of City Council can vote "no". This will bein direct defiance of the State Law. However, it is possible, so speak up.
I will confirm prior to May 3-rd and let everyone knowif subject is still on the Agenda. Just check this post periodically.
Beerme
Banned
imported post
Sasha my fried, once you get back from the council meeting we should work on setting a picnic up, if it is announced to be removed from the books then it will be a celebratory picnic!
Cheers
Sasha my fried, once you get back from the council meeting we should work on setting a picnic up, if it is announced to be removed from the books then it will be a celebratory picnic!
Cheers
22-250
Regular Member
imported post
I'm In....
I'm In....
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
Cool, I am all for a picnic. Just want to let you know that on May 3-rd City Council is planningto have "first reading" of the revised (or repealed)ordinance. This is when proposed change will become a public knowledge. They will not vote on it on May 3-rd. They will schedule a "second reading", probably a week or two later. Theyshould vote at that time. This is how process works in Rochester Hills. Regardless, please plan to attend on May 3-rd. I will post confirmation a few daysbefore - just to make sure that item is still on the Agenda.
Cool, I am all for a picnic. Just want to let you know that on May 3-rd City Council is planningto have "first reading" of the revised (or repealed)ordinance. This is when proposed change will become a public knowledge. They will not vote on it on May 3-rd. They will schedule a "second reading", probably a week or two later. Theyshould vote at that time. This is how process works in Rochester Hills. Regardless, please plan to attend on May 3-rd. I will post confirmation a few daysbefore - just to make sure that item is still on the Agenda.
22-250
Regular Member
imported post
So there going to change it?
So there going to change it?
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
According to Mr. Mayor and City Attorney, they are going to change it. Will see what is proposed at May 3-rd Council meeting.
According to Mr. Mayor and City Attorney, they are going to change it. Will see what is proposed at May 3-rd Council meeting.
VietVet68
Regular Member
imported post
I am so impressed about how dedicated you guys are on your quest to right the wrongs being inflicted on all of us.
I ask everyone who's following the activities of this handful of people to give them a standing "O".
I'm glad you guys are fighting the fight for all of us.
Thank You so much.
I am so impressed about how dedicated you guys are on your quest to right the wrongs being inflicted on all of us.
I ask everyone who's following the activities of this handful of people to give them a standing "O".
I'm glad you guys are fighting the fight for all of us.
Thank You so much.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
VietVet68 wrote:
VietVet68 wrote:
Thank you for noticing!
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
Revision to City Ordinance 74-108is still scheduled for First Reading on May 3-rd at 7 p.m. City Council meeting. Yesterday, I read proposed revision and found that there still an issue with proposed language.I sentan e-mailto Mr. Staran, City Attorney expressing my concern. I got response back from Mr. Staran indicating that he is willing to look at this further and to propose revised language that will make proposed Ordinance in compliance with State Law. At this point I am not sure if Ordinance will be ready for First Reading on May 3-rd or will be rescheduled. I will continue to keep youposted.
Below is mye-mail to Mr. Staran:
Dear Mr. Staran,
Recently you made a recommendation to the Rochester Hills City Council to revise Section 74-108 of the City Code in order to bring it in compliance with the State Law. The First Reading is scheduled for City Council review on May 3-rd, 2010. You proposed tostrike throughsome words as follows:
[size=]Sec. 74-108.- Firearms and weapons.[/size]
It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
I believe this change will not fully resolve conflict with Michigan Firearms preemption statute. Michigan Law is very specific regarding areas where local units of government can regulate firearms. These areas are defined in MCL 123.1103 and MCL 123.1104:
[size=[i][/i]][/size]
123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.
Sec. 3. This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:
(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.
(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of thatlocal unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.
History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.
123.1104 Prohibiting discharge of pistol or other firearm.
Sec. 4. This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearmwithin the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.
History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.
[size=[/size]
Revision that you proposed will still prohibit "use" of firearms. This is too broad. There can be lawful and unlawful uses of firearms as defined by State Law. For example, use of a firearm for lawful self defense is not prohibited by State Law.]
I suggest that you look at refining theverbiagefurther in order to fully comply with the State Law. I really appreciate that you are looking at this and hope that you will not consider my objections as "neat picking". Ibelievewe should do it right.
[size=[/size]
Perhaps, necessary revisions can be made in time for May 3-rd meeting. If not, can we reschedule First Reading to be reviewed at the later City Council meeting?]
Below Mr. Staran'sresponse:
Mr. Sherman: State law prohibits, and authorizes municipalities to prohibit, not just “discharge” of firearms and pistols, but “brandishing” too, and I believe the word “use” in the ordinance was intended to cover both conduct. Nonetheless, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your point is well made. It is not the City’s intention to be vague or ambiguous. I will consider further and advise City Council whether the City and the public may be better served by different verbiage that is consistent w/ state law.
Revision to City Ordinance 74-108is still scheduled for First Reading on May 3-rd at 7 p.m. City Council meeting. Yesterday, I read proposed revision and found that there still an issue with proposed language.I sentan e-mailto Mr. Staran, City Attorney expressing my concern. I got response back from Mr. Staran indicating that he is willing to look at this further and to propose revised language that will make proposed Ordinance in compliance with State Law. At this point I am not sure if Ordinance will be ready for First Reading on May 3-rd or will be rescheduled. I will continue to keep youposted.
Below is mye-mail to Mr. Staran:
Dear Mr. Staran,
Recently you made a recommendation to the Rochester Hills City Council to revise Section 74-108 of the City Code in order to bring it in compliance with the State Law. The First Reading is scheduled for City Council review on May 3-rd, 2010. You proposed tostrike throughsome words as follows:
[size=]Sec. 74-108.- Firearms and weapons.[/size]
It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
I believe this change will not fully resolve conflict with Michigan Firearms preemption statute. Michigan Law is very specific regarding areas where local units of government can regulate firearms. These areas are defined in MCL 123.1103 and MCL 123.1104:
[size=[i][/i]][/size]
123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.
Sec. 3. This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:
(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.
(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of thatlocal unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.
History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.
123.1104 Prohibiting discharge of pistol or other firearm.
Sec. 4. This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearmwithin the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.
History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.
[size=[/size]
Revision that you proposed will still prohibit "use" of firearms. This is too broad. There can be lawful and unlawful uses of firearms as defined by State Law. For example, use of a firearm for lawful self defense is not prohibited by State Law.]
I suggest that you look at refining theverbiagefurther in order to fully comply with the State Law. I really appreciate that you are looking at this and hope that you will not consider my objections as "neat picking". Ibelievewe should do it right.
[size=[/size]
Perhaps, necessary revisions can be made in time for May 3-rd meeting. If not, can we reschedule First Reading to be reviewed at the later City Council meeting?]
Below Mr. Staran'sresponse:
Mr. Sherman: State law prohibits, and authorizes municipalities to prohibit, not just “discharge” of firearms and pistols, but “brandishing” too, and I believe the word “use” in the ordinance was intended to cover both conduct. Nonetheless, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your point is well made. It is not the City’s intention to be vague or ambiguous. I will consider further and advise City Council whether the City and the public may be better served by different verbiage that is consistent w/ state law.
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
Unfortunately, when I pasted proposed ordinance, the strikethrough line disappeared, so you do not see what is proposed. So, in the following senstence words "bring in, have or"are stricken down:
It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
Unfortunately, when I pasted proposed ordinance, the strikethrough line disappeared, so you do not see what is proposed. So, in the following senstence words "bring in, have or"are stricken down:
It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
atlantis
Regular Member
imported post
Since they can't prosecute a legal discharge(say in self defense) and they can't prosecute the bearing of a firearm... He wants his newly worded statute to mean that you can't 'Use' a firearm in a park in any already illegal fashion...such as brandishing or illegal discharge.
Keep in mind that it is (found elsewhere in their statutes) forbidden to discharge a firearem anywhere in the city limits, making this statute even more un-necessary.
The problem with his theory is that all the things he wants to state are illegal because of this newly worded statute... are ALREADY illegal. Making his statute completely unneeded . Which means the only reason to have it is to confuse the reader into thinking you can't carry a firearm there.
Am I missing something?
Since they can't prosecute a legal discharge(say in self defense) and they can't prosecute the bearing of a firearm... He wants his newly worded statute to mean that you can't 'Use' a firearm in a park in any already illegal fashion...such as brandishing or illegal discharge.
Keep in mind that it is (found elsewhere in their statutes) forbidden to discharge a firearem anywhere in the city limits, making this statute even more un-necessary.
The problem with his theory is that all the things he wants to state are illegal because of this newly worded statute... are ALREADY illegal. Making his statute completely unneeded . Which means the only reason to have it is to confuse the reader into thinking you can't carry a firearm there.
Am I missing something?
22-250
Regular Member
imported post
HUM.." However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position."
What if he is off duty?
HUM.." However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position."
What if he is off duty?
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
22-250 wrote:
Before:
"It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position."
After:
It shall be unlawful touse any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
The way it's written now (After), complies with the Preeemption Law (123.1104)where the State allows Local Units of Government to control discharge of firearms.
22-250 wrote:
Before:
"It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or use any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position."
After:
It shall be unlawful touse any firearm, air rifle, airgun, or any other weapon that discharges projectiles by any means in a park. However, this section shall not apply to any authorized peace officer while carrying out the duties of his position.
The way it's written now (After), complies with the Preeemption Law (123.1104)where the State allows Local Units of Government to control discharge of firearms.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
sasha601 wrote:
sasha601 wrote:
I'm confused. It should read "It shall be unlawful to bring in, have or usean air rifle, airgun, or any otherdevice that discharges projectiles except firearms (as defined by state law). This covers it, and also covers the LEO part which is superfluous.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Venator wrote:
Venator wrote:
You don't want the ordinance to state "bring in, have or" this part makes it illegal for us to "bring in, Have or" into the park if not for Preemption.
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
My only concern was that word "use" is too broad. When you are carrying a firearm on yourself, you are using it. When you use it for self defense, you are using it. "Use" should be more narrowly defined to make sure this Ordinance only prohibits use that is illegal under State Law. Otherwise, police can still use it to detain or arrest.
Anyway, City Attorney agreed to take another look. I will let you know what happened
My only concern was that word "use" is too broad. When you are carrying a firearm on yourself, you are using it. When you use it for self defense, you are using it. "Use" should be more narrowly defined to make sure this Ordinance only prohibits use that is illegal under State Law. Otherwise, police can still use it to detain or arrest.
Anyway, City Attorney agreed to take another look. I will let you know what happened
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
sasha601 wrote:
I disagree, the way it is written it states firearms are not allowed. If they think they have it corrected they are wrong. If they allowed firearms why would they add the LEO part, they would be covered as well, unless the LEO was bringing in an air gun.
As written it's crap.
sasha601 wrote:
I disagree, the way it is written it states firearms are not allowed. If they think they have it corrected they are wrong. If they allowed firearms why would they add the LEO part, they would be covered as well, unless the LEO was bringing in an air gun.
As written it's crap.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Per Sash:
"Unfortunately, when I pasted proposed ordinance, the strikethrough line disappeared, so you do not see what is proposed. So, in the following senstence words "bring in, have or"are stricken down:"
Sash said the words "bring in, have or" are stricken down. Meaning, according tohis post the words "bring in, have or" have been taken out of action (removed).
Per Sash:
"Unfortunately, when I pasted proposed ordinance, the strikethrough line disappeared, so you do not see what is proposed. So, in the following senstence words "bring in, have or"are stricken down:"
Sash said the words "bring in, have or" are stricken down. Meaning, according tohis post the words "bring in, have or" have been taken out of action (removed).
sasha601
Regular Member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
That is correct
SpringerXDacp wrote:
That is correct