Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: City of Romulus illegal ordinance

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Romulus, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Here is a copy of the email I sent to the Mayor,City council, and the Lt at RPD in charge of training and dispatch.


    Dear Mayor Lambert
    I am a member of opencarry.org's Michigan forum. It has come to my attention that our city
    has an illegal ordinance in regards to firearm possession. The pertinent section is
    below.
    Sec. 22-10. Firearms and explosives.
    No person, except officers of the law, employees so authorized by the fire marshal or
    the approved law enforcement agency,shall carry firearms or any missile-propelling device
    of any description, fireworks or explosive substance within the parks without written
    permit from city council.
    (ord.of 8-12-80, ~1003.209; ord.of 4-8-85,~1003.209)

    As you may or may not know, in 1990 the State of Michigan passed MCL 123.1102 which
    provides, in pertinent part: 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.

    In MCRGO v. Ferndale, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government
    may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession.

    THE MICHIGAN APPEALS COURT CONCLUDED: April 29, 2003 9:10 am. v No. 242237
    In sum, we conclude that § 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 area to local
    regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale
    ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.

    My hope is that you amend this ordinance and any other ordinance that bans firearms.
    Michigan Open Carry, Inc. has contacted other municipalities and they have chosen to
    amend their ordinances to avoid any possible civil suits like the Federal suit in Grand
    Haven (see below). For further information on open carry and citizens rights see this
    newsletter published by the Law Enforcement Action Forum (LEAF) of the Municipal League
    of Michigan.

    http://www.mml.org/insurance/shared/...er/2009_04.pdf

    Please update me on any action you undertake to correct this situation. I thank you for
    your time and consideration in this matter.I will also send a copy of this to city
    council and Lt Leacher of the Romulus Police.

    Respectfully,

    Peter L. xxxxx III
    xxxxx-xxxxx
    Romulus Mi
    Email metromartialarts@netzero.com

    May 12, 2009

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC announces federal civil rights suit against City
    of Grand Haven and Ottawa County over open-carry ordinance.

    The suit, brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, was filed on behalf of
    Christopher Fetters, an off-duty Air Force Security Officer who was attending the Coast
    Guard Festival in Grand Haven last year. Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered
    pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and
    detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open
    carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

    Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to
    firearms, (MCL 123.1102.) The public policy goal of the statute is to provide a uniform
    system of gun laws statewide so that citizens do not have to guess regarding what local
    rules might exist as they move from one locality to the next.

    The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters' civil rights under
    the 2d, 4th, and 14th , Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of
    the Michigan Constitution, which reads, "Every person has a right to keep and bear
    arms for the defense of himself and the state," when he was physically restrained,
    disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.

    Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney's Office, after
    being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance. No allegations were ever made
    that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the
    day of his arrest. He is demanding damages for violation of his civil rights as a citizen
    of the United States and of Michigan.

    The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids
    and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.

  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Good job!
    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."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent Co, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    Excellent Work!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Romulus, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Received a response from one of the city council members to day.one step at a time.


    Code:
    Peter, Thank you for your email. I will look into this. I am a gun owner also and I 
    don't want any ordinances that conflict with state. LeRoy Burcroff
    Then on to Southgate and Riverview.

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    Viper068 wrote:
    Received a response from one of the city council members to day.one step at a time.


    Code:
    Peter, Thank you for your email. I will look into this. I am a gun owner also and I 
    don't want any ordinances that conflict with state. LeRoy Burcroff
    Then on to Southgate and Riverview.
    Good Job. That's usually the way it goes, one step at a time. Sometimes baby steps, sometimes bigger. As long as the results are what we desire.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Downriver, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    I'm looking at Southgate's now.

    http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Michigan/southgatemi/codifiedordinancesofsouthgatemichigan?f=templates$ fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:southgate_mi


    I don't see an ordinance about Oc'ing.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    great work. Woot Woot.

    Devery

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Romulus, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    daniels wrote:
    I'm looking at Southgate's now.

    http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d...l:southgate_mi


    I don't see an ordinance about Oc'ing.
    This is all I see in Southgate ord.


    692.03 CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS. No person shall have or carry any pistol, knife, dirk, knuckles, sling shot or other dangerous weapon concealed on his or her person.
    (Ord. 405. Passed 1-23-85.)
    692.04 WEAPONS IN VEHICLES. No person shall have or carry any pistol, knife, dirk, knuckles, sling shot or dangerous weapon, concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by him or her.
    (Ord. 405. Passed 1-23-85.)


    They need to remove or reword these to from what I gather.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Downriver, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Yeah but if you read further down they say it's ok with a permit to carry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Romulus, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Do you honestly think that an LEO is going to read all that just to find that little part, probably not easier to just give you a ticket and let the court figure it out. On the other hand city council will just argue that it's in the code so flip a coin might be interesting to see how this plays out JMO.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Downriver, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    It's in the ordinance. You said it wasn't. It's there and it's not some tiny printed part or anything.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Romulus, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Sorry must have missed it my bad

Posting Permissions

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