Viper068
Regular Member
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/publications/leaf_newsletter/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.
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/publications/leaf_newsletter/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.
