Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Another county park ordinance

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    White Cloud, MI
    Posts
    45

    Another county park ordinance

    Gratiot County seems to have a firearms ordinance for their county parks. Im new here, but from what Ive been reading this ordinance would be illegal because it would not allow someone to carry without a CPL?


    SECTION 8 — FIREARMS
    No person shall, at any time, bring into or upon Commission property, nor have in their possession, nor discharge or set off anywhere upon said property, a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, air rifle, air gun, or any gun, rifle, firearm or other weapon that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This section shall not apply to any deputy sheriff, police officer, authorized park ranger or other duly appointed law enforcement officer while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of their position, or to any person while upon designated target ranges or areas.
    Any person who has satisfied the provisions of Public Act 381 of 2000, as amended, commonly referred to as the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) law and has in his/her possession a valid CCW permit, may carry a concealed pistol but may not discharge the pistol.


    http://www.co.gratiot.mi.us/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    St. Clair Shores, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    23

    This May help

    This May help.......
    Just edit to fit your city, and ordinance #'s

    Dear Mayor, Councilmember’s


    While researching the Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Clair Shores, I came across the Rules and Regulations 20.230 Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited.

    Sec. 67A-20. outlined in brief, below. The ordinance listed in Chapter 20.230, Article A, Section 67A-20 lists multiple restrictions for the possession and transport of Firearms, "in any park or recreation area".
    (1) No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.


    Under the 1990 state preemption law (MCL 123.1102, outlined in brief below), this ordinance is unenforceable in regard to firearm possession and transport. Furthermore, the existence of this ordinance, being in conflict with the law of the State of Michigan, is misleading to the people of St. Clair Shores and other citizens who may visit the City.

    As a St. Clair Shores resident, I am requesting this ordinance be amended within 90 days to comply with MCL 123.1102. Failure to amend this ordinance could be considered an act of malfeasance as it willfully misinforms the public of what is and is not allowed in the parks of the City of St. Clair Shores. I look forward to your resolution and response when this ordinance is amended.

    Thank you,




    Ordinances City of St. Clair Shores, Michigan
    20.230 PUBLIC PARKS AND FORESTRY CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
    Chap. 67 Effective:August 26, 1986
    Sec. 67A-20.Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited

    Sec. 67A-20.
    (1) No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.
    (2) No person shall discharge any of the weapons or instruments listed in section (1) into any park from outside a park.
    (3) The Director may designate areas within a park where bows and arrows can be used. In such cases, the Director shall promulgate regulations for the safe use of such devices, and no person shall fail to abide by such regulations.
    (chap. 67 eff. Aug. 26, 1986)




    Michigan Legislature FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)
    Act 319 of 1990
    123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
    Sec. 2.
    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.

    History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

    Quote Originally Posted by jm62383 View Post
    Gratiot County seems to have a firearms ordinance for their county parks. Im new here, but from what Ive been reading this ordinance would be illegal because it would not allow someone to carry without a CPL?


    SECTION 8 — FIREARMS
    No person shall, at any time, bring into or upon Commission property, nor have in their possession, nor discharge or set off anywhere upon said property, a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, air rifle, air gun, or any gun, rifle, firearm or other weapon that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This section shall not apply to any deputy sheriff, police officer, authorized park ranger or other duly appointed law enforcement officer while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of their position, or to any person while upon designated target ranges or areas.
    Any person who has satisfied the provisions of Public Act 381 of 2000, as amended, commonly referred to as the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) law and has in his/her possession a valid CCW permit, may carry a concealed pistol but may not discharge the pistol.


    http://www.co.gratiot.mi.us/

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    You are correct sir. MCL 123.1102 covers that ordinance. Local governments are only allowed to regulate the discharge of firearms. Period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    White Cloud, MI
    Posts
    45
    Im not member of gratiot county, I was just looking for some contact info and came across their ordinances and thought hey why dont I check them out. Im going to send an email anyway, would I send it to the county adminstrator?

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by jm62383 View Post
    Im not member of gratiot county, I was just looking for some contact info and came across their ordinances and thought hey why dont I check them out. Im going to send an email anyway, would I send it to the county adminstrator?
    The county administrator might be a good place to start, see if you can find a park administrator as well.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    .

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    White Cloud, MI
    Posts
    45
    Well I contacted the county admin and got a reply, to which I replied back with additional info I did not provide with my first email. Im still waiting the county admins second reply but I have a feeling that it isnt going to get fixed with just emails.


    I have also discovered that Ottawa county has the similar ordinance about firearms for their county parks. They have also received an email from myself concerning the issue.

    12.1a Be in possession of, discharge or set off a pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow, slingshot or any other
    instrument which discharges a projectile by air, explosion or any other force except for any
    deputy sheriff, police officer or other duly appointed law enforcement officer carrying out the
    duties and responsibilities of their position; unless prior written permission is obtained from
    the Commission or its Agent.

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by jm62383 View Post
    Well I contacted the county admin and got a reply, to which I replied back with additional info I did not provide with my first email. Im still waiting the county admins second reply but I have a feeling that it isnt going to get fixed with just emails.


    I have also discovered that Ottawa county has the similar ordinance about firearms for their county parks. They have also received an email from myself concerning the issue.

    12.1a Be in possession of, discharge or set off a pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow, slingshot or any other
    instrument which discharges a projectile by air, explosion or any other force except for any
    deputy sheriff, police officer or other duly appointed law enforcement officer carrying out the
    duties and responsibilities of their position; unless prior written permission is obtained from
    the Commission or its Agent.
    Post their replies. If you need more help let me know.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Mt.Pleasant
    Posts
    60

    Mt.Pleasant

    I know this is an older post but did you find anything out on this? Also Mt.Pleasant has the same thing for there parks as I'v looked because i live in Mt.Pleasant.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonman17 View Post
    I know this is an older post but did you find anything out on this? Also Mt.Pleasant has the same thing for there parks as I'v looked because i live in Mt.Pleasant.
    I live near Saginaw... and Mt. Pleasant has ignored my many emails concerning their illegal ordinance. No replies other than an automated thingy. I've been involved in other ordinances and other municipalities and haven't followed up for a while.

    Feel free to take the initiative if you are so inclined.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Gay Al View Post
    Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.
    Unfortunately, as long as the ordinance is on the books and available for anyone to read it... if a person who isn't aware of MCL 123.1102 reads it they will believe it to have the force of law and not carry a gun there.

    Which means, although a police officer didn't arrest anyone, simply reading the ordinance does, in effect, enforce that ordinance.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Unfortunately, as long as the ordinance is on the books and available for anyone to read it... if a person who isn't aware of MCL 123.1102 reads it they will believe it to have the force of law and not carry a gun there.

    Which means, although a police officer didn't arrest anyone, simply reading the ordinance does, in effect, enforce that ordinance.
    ...and put innocent lives at risk. Because of this sign, and others like it, someone might not come back home to their families. Let's never forget that this is why we do what we do.

  14. #14
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Gay Al View Post
    Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.
    this is the kind of thing we are trying to advoid, we never want it to get this far. also i agree that if someone not as knowlegeable should read an illegal ordance and follow it, it serves to enforce that ordinance. any ordinance like this needs to be addressed. if our goal is to get arrested, then we never would have stood up to royal oaks ban on weapons!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    White Cloud, MI
    Posts
    45
    Well I received a reply from ottawa county and I also found that monroe had the same ordinance and received a reply from them on the same day as I contacted them which I must say is impressive. Both counties have acknowledged the illegality of the ordinance and monroe has already addressed it and submitted the new language to their board of comm for approval. Ottawa is "aware and working on amending the rules to rectify the situation".

    Gratiot county has yet to reply to my second email and when Im done moving from Waterford over to the Big Rapids area I may take the time to drive out there personally to talk to the county admin.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCGRPR45 View Post
    this is the kind of thing we are trying to advoid, we never want it to get this far. also i agree that if someone not as knowlegeable should read an illegal ordance and follow it, it serves to enforce that ordinance. any ordinance like this needs to be addressed. if our goal is to get arrested, then we never would have stood up to royal oaks ban on weapons!
    Preemption doesn't require municipalities get rid of current ordinances. It only requires they not pass new ones nor enforce existing ones.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Preemption doesn't require municipalities get rid of current ordinances. It only requires they not pass new ones nor enforce existing ones.
    Not correct.

    Relevant excerpt from MCL 123.1102:
    "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 . . ." [prohibited acts highlighted]

    Thus, when it comes to firearms/components/ammunition, cities may not:

    1)Impose special taxation
    2)Enact
    3)Enforce
    4)Regulate

    A city's current ordinances are the laws which regulate behavior in the city. Any current ordinance which regulates behavior with regard to firearms/components/ammunition, no matter if it is enforced or not, is a violation of that fourth prohibition, simply by being on the books. You are correct that a city may not enact new or enforce existing, but you missed that they also may not regulate in the first place. Ordinances on the books do regulate behavior, quite often without enforcement because citizens read the ordinances and behave accordingly. But the existence of this very form of regulating is itself illegal according to MCL 123.1102 and the only remedy is removal of the offending ordinances.
    Last edited by DanM; 09-28-2010 at 02:50 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    Not correct.

    Relevant excerpt from MCL 123.1102:
    "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 . . ." [prohibited acts highlighted]

    Thus, when it comes to firearms/components/ammunition, cities may not:

    1)Impose special taxation
    2)Enact
    3)Enforce
    4)Regulate

    A city's current ordinances are the laws which regulate behavior in the city. Any current ordinance which regulates behavior with regard to firearms/components/ammunition, no matter if it is enforced or not, is a violation of that fourth prohibition, simply by being on the books. You are correct that a city may not enact new or enforce existing, but you missed that they also may not regulate in the first place. Ordinances on the books do regulate behavior, quite often without enforcement because citizens read the ordinances and behave accordingly. But the existence of this very form of regulating is itself illegal according to MCL 123.1102 and the only remedy is removal of the offending ordinances.
    The term"regulate" is usually said to apply to "administrative law".
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    The term"regulate" is usually said to apply to "administrative law".
    Such limitation to the definition of "regulate" does not exist in MCL 123.1102. In fact, with regard to the regulating it prohibits LUGs from engaging in, in addition to the specific prohibitions on taxing, enacting, and enforcing, it powerfully includes "or regulate in any other manner" [emphasis added]. Quite clearly and with very few state-defined exceptions, MCL 123.1102 prohibits LUGs from regulating in any manner--including in the manner of "administrative law" (whatever you meant by that).

    MCL 123.1102 is a relatively powerful and complete piece of preemption legislation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    Such limitation to the definition of "regulate" does not exist in MCL 123.1102. In fact, with regard to the regulating it prohibits LUGs from engaging in, in addition to the specific prohibitions on taxing, enacting, and enforcing, it powerfully includes "or regulate in any other manner" [emphasis added]. Quite clearly and with very few state-defined exceptions, MCL 123.1102 prohibits LUGs from regulating in any manner--including in the manner of "administrative law" (whatever you meant by that).

    MCL 123.1102 is a relatively powerful and complete piece of preemption legislation.
    Not to make it personal, but if you've never heard of "administrative law", maybe you shouldn't be opining on law at all?

    Go look up Administrative Law on wikipedia.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Unfortunately, as long as the ordinance is on the books and available for anyone to read it... if a person who isn't aware of MCL 123.1102 reads it they will believe it to have the force of law and not carry a gun there.

    Which means, although a police officer didn't arrest anyone, simply reading the ordinance does, in effect, enforce that ordinance.
    It's been my experience, anyone interested in carrying for self defense, usually has the drive to check into all the laws pertaining to such action. If they don't, they get what they deserve.

    Carrying a firearm for self defense requires intelligence as well as diligence. And even though not required for OC only, practice as well as instruction should be desired, even if not required. Education in the laws is also something to be sought after. As I'm sure we all know, as most of us have encountered the uneducated among us. You know the ones, the "you can't do that, you're not a cop" types, as well as others.

    I know the laws, or at least most of them, and I know that state law trumps local in this instance.

    But, we could always hold a picnic there.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM
    Such limitation to the definition of "regulate" does not exist in MCL 123.1102. In fact, with regard to the regulating it prohibits LUGs from engaging in, in addition to the specific prohibitions on taxing, enacting, and enforcing, it powerfully includes "or regulate in any other manner" [emphasis added]. Quite clearly and with very few state-defined exceptions, MCL 123.1102 prohibits LUGs from regulating in any manner--including in the manner of "administrative law" (whatever you meant by that).

    MCL 123.1102 is a relatively powerful and complete piece of preemption legislation.
    Not to make it personal, but if you've never heard of "administrative law", maybe you shouldn't be opining on law at all?

    Go look up Administrative Law on wikipedia.
    I don't take that personal. You are expressing, essentially, an opinion that if I don't know what "administrative law" means, then it might be some factor I'm not considering to getting around the "or regulate in any other manner" obstacle that I've shown you.

    But I don't need to know what "administrative law" is. "Or regulate in any other manner" means that NOTHING gets around state law except for what authority is given to LUGs by state law. And what regulation authority is given to LUGs by state law is essentially just the ability to prohibit discharge of a firearm. I have read the exceptions in state law for what LUGs can regulate, it is QUITE SPECIFIC language, and nothing to do with "administrative law" is in the language.

    I'll quote the state law section listing exceptions that LUGs may regulate on, if you wish to persist that this something called "administrative law" has something to do with exceptions to preemption for the LUGs.
    Last edited by DanM; 09-28-2010 at 08:20 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by jm62383 View Post
    Well I received a reply from ottawa county and I also found that monroe had the same ordinance and received a reply from them on the same day as I contacted them which I must say is impressive. Both counties have acknowledged the illegality of the ordinance and monroe has already addressed it and submitted the new language to their board of comm for approval. Ottawa is "aware and working on amending the rules to rectify the situation".

    Gratiot county has yet to reply to my second email and when Im done moving from Waterford over to the Big Rapids area I may take the time to drive out there personally to talk to the county admin.
    Monroe has this too? please keep me updated about the progress and let me know if you need any help.

Posting Permissions

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