Another county park ordinance

Bikenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TheQ said:

DanM said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jm62383 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Monroe has this too? please keep me updated about the progress and let me know if you need any help.