Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: MCL 123.1102 Legal Language Changes

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    MCL 123.1102 Legal Language Changes

    The following is what I have come up with for the legal language changes for MCL 123.1102 that gives it some "teeth". Please review and provide feedback!

    Here is the information that guided my effort:

    1. Changes originated from language existing in MCL 15.271. H/T to esq_stu on MGO for providing this (and other guidance).

    2. Changes are indicated in BOLD and this is written as if it were an actual bill (may help in its introduction).

    3. No criminal penalties are included due to local unit of government officials having qualified immunity.

    4. 120 days were arbitrarily selected as a starting point for amend/repeal and signage removal time frames. There are some cities (like Clawson) that changes to ordinances must be voted on by residents. ENFORCEMENT IS IMMEDIATELY STOPPED. The important point is to set reasonable restrictions, even if city officials aren't!

    5. The attorney general or county prosecutor MUST (READ: SHALL) take up legal action once the 120 days are expired (non-compliance with the act). This is the TEETH of the changes and should be kept if at all possible, although a person could do the same (and get their costs back). In the current economy, this would help get some lawyers into the mix as they would be paid for their efforts.

  2. #2
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Actual Changes

    A bill to amend Act 319 of 1990 (MCL 123.1102) to provide legal remedies for a local unit of government failure to comply with this act. The legal remedies are based upon existing law codified within Act 267 of 1976 entitled the “Open Meetings Act” (MCL 15.271).

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

    FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
    Act 319 of 1990
    123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) 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.

    (2) Once notified, a local unit of government shall immediately cease enforcement of any tax, ordinance, rule, contract provision, or regulation that violates subsection (1). A local unit of government shall have 120 days from date of notification to amend or repeal of any tax, ordinance, rule, contract provision, or regulation that violates subsection (1) and to amend or remove any signage affected.

    (3) If a local unit of government is not complying with this act, the attorney general or prosecuting attorney of the county in which the local unit of government serves, shall commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act. A person may also commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act.

    (4) An action for injunctive relief against a local unit of government shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the local unit of government serves. An action for mandamus against a local unit of government under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief or mandamus, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or mandamus. If a person succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eastpointe, MI
    Posts
    53
    (5) Any act, tax, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or contract provision which violates section (1) shall be completely null, and void, and unenforceable from the instant it passes.

    (6)Any member, agent, or official of any unit of government, or Federal Agency, or any Peace Officer attempting to enforce an act, tax, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or contract provision that violates section (1) shall be guilty of a Felony, and shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined no more than $10,000, or both as well as harassment, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations where appropriate.
    Last edited by Small Arms Collector; 09-05-2010 at 03:02 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Small Arms Collector View Post
    (5) Any act, tax, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or contract provision which violates section (1) shall be completely null, and void, and unenforceable from the instant it passes.

    (6)Any member, agent, or official of any unit of government, or Federal Agency, or any Peace Officer attempting to enforce an act, tax, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or contract provision that violates section (1) shall be guilty of a Felony, and shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined no more than $10,000, or both as well as harassment, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations where appropriate.
    Thanks for the input.

    I believe that your provision (5) is already incorporated in (1) and (2).

    I believe that your provision (6) will not fly due to qualified immunity. At first, I wanted criminal penalties as well. After discussing this with multiple people, I do not think it would be possible.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Eastpointe, MI
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Thanks for the input.

    I believe that your provision (5) is already incorporated in (1) and (2).

    I believe that your provision (6) will not fly due to qualified immunity. At first, I wanted criminal penalties as well. After discussing this with multiple people, I do not think it would be possible.
    The way you wrote (2) though, they could argue that there illegal ordinances, etc. are valid up to 120 days, in other words lets say witz got Royal Oak to put the ban in again next year, since it only lasts for 4 days Royal Oak could try to argue that it's enforceable, so I added (5) to Clarify. As for (6) it's a threat, let the courts figure it out.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Small Arms Collector View Post
    The way you wrote (2) though, they could argue that there illegal ordinances, etc. are valid up to 120 days, in other words lets say witz got Royal Oak to put the ban in again next year, since it only lasts for 4 days Royal Oak could try to argue that it's enforceable, so I added (5) to Clarify. As for (6) it's a threat, let the courts figure it out.
    Even though I clearly understand that any illegal ordinance must be disregarded immediately, I can see the language of the 120 day rule confusing the Anti-Gunners.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Here is how I think it would be more appropriate. "A local unit of government shall immediately amend or repeal of any tax, ordinance, rule, contract provision, or regulation that violates subsection (1) and to amend or remove any signage affected."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    338
    only Michigan congressman can introduce changes you are talking about. Who knows of a pr 2A congressman that can sponsor such Bill?

    Also, keep in mind that until November nothing will happen. If Michigan House flips to GOP in November, then committees will be controlled by GOP and it is more likely that pro 2A Bills will reach the floor for vote.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by sasha601 View Post
    only Michigan congressman can introduce changes you are talking about. Who knows of a pr 2A congressman that can sponsor such Bill?

    Also, keep in mind that until November nothing will happen. If Michigan House flips to GOP in November, then committees will be controlled by GOP and it is more likely that pro 2A Bills will reach the floor for vote.
    Yes, I know of a Michigan Legislator who has expressed interest in reviewing this and may possibly introduce it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Thanks for the input.

    I believe that your provision (5) is already incorporated in (1) and (2).

    I believe that your provision (6) will not fly due to qualified immunity. At first, I wanted criminal penalties as well. After discussing this with multiple people, I do not think it would be possible.
    Governmental immunity exists until there is a breach of the law or willful intent, which is what happens when they pass the law, tax, ordinance, ...etc. They don't get qualified immunity for putting up a "whitey only" drinking fountain. No different here, especially since there is already a precedence for it.

    Giving them 120 days actually takes the teeth out of the current law since they don't currently get that, nor should they. They also don't need to be notified that they are breaking the law, they need to be held accountable, and passing another law to hold them accountable makes about as much sense as passing a gun law to prevent murder.

  11. #11
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Yes, I know of a Michigan Legislator who has expressed interest in reviewing this and may possibly introduce it.
    There are legislators who are members of MCRGO and I'm sure they would help.I'm a member also and Steve Dulan is an officer of MCRGO.
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Governmental immunity exists until there is a breach of the law or willful intent, which is what happens when they pass the law, tax, ordinance, ...etc. They don't get qualified immunity for putting up a "whitey only" drinking fountain. No different here, especially since there is already a precedence for it.

    Giving them 120 days actually takes the teeth out of the current law since they don't currently get that, nor should they. They also don't need to be notified that they are breaking the law, they need to be held accountable, and passing another law to hold them accountable makes about as much sense as passing a gun law to prevent murder.
    Based on this, I think a consequence for non-compliance needs to be drafted instead.
    Last edited by Taurus850CIA; 09-06-2010 at 07:15 PM.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    I don't think the law needs any changing really. Once their in violation, they are in violation immediately, not after someone discovers it and calls them out on it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by kubel View Post
    I don't think the law needs any changing really. Once their in violation, they are in violation immediately, not after someone discovers it and calls them out on it.
    As it stands, they can be in violation of the law and there is no current remedy save for an individual filing for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction.

    It appears that everyone is reacting to 120 days I put into it. I will remove it and see what people think.

  15. #15
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Actual Changes - Take 2

    A bill to amend Act 319 of 1990 (MCL 123.1102) to provide legal remedies for a local unit of government failure to comply with this act. The legal remedies are based upon existing law codified within Act 267 of 1976 entitled the “Open Meetings Act” (MCL 15.271).

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

    FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
    Act 319 of 1990
    123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) 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 and ammunition components 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.

    (2) If a local unit of government is not complying with this act, the attorney general or prosecuting attorney of the county in which the local unit of government serves, shall commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act. A person may also commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act.

    (3) An action for injunctive relief against a local unit of government shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the local unit of government serves. An action for mandamus against a local unit of government under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief or mandamus, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or mandamus. If a person succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    How about taking a page from Wyoming and Arizona law. besides firearms, add that any weapon lawfully possessed under state law is preempted. These knife restrictions in Michigan are silly. Remember "arms" covers more than just "firearms". Oregon has preemption due to state supreme court cases.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Taurus850CIA View Post
    Based on this, I think a consequence for non-compliance needs to be drafted instead.
    Has anyone FOIA'd MCOLES, MML, MAC, and held their feet to the fire? I don't remember seeing anything about it. So far, all I've seen is people screaming, "It's the law! It's the law!". Nor have I read any filed complaints to the commandant of the MSP.

    I think this is just another case of people looking to government to solve their problem, rather than trying to do it themselves (no offense PDdetroit). It's the same mentality of passing a law banning guns in order to stop murder, when murder is already illegal. Just like all gun laws, the were allowed because the people expected someone else to do their dirty work in protecting their rights.

    The 2nd Amendment to the USC prohibits any of this.

    Article I, Section 6 prohibits any of this.

    MCL 123.1102 prohibits any of this.

    So, since they choose to ignore any of that, lets pass another law, thereby demonstrating that it isn't a right (because we need regulation to protect it, and rights need no such protection since they are guaranteed). And of course, we'll expect them to honor that new law, since they ignored all the other ones. This isn't how you hold our leaders and servants feet to the fire. It's how you bow down.

    How much money does doing this cost? How much money does a FOIA cost (ask Stilly how much New Era's FOIA cost)? How much money has been spent on hot dogs, gas, trifolds (my gun shop prints theirs on their own paper with their own ink, and he did it before I even told him where to find it), and other miscellaneous items. How much money has been spent on pens, key chains, and anything else. How many of us have contacted federally licensed lawyers to see their take (outside the ones posted by our former prez.)?

    Don't get me wrong. I've thought this very same sort of line before about, "putting teeth into 123.1102." Thing is, there are already "teeth" in the law, so putting more in will do no more good than those already in place if we refuse to use them. All it will do is demonstrate that we are still willing to appeal to them who already violate us.

    Before someone yells, "But we already tried that!", stop and realize that there are more than one way to skin a cat.

    There is a picnic/charity this coming Saturday in the middle of the LP. It's location is central, so it should be accessible to all (carpool anyone). There have already been press releases on it. People leave fliers at all the sporting goods stores, and all the gun shops.

    Do we only want to reach gun owners? We used to look forward to engaging people who weren't necessarily anti-gun, but yet were because they'd been programed by society. And, when we engage them in a civil manner, they would move over to our side. Now, people seem to have lost that skill of persuasion, so they resort to talking down to people who, "just don't know any better, but I'll help you.", and say, "Well, it's the law, so you have to do it.". What you don't win with diplomacy, you can take with force, but with force you will alienate people. Before you try to say that this line of thinking is defeatist, or "not fighting for our rights out of fear", stop. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean I can't. When I see someone on a comment section or message board spouting off about how they should respect our rights, and "it's the law" (the theme is always the same that basically the "poor libtard/sheeple" doesn't know any better), I don't even bother because that is a form of force used to subject others. Again, just because your (not any particular individual) can't do it, doesn't mean that everyone else is equally lacking.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    My feedback on changes to pertinent language, below. Please use as you see fit.

    (1) 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, other firearms, or ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols, other firearms, or ammunition, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state. (Streamlined some sentences.)

    (2) If a local unit of government is not in compliance with this act, the attorney general or prosecuting attorney of the county in which the local unit of government serves, shall commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act. (Changed "complying" to "in compliance", for a more black and white determination of whether the law is being violated or not. Removed the bit about persons being able to take court action. That is already a fact and needs no law, I believe.)

    (3) An action for injunctive relief against a local unit of government shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the local unit of government serves. An action for mandamus against a local unit of government under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief or mandamus, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or mandamus. If a person succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the respondent or defendant local unit of government shall be responsible for paying all court costs and actual attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff or complainant person for the action. (Strengthened to be clear about the LUG being responsible for costs.)
    Last edited by DanM; 09-07-2010 at 09:50 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Normally, I would let a post containing what I believe to be a "rant" slide on by. I slept on it prior to responding and still feel I need to respond to it. There are elements of the post, along with PM's sent by same, that are directed towards myself that I feel need to be addressed other than by PM. So, here we go!

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Has anyone FOIA'd MCOLES, MML, MAC, and held their feet to the fire? I don't remember seeing anything about it. So far, all I've seen is people screaming, "It's the law! It's the law!". Nor have I read any filed complaints to the commandant of the MSP.
    Sounds like good suggestions, although they haven't been made until now - WHY???

    Please expand upon how and what you FIOA these organizations for and detail actions to be taken with each to help achieve compliance with MCL 123.1102. I am interested in how one would attack the problem utilizing these methods, so we all can use this in future efforts.

    BTW - your supposition about "all you have seen is screaming" about the issue is not supported by direct fact. If it was true, Royal Oak would not have voted to change the Festival Contract by a slim 4-3 vote due to direct efforts by multiple organizations' members (OCDO, MOC, MGO).

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    I think this is just another case of people looking to government to solve their problem, rather than trying to do it themselves (no offense PDdetroit). It's the same mentality of passing a law banning guns in order to stop murder, when murder is already illegal. Just like all gun laws, the were allowed because the people expected someone else to do their dirty work in protecting their rights.
    Well, I do take offense Sir since I am the one who has suggested this action, took up the action, and posted a possible solution on multiple sites. These statements above, and expressed in PM, do indeed attack my "mentality" by comparing my thought processes, intent, and approach to that of an ANTI-GUN PERSON.

    Is this really how you see me and what I am suggesting?

    Additionally, you state that this is a case where "I want government to handle the problem for me". How do you reconcile this with your own statement above of "Nor have I read any filed complaints to the commandant of the MSP"? This statement suggests you do believe that there is a "time and place" where government should intervene on behalf of We The People. I also believe this where appropriate. I did not suggest only the government to handle this as is evidenced by inclusion in the changes for persons initiating Civil Actions to be reimbursed for costs!

    The changes I have suggested compel specific officials to enforce the CURRENT LAW, not make NEW LAW TO BAN OR ALLOW ANYTHING (lone exception for ammunition components). I believe it is a waste of time for us to be forced to go to each "local unit of government" to ensure compliance with MCL 123.1102 where there are more important issues to spend limited resources on.

    Are you for doing away with our government?

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    The 2nd Amendment to the USC prohibits any of this.

    Article I, Section 6 prohibits any of this.

    MCL 123.1102 prohibits any of this.

    So, since they choose to ignore any of that, lets pass another law, thereby demonstrating that it isn't a right (because we need regulation to protect it, and rights need no such protection since they are guaranteed). And of course, we'll expect them to honor that new law, since they ignored all the other ones. This isn't how you hold our leaders and servants feet to the fire. It's how you bow down.
    You sir are naive to think that rights need no protection. All of the LAWS you stated above are meant for just that purpose. It is OBVIOUS that the BILL OF RIGHTS was proposed and passed TO ENSURE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS.

    I propose both INDIVIDUAL ACTION and CHANGES TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW. My proposal is backed-up by direct facts by my postings here on OCDO.

    Sir, it is offensive that you infer I am "bowing down" to government in any shape, form, or manner. My direct actions speak otherwise.

    Are you allowing radical thoughts to impair your view of reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    How much money does doing this cost? How much money does a FOIA cost (ask Stilly how much New Era's FOIA cost)? How much money has been spent on hot dogs, gas, trifolds (my gun shop prints theirs on their own paper with their own ink, and he did it before I even told him where to find it), and other miscellaneous items. How much money has been spent on pens, key chains, and anything else. How many of us have contacted federally licensed lawyers to see their take (outside the ones posted by our former prez.)?
    Again, I believe it is a waste of time for us to be forced to go to each "local unit of government" to ensure compliance with MCL 123.1102 where there are more important issues to spend limited resources on.

    I have discussed this with lawyers on both MGO and through the Optional Legal Coverage I elected to use from my work. The result? The actions of a "local unit of government" in this instance do not rise to a "Criminal Level" and will have to be addressed by Civil Actions. These legal opinions are backed up by Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. City Of Chicago being Civil Actions as well, actions that went all the way "up the chain" to the US Supreme Court.

    The changes I propose TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW are comprised of exactly this - Civil Actions. In these proposed changes, it also includes that COSTS DUE TO ACTIONS OF A PERSON be reimbursed if successful where today there is no such protection. It is obvious that this will help to engage Persons and Lawyers willing to take on a "local unit of government" in civil actions, thereby "holding their feet to the fire".

    BTW - this is OCDO, not MOC. To date, I have yet to become an MOC Member and do not even have an ID on their site, although I do work closely with those who are members.

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Don't get me wrong. I've thought this very same sort of line before about, "putting teeth into 123.1102." Thing is, there are already "teeth" in the law, so putting more in will do no more good than those already in place if we refuse to use them. All it will do is demonstrate that we are still willing to appeal to them who already violate us.
    If there truly were "teeth" in this law, then we have had almost 20 YEARS OF NON-COMPLIANCE by "local units of government". To me, it is obvious that it is not working. I believe the proposed changes and our actions to date clearly state "we will not stand idly by while you trample our rights".

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Before someone yells, "But we already tried that!", stop and realize that there are more than one way to skin a cat.

    There is a picnic/charity this coming Saturday in the middle of the LP. It's location is central, so it should be accessible to all (carpool anyone). There have already been press releases on it. People leave fliers at all the sporting goods stores, and all the gun shops.

    Do we only want to reach gun owners? We used to look forward to engaging people who weren't necessarily anti-gun, but yet were because they'd been programed by society. And, when we engage them in a civil manner, they would move over to our side. Now, people seem to have lost that skill of persuasion, so they resort to talking down to people who, "just don't know any better, but I'll help you.", and say, "Well, it's the law, so you have to do it.". What you don't win with diplomacy, you can take with force, but with force you will alienate people. Before you try to say that this line of thinking is defeatist, or "not fighting for our rights out of fear", stop. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean I can't. When I see someone on a comment section or message board spouting off about how they should respect our rights, and "it's the law" (the theme is always the same that basically the "poor libtard/sheeple" doesn't know any better), I don't even bother because that is a form of force used to subject others. Again, just because your (not any particular individual) can't do it, doesn't mean that everyone else is equally lacking.
    First of all, I could care less what someone's political bent/slant is. I try my level best not to let my political stances come into play here on OCDO. By doing so, I take one more "argument point" out of the equation when dealing with others. I also refused to comment on other issues to ensure the "waters were not muddied" (like the Royal Oak Medical Marijuana Issue).

    You say it is up to We The People to hold government's feet to the fire to follow the law. Then, you turn around and state we will alienate people by stating "it is the law" and forcing it to be followed. Can you clarify this for me?

    I will utilize the Royal Oak ABE Festival Contract Issue as an example here. You insinuate we have lost the skill of persuasion but yet we prevailed in this effort by doing exactly that while presenting ourselves professionally in the City Commission Meetings and in the Media. The Mayor of Royal Oak even stated to our members that "maybe it was not such a big deal after all". We have now educated many thousands of persons that OC is Legal in Michigan. We have members of the news media who are actually DEFENDING our position on this and who have partnered with us in specific instances. We have many freedom-loving persons who have "come out of the woodwork" to support us. Every News Article that I can find to date has stated that "firearms at the ABE Festival were no issue at all". Every person in my business and personal "circles" has stated support for this effort, most of whom are not Gun Owners at all! The direct evidence again is contrary to your statements.


    All this being said, I am hopeful you will review what I have written and take it into consideration. I asked you via PM to review this specifically because I value your input. Due to your recent postings and PM's, I am beginning to rethink that position.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416
    PDinDetroit,

    Rather than respond to everything you wrote (I've a feeling that you and I going back and forth on the forums could be quite tedious for all parties concerned because we both tend to address each point individually, making for long posts. ) ), I've sent you a PM.


    However, I would like to address at least one aspect of your post.

    I would humbly submit that my previous post had no personal comments whatsoever (at least I certainly tried to avoid them), and that I wrote them with a much broader scale in mind.

    Example:

    Do you think your the only one to ever come up with the idea of changing 123.1102 to enforce compliance? Even when I specifically said that I myself had previously had similar ideas?

    I would (again humbly and respectfully) submit that it isn't about you, unless you want to make it so.

    Another Example:
    When I first wrote, "WASH, RINSE, REPEAT", there were not nearly as many people on these boards, and MGO didn't even have an OC subforum yet (I doubt MOC was even close to a concept when I first uttered the words). There could have easily have been people who (just like you) chose to take the comments as being directed personally toward them. In the same vein, it was not directed toward anyone specifically.

    I can only hope that you accept and understand that, "Had I been addressing you specifically, I would not have used such general terms and phrases. ", rather than specifically addressing you (I even left out some asides stating that it was a generalization, just because I thought it wouldn't be as aesthetically pleasing.)

    Nevertheless. I've sent a PM and do hope you take advantage of it.

    Respectfully,
    ghostrider

  21. #21
    Regular Member quickdraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by ghostrider View Post
    Has anyone FOIA'd MCOLES, MML, MAC, and held their feet to the fire?... snip
    I agree that they need to be taken to task on what is already the law. The problem I see is that there is no fire. They have no consequence if they decide to drag out the process, waste time in an effort to be forgotten, or otherwise beat around the bush. The law is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. What it isn't is penalizing. We have fines to pay, community service to perform, and similar things when it comes to paying the price for not following the law. Why do "they" not? We can vote them out, but wouldn't it be rather effective if they didn't have to wait until the end of their term to suffer consequence?

  22. #22
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    While doing some research on a job issue, I found this:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-158-of-1966

    Could this be used to "force compliance"?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    While doing some research on a job issue, I found this:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-158-of-1966

    Could this be used to "force compliance"?
    Linked at the bottom of that page was 752.11 which states:

    Sec. 1.
    Any public official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state and who wilfully and knowingly fails to uphold or enforce the law with the result that any person's legal rights are denied is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    and 752.12:

    Sec. 2.
    Any person convicted of violating this act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  24. #24
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    While doing some research on a job issue, I found this:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-158-of-1966

    Could this be used to "force compliance"?
    From what I read, YES it may be possible.

    Let's see what this law requires to be in force:

    A. Any Public Official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state.

    B. Said Public Official must willfully and knowingly fail to uphold or enforce the law.

    C. Any person's legal rights are denied based upon A & B.

    The main issue for Item C above is that the person must attempt to exercise the rights AND be denied of such. Let's consider some scenarios:

    1. Royal Oak never changed the contract and left the No Firearms clause in. Persons who were OC'ing went to the Festival and were denied entry based upon the No Firearms clause. It is possible, under these circumstances, that the City Commissioners, City Mayor, City Attorney, and Police Chief could be guilty of misdemeanor offenses under this law. This meets the criteria for attempted exercise and active denial.

    2. Royal Oak changed the contract and removed the No Firearms clause. Due to the Open Carry Alcohol Zone, Persons who OC without a CPL did not go to the Festival. It is NOT possible, under these circumstances, that the City Commissioners, City Mayor, City Attorney, and Police Chief could be guilty of misdemeanor offenses under this law. This does not meet the criteria for attempted exercise and active denial.

    3. Royal Oak changed the contract and removed the No Firearms clause. Due to the Open Carry Alcohol Zone, Persons who OC without a CPL did go to the Festival but were not denied entry. It is NOT possible, under these circumstances, that the City Commissioners, City Mayor, City Attorney, and Police Chief could be guilty of misdemeanor offenses under this law. This does not meet the criteria for attempted exercise and active denial.

    4. Royal Oak changed the contract and removed the No Firearms clause. Due to the Open Carry Alcohol Zone, Persons who OC without a CPL did go to the Festival and were denied entry. It is possible, under these circumstances, that the City Commissioners, City Mayor, City Attorney, and Police Chief could be guilty of misdemeanor offenses under this law. This meets the criteria for attempted exercise and active denial.

    Clear as mud? Maybe, but the mere fact this law exists gives us an extra "hammer" to help ensure a city complies with laws like MCL 123.1102.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Methinks I'll add Act 158 of 1966 to my letters and presentations for local councils............
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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