• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MCL 123.1102 Legal Language Changes

quickdraw

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
2
Location
Michigan
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?
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Methinks I'll add Act 158 of 1966 to my letters and presentations for local councils............
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
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.
How about the scenario in which an officer or Public Office Holder (POH) tells a legally armed person he/she must abide by an illegal sign, say... one on a PD door...? Or someone is illegally denied a PP... Illegally denied FOIA info... etc???
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
How about the scenario in which an officer or Public Office Holder (POH) tells a legally armed person he/she must abide by an illegal sign, say... one on a PD door...? Or someone is illegally denied a PP... Illegally denied FOIA info... etc???

Let's take each one at a time:

A. An officer or Public Office Holder (POH) tells a legally armed person he/she must abide by an illegal sign, say... one on a PD door

Yes, this would rise to what would be the standard of right attempted to be exercised and denied. The issue would be whether or not the person is in an elected or appointed position. I would attempt to speak to someone like the police chief in the event this is an officer interaction. Not to say we want to get anyone in trouble, just that a person in am elected or appointed position is the one making the call.

B. someone is illegally denied a PP

Yes, this might rise to what would be the standard of right attempted to be exercised and denied. The issue would be whether or not the person is in an elected or appointed position. I would believe that you would first have to go to Circuit Court to file and win a Civil Action, then you could go after the person who illegally denied you.

C. Illegally denied FOIA info

I do not know enough about FOIA Law (yet!) to be able to answer this.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
ghostrider and I have spoken about the posts made here. He had no intention of directing comments towards me personally, which I how I took his post.

I should have discussed the matter with him via PM and/or other means prior to taking it to the Public Forum. For this, I am truly sorry and humbly apologize.

As to the main issues discussed here, we have agreed to disagree for parts of the issue. I still believe that MCL 123.1102 needs some changes, but have been made aware of other avenues that should be pursued as well. It was never my intention to say this was the only way, as I believe that multiple efforts can be made to solve specific issues.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Great, I would hate to miss that opportunity. If we can get the lawmakers to revisit and amend the law, and don't remember to include schools. We would be hard pressed to come back to the lawmakers later saying, oh wait, we forgot, can you guys look at this law again for us, we need this done too?!
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
ghostrider and I have spoken about the posts made here. He had no intention of directing comments towards me personally, which I how I took his post.

I should have discussed the matter with him via PM and/or other means prior to taking it to the Public Forum. For this, I am truly sorry and humbly apologize.

As to the main issues discussed here, we have agreed to disagree for parts of the issue. I still believe that MCL 123.1102 needs some changes, but have been made aware of other avenues that should be pursued as well. It was never my intention to say this was the only way, as I believe that multiple efforts can be made to solve specific issues.

Thanks PDinDetroit, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I hope that people can learn from this and realize that honorable men can disagree honorably.

We often say that those who take offense at our choice to carry do so because it is a choice they make. What people should understand is that it doesn’t apply to just anti’s, but everyone. If PDinDetroit had not stepped up to make things right, then it would have ill served everyone through dissention among us. That he was able to be the better man is a credit not only to himself, but also everyone else here as a representation of the general character of these boards.

My personal thanks.

g
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Based upon some recent information on Cities with Preemption Issues and that the November Elections will soon be behind us, I am resurrecting this thread and the effort I started. Please see the following post for the Legal Language I will be submitting.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Actual Changes - Take 3 (Changes from Current Law in BOLD)

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 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. 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 and 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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.)

1) I wanted changes to this area limited so as to lessen arguments against the bill passage.

2) Agreed, included for the "in compliance" language. I believe the person should be kept to ensure that a court does not somehow rule that said person has no standing.

3) Agreed, included.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.

I agree that the Knife laws that each City has are ridiculous and the situation needs to be addressed. I believe that we need to take one step at a time and make sure that MCL 123.1102 has some "teeth" before creating a Knife Preemption Law by adding to MCL 123.1102 (along with a number of other changes that would be needed for Knife Carry - blade length, blade type, etc).

Are there any court rulings that classify "Keep and Bear Arms" that includes Knives? This would be very helpful!
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Thanks for bringing this thread up, and including the knife thing. Could you possibly try to add colleges to the powers that should be limited? To me, this would be a basic common sense addition to the law. If not, why not?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Thanks for bringing this thread up, and including the knife thing. Could you possibly try to add colleges to the powers that should be limited? To me, this would be a basic common sense addition to the law. If not, why not?

I would agree that the definition of "local unit of government" should be updated to include more than what it does currently, but I believe we need to move "little-by-slowly" as I believe bigger changes will involve more difficult "fights". It is not that it shouldn't be done, it is that we have a great case right now as specific cities have decided to not follow this specific MI Law. I would rather get this one handled first before attempting other changes (better to get one done).

For reference purposes, I have found multiple definitions within MI Law Definitions.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1101
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT) Act 319 of 1990

123.1101 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-2-161
PLACEMENT OF NATIONAL MOTTO (EXCERPT) Act 184 of 2001

2.161 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

...

(b) “Unit of local government” means a political subdivision of this state, including school districts, community college districts, intermediate school districts, public school academies, cities, villages, townships, counties, and authorities, if the political subdivision has as its primary purpose the providing of local governmental service for citizens in a geographically limited area of the state and has the power to act primarily on behalf of that area.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-15-501
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES (EXCERPT) Act 199 of 1976

15.501 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

...

(d) “Local unit of government” means a city, county, township, village, school district, intermediate school district, or subdivision thereof of this state or any other state. A governmental subdivision of another state which is not the same as a local unit of government of this state is included if it is similar in organization or has similar powers and duties as a local unit of government of this state.

There are more...
 
Last edited:
Top