Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Taylor screws up bad firearms ordinance update? Any ideas people?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Angry Taylor screws up bad firearms ordinance update? Any ideas people?

    They posted this in the local paper on Sunday 11-14-2010 roughly 6 months after our visit. You think they would have done a better job after all that time. It also appears they forgot to do anything about the ordinance that restricts gun related businesses that was in violation due to preemption.


  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    This is known as upping the ante they are wanting to see if we are serious and will call them on this crap.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    This is known as upping the ante they are wanting to see if we are serious and will call them on this crap.
    My reading of this is they are saying: 'Take us to court, if the court rules against us then the ordinance is invalid, if not piss off' maybe I'm reading this wrong?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Should we pay them another visit in force?

    Anyone think we need to make another appearance? Maybe December 16th? OOPS it would be TUESDAY DECEMBER 21st
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 11-17-2010 at 09:09 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Anyone think we need to make another appearance? Maybe December 16th?
    December 16, 177(3?) - Boston Tea Party
    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.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    December 16, 177(3?) - Boston Tea Party
    Call it fate , you can tell where my mind was at when posting! Good catch on the date Q. The meeting date would be December 21st at 7:15pm in the Taylor city hall.
    http://local.yahoo.com/info-16200251...3?viewtype=map

    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 11-17-2010 at 09:14 AM. Reason: add tea party image

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    By them rewriting the firearm ordinance in this manner, I feel it directly violates MCL 123.1102. They have written a NEW law. It would seem to me, that once this new ordinance is officially adopted, we would then be able to move against it and the city. Why not just write all sorts of cooky crap, like " it is illegal to wear a turban, unless a court finds this ordinance illegal...then you can." WTF?
    Last edited by scot623; 11-17-2010 at 10:45 AM.

  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 scot623 View Post
    By them rewriting the firearm ordinance in this manner, I feel it directly violates MCL 123.1102. They have written a NEW law. It would seem to me, that once this new ordinance is officially adopted, we would then be able to move against it and the city. Why not just write all sorts of cooky crap, like " it is illegal to wear a turban, unless a court finds this ordinance illegal...then you can." WTF?
    They are still banning firearms in parks. They can't do that lawfully. I suggest people go to the next meeting and explain MCL 123.1102 to them again.

    How does this "new" ordinance compare to the old??? Seems like it's the same thing.
    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
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    They are still banning firearms in parks. They can't do that lawfully. I suggest people go to the next meeting and explain MCL 123.1102 to them again.

    How does this "new" ordinance compare to the old??? Seems like it's the same thing.
    MCL 123.1102 does not make it illegal to have an old outdated firearm ordinance on the books as long as it's not being enforced. No where does it say all old firearm ordiances must be repealed. It does make it illegal to write NEW firearm ordinances that are more restrictive than the state. And that what they've done. Fools.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126
    They added the part at minimum, "No person shall have........blah blah blah........Contrary to state law".

    When they write the ord in this manner it covers everything except what is covered by state law. In other words they regulate everything except firearms.

    It is a backwards method of complying to state law, but is inclusive of all ords that regulate all the stuff they list, while allowing state laws on firearms to be in effect that excludes firearms from this ord. It reads bad but I think in legalese, it is lawful.

    There may be other issues that are not covered but for open carry and possession, state law allows and this ord allows state law to regulate.

    I wouldn't be too hasty in jumping on them, until we get a better legal opinion on the wording.

    BTW, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my opinion.

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    MCL 123.1102 does not make it illegal to have an old outdated firearm ordinance on the books as long as it's not being enforced. No where does it say all old firearm ordiances must be repealed. It does make it illegal to write NEW firearm ordinances that are more restrictive than the state. And that what they've done. Fools.
    I realize this.

    You would have to cite where it's illegal to enact a new firearm ban. My understanding is they can enact illegal ordinances at anytime, no law against that, they just can't enforce them. That's what the severability clause is for.

    My point is they have done nothing to correct the old ordinance.
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    I realize this.

    You would have to cite where it's illegal to enact a new firearm ban. My understanding is they can enact illegal ordinances at anytime, no law against that, they just can't enforce them. That's what the severability clause is for.

    My point is they have done nothing to correct the old ordinance.
    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.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(du0...e=mcl-123-1102

    Says they can't enact right in the first line.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    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.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(du0...e=mcl-123-1102

    Says they can't enact right in the first line.
    Well, doesn't address your claim. What is the penalty for doing it? Things against the law tend to have some sort of remedy or fine/punishment involved.

    Beside, the statute doesn't say when the ordinance was enacted, just that they can't enforce them, so old ordinances would be as unlawful as new ones, I don't think the date of enactment is relevant or clearly stated in the statute.

    The statute covers taxation, enactment and/or enforcment of any firearm bans.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Well, doesn't address your claim. What is the penalty for doing it? Things against the law tend to have some sort of remedy or fine/punishment involved.

    Beside, the statute doesn't say when the ordinance was enacted, just that they can't enforce them, so old ordinances would be as unlawful as new ones, I don't think the date of enactment is relevant or clearly stated in the statute.

    The statute covers taxation, enactment and/or enforcment of any firearm bans.
    There is no penalty. But by enacting a new law in 2010(clearly addressed in 123.1102), after 1991 when 123.1102 went into effect, the city has in fact broken the law. If taken to court, a Judge would rule the ordinance illegal and most likey strike it from the books. 123.1102 clearly says no laws can be enacted(new laws) or enforced(pertaining to old laws).

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Wglide90 View Post
    They added the part at minimum, "No person shall have........blah blah blah........Contrary to state law".

    When they write the ord in this manner it covers everything except what is covered by state law. In other words they regulate everything except firearms.

    It is a backwards method of complying to state law, but is inclusive of all ords that regulate all the stuff they list, while allowing state laws on firearms to be in effect that excludes firearms from this ord. It reads bad but I think in legalese, it is lawful.

    There may be other issues that are not covered but for open carry and possession, state law allows and this ord allows state law to regulate.

    I wouldn't be too hasty in jumping on them, until we get a better legal opinion on the wording.

    BTW, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my opinion.
    I gotta agree.

    At the city level this new ordinance regulates hunting, trapping, or the pursuer-ing (sic) of wildlife in a park. It then defers to state regulation on the use, carry, or possession of firearms, air rifles, spring guns, bows and arrows, slings, etc. etc.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    There is no penalty. But by enacting a new law in 2010(clearly addressed in 123.1102), after 1991 when 123.1102 went into effect, the city has in fact broken the law. If taken to court, a Judge would rule the ordinance illegal and most likey strike it from the books. 123.1102 clearly says no laws can be enacted(new laws) or enforced(pertaining to old laws).
    Maybe.
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    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.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(du0...e=mcl-123-1102

    Says they can't enact right in the first line.
    I believe that leaving old ordinances on the books is against the part I bolded above.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544
    123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.
    Sec. 3.

    This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

    (a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

    (b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.


    Sounds like they're trying (A) here.

  19. #19
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.
    Sec. 3.

    This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

    (a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

    (b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.


    Sounds like they're trying (A) here.

    maybe, but since state law already covers it why bother wasteing the ink?
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCGRPR45 View Post
    maybe, but since state law already covers it why bother wasteing the ink?
    No rules against that.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  21. #21
    Regular Member The Expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118
    Taylor is going down the tubes.

    My wife left the truck open last night and this morning the entire thing was rifled through. Nothing was taken, granted, but it was obvious they were hoping to find a cash stash.

    You'd think the powers-that-be would be all about keeping people safe as the criminal element becomes more bold.
    I always open carry one of my Kimber 1911 pistols everywhere I go. Usually in a paddle holster. Nothing fancy, but it works for me.

  22. #22
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    nah, that would need the application of common sense
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    The set this law as a correction or remodel of the old law back in 1909 act 279 so what was the punishment for that old law, would I assume the punishment would be the same...


    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Well, doesn't address your claim. What is the penalty for doing it? Things against the law tend to have some sort of remedy or fine/punishment involved.

    Beside, the statute doesn't say when the ordinance was enacted, just that they can't enforce them, so old ordinances would be as unlawful as new ones, I don't think the date of enactment is relevant or clearly stated in the statute.

    The statute covers taxation, enactment and/or enforcment of any firearm bans.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by The Expert View Post
    Taylor is going down the tubes.

    My wife left the truck open last night and this morning the entire thing was rifled through. Nothing was taken, granted, but it was obvious they were hoping to find a cash stash.

    You'd think the powers-that-be would be all about keeping people safe as the criminal element becomes more bold.
    The "powers that be" are only interested in one thing..... continuing to be the powers that be.

    The safety and welfare of us lowly unwashed peasants is something that never enters the consciousness of "the powers that be".... unless it can be manipulated to increase the power of the powers that be. Why else are the first things to suffer budget cuts the police and fire depts. instead of the salaries of "the powers that be"?
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    And Garbage pickup was a popular one to extort the Taxpayers and why no one ever challenged it in court is beyond me. There are ONLY 3 things listed in the Constitution as Government obligations. Defense from enemies foreign and domestic that's a Militia and police, and fire could be under public safety to eliminate that from their extortion attempt's. Other than the court system the Government has no other Constitutional obligations. So the next time they threaten to reduce police and Fire services people should file a Constitutional rights Law Suit. Force them to cut their expense accounts and the Limos or provided cars, and free gasoline.

    Good points Bikenut


    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The "powers that be" are only interested in one thing..... continuing to be the powers that be.

    The safety and welfare of us lowly unwashed peasants is something that never enters the consciousness of "the powers that be".... unless it can be manipulated to increase the power of the powers that be. Why else are the first things to suffer budget cuts the police and fire depts. instead of the salaries of "the powers that be"?
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

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
  •