• 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.

Help Fight City of Lansing's Illegal Ordinances on Febuary 7, 2011

TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 are on the books despite MCL 123.1102.

I have been to the Lansing City Council on a previous occasion to educate them about how their ordinances (specifically Sections 2, 3, and 5) violate MCL 123.1102. the impression I got from them is they feel no need to change their laws. They also told me if a member of the LPD mistakenly enforces one of these ordinances -- well, "that's why [the city] has liability insurance".

Please consider joining me on February 7, 2011 @ 7:00 PM in Downtown Lansing, across the Capitol Building, in Lansing City Hall as I once again approach them to discuss their ordinances. Last time, I was a lone voice in the crowd. I'm hoping at least 20 people between MGO, MOC, and OCDO will join me and stand with me to echo the message that their ordinances are not okay!

It has been pointed out in the past Section 5 is about a college, which isn't covered by preemption. However, this is about a city's ordinance, not a college's ordinance or policy.

To Summarize:

When: February 7th, 2011 @ 7:00 PM
Where: City Hall, 124 W Michigan Avenue, Lansing, MI; 10th floor
Why: Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 (Sections 2, 3, and 5)
Special Note: There is a Court in the City Hall, as such the whole building is ordered by the Court to be a Weapons Free (Including Firearms) Zone under penalty of contempt of Court. Metal detectors are at the entry.

Please let me know via PM or posting in this thread if you plan to attend.

Updated to add: this post has also been cross posted on MOC's forum and MGO's forum.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Just out of curiosity... have you made the council aware of the concept of "passive enforcement"?

"Active enforcement" would be when a police officer arrested a person for violating an ordinance.

"Passive enforcement" would be when a council intentionally allows an illegal ordinance to remain on the books where citizens can read it and after reading it obey it because they are unaware of MCL 123.1102.

Now I underlined and put intentionally in bold for a reason... because if the council knows the ordinance is illegal yet refuses to change it to comply with State law then it is obvious the council's intention is to mislead folks into believing the ordinance is legal and must be obeyed.
 
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Bikenut said:
Just out of curiosity... have you made the council aware of the concept of "passive enforcement"?

"Active enforcement" would be when a police officer arrested a person for violating an ordinance.

"Passive enforcement" would be when a council intentionally allows an illegal ordinance to remain on the books where citizens can read it and after reading it obey it because they are unaware of MCL 123.1102.

Now I underlined and put intentionally in bold for a reason... because if the council knows the ordinance is illegal yet refuses to change it to comply with State law then it is obvious the council's intention is to mislead folks into believing the ordinance is legal and must be obeyed.
Click to expand...


I have made them aware of this argument when I spoke to them last. If it wasn't when I was speaking to the council as a whole it was when I spoke to my ward member (The Council President).

The response was: We'd expect people who carry firearms, such as yourself, are up to date on Firearm laws and you'd know our ordinance wasn't enforceable.

I see you made a thread where this issue can be discussed.

I hope I can count on you and/or YooperLady to make the trip? ;):cool::dude:
 
Last edited:
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
TheQ said:
Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 are on the books despite MCL 123.1102.

I have been to the Lansing City Council on a previous occasion to educate them about how their ordinances (specifically Sections 2, 3, and 5) violate MCL 123.1102. the impression I got from them is they feel no need to change their laws. They also told me if a member of the LPD mistakenly enforces one of these ordinances -- well, "that's why [the city] has liability insurance".

Please consider joining me on February 7, 2001 @ 7:00 PM in Downtown Lansing, across the Capitol Building, in Lansing City Hall as I once again approach them to discuss their ordinances. Last time, I was a lone voice in the crowd. I'm hoping at least 20 people between MGO, MOC, and OCDO will join me and stand with me to echo the message that their ordinances are not okay!

It has been pointed out in the past Section 5 is about a college, which isn't covered by preemption. However, this is about a city's ordinance, not a college's ordinance or policy.

To Summarize:

When: February 7th, 2011 @ 7:00 PM
Where: City Hall, 124 W Michigan Avenue, Lansing, MI; 10th floor
Why: Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 (Sections 2, 3, and 5)
Special Note: There is a Court in the City Hall, as such the whole building is ordered by the Court to be a Weapons Free (Including Firearms) Zone under penalty of contempt of Court. Metal detectors are at the entry.
Please let me know via PM or posting in this thread if you plan to attend.
Click to expand...
They should be informed,in public,that liability insurance is not to be used for intentional stupidity!DUUHHH!
 
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
TheQ said:
I have made them aware of this argument when I spoke to them last. If it wasn't when I was speaking to the council as a whole it was when I spoke to my ward member (The Council President).

The response was: We'd expect people who carry firearms, such as yourself, are up to date on Firearm laws and you'd know our ordinance wasn't enforceable.

I hope I can count on you and/or YooperLady to make the trip? ;):cool::dude:
Click to expand...
So,for those who do not keep up to date with the laws(99.9% of our citizens),they're s$@$t out of luck?What kind of insanity is that?Thats our government?Thank God we're working on it!
If someone from around here is going I'll need a ride!
 
Last edited:
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Bronson said:
Has anybody contacted the city's insurance co. and informed them of the city's plan to willfully and intentionally abuse their insurance?

Bronson
Click to expand...

The thought had occurred to me. I need to FOIA the City for a copy of their Insurance Declaration so I'll know who to contact...
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Empty Holstes & Full Magizine carry anybody?

There is to my knowledge no law that prohibits the carry of ammo in a "court". I would be curios to hear them try to explain how a bullet without a gun can be considered dangerous? Just saying...we need to make these knuckle heads start using the brains God gave them.
 
Last edited:
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Glock9mmOldStyle said:
It is in compliance, but these goofs will try to stop people from carrying magazines/speed loaders in I guarantee it. They should all be relocated to the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KALIFORNIA. Now my arm is pretty strong & I think I can whip a 9mm Corbon at about oh... 50 fps.
Click to expand...
And for the record 60 mph is 88 FPS. So 50fps is 50/88ths of 60 MPH .... Hardly lethal at the total mass we are talking about!
 
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Glock9mmOldStyle said:
It is in compliance, but these goofs will try to stop people from carrying magazines/speed loaders in I guarantee it.
Click to expand...

I meant Lansing Ordinance 696.02 that TheQ posted as being out of complianc with MCL 123.1102.


TheQ said:
Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 are on the books despite MCL 123.1102.

I have been to the Lansing City Council on a previous occasion to educate them about how their ordinances (specifically Sections 2, 3, and 5) violate MCL 123.1102.
Click to expand...

Here's the Lansing code in question:

696.02. Carrying weapons in public places.

No person shall carry any firearm, air rifle, bow and arrow, slingshot, crossbow or other dangerous weapon in any public place, subject to the following exceptions:


(a) When it is in a case and is not loaded;

(b) In the case of a bow or crossbow, when it is unstrung or encased, or when it is being carried under the direct supervision of authorized public recreational personnel; or

(c) Where and as otherwise permitted by State law.
Click to expand...

It would seem that subsection (c) brings this ordinance in line with state law. I say drop this one from the list of ordinances to fight and focus on 3 & 5.

Bronson
 
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Bronson said:
It would seem that subsection (c) brings this ordinance in line with state law. I say drop this one from the list of ordinances to fight and focus on 3 & 5.

Bronson
Click to expand...

1. Show me the place in Michigan law that permits Open Carry. It doesn't. Open Carry isn't permitted by law, it's only not forbidden by law. What IS forbidden by law is municipalities making ordinances about firearms.

2. Subsection c puts the onerous task of knowing about MCL 123.1102 on to the citizen.

Ordinances with similar language has been fought (see Taylor's ordinances recently and its severability clause).
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Sorry for confusing the thread Bronson. Good catch on section 2. This seems to be the way many cities are "updating" bad codes/ords. the problem is you and I understand it but 98% of the general public will not. This is an attempt at duping the public by intentionally being vague in the corrections made, hence passively enforcing illegal ordinances!
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
TheQ said:
1. Show me the place in Michigan law that permits Open Carry. It doesn't. Open Carry isn't permitted by law, it's only not forbidden by law. What IS forbidden by law is municipalities making ordinances about firearms.

2. Subsection c puts the onerous task of knowing about MCL 123.1102 on to the citizen.

Ordinances with similar language has been fought (see Taylor's ordinances recently and its severability clause).
Click to expand...

Here's Taylor's in all its glory>>>
 

Attachments

  • TaylorF_UP.jpg
    TaylorF_UP.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 166
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top