Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: The City of Rockford is Violating Preemption, too...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    The City of Rockford is Violating Preemption, too...

    Rockford City Code Section 3.1(D)(15) is Preempted by Michigan Codified Law 123.1102.

    This Section of Rockford Code Prohibits, among other Things, Firearms in Rockford Parks.

    Rockford City Code Section 8.2(I)(7) is also Prohibited by Michigan Codified Law 123.1102.

    This Section of Rockford Code makes it Unlawful to Carry a Firearm in General while in Public.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Lots of these lately. Good on you for digging them up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    stainless1911:

    It is NOT that I am Bored and went '...[D]igging them Up...', however; I was Planning another Visit to Michigan, and in Reviewing The Local Transit Systems in Kent County, I happened to Discover that a lot of Local Governmental Units in that County were Flaunting Preemption.

    Some were, however; more Blatant about it than others, though.

    aadvark

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    It was meant as a compliment.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    stainless 1911:

    Furthermore, Grand Rapids City Public Bus Service, The Rapid, Prohibits Firearms and Ammunition, and, again..., another Violation of The Michigan Codified Laws.

    These Illegal and Unlawful Ordinances have to Stop, for Everyone, whether from Michigan, or not.

    *** The Rapid Bus Website has The Following about NO Firearms, Rule No. 2: http://www.ridetherapid.org/ride/rules ***

    *** IF..., and only IF..., The Rapid Bus System would Remove The Words '... of any Kind', then, Their Rule would be Consistent with Michigan Law, IF, further, They were to Define Weapon as any Device Enumerated under Michigan Codified Law 750.224. ***

    aadvark
    Last edited by aadvark; 07-21-2011 at 04:20 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I know. I sent them an email asking them to remove it.

    When the preemption law gets a fine attatched to it, say 1/4 million per occorance, per quarter, then it will change.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Email response, and my rebuttal.

    ME

    Your no weapons policy concerning firearms is illegal and unenforceable under MCL 123.1102, please remove it. 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.



    THEM


    The Firearms Act (specifically, MCL 123.1102) does not apply to ITP because ITP is not a local unit of government, which is clearly defined as city, village, township, or county. ITP is an independent transit authority organized under Act 196.

    Jennifer Kalczuk
    External Relations Manager

    ME

    I respectfully disagree. If it was created bu a .gov, then preemption applies.

    Lets say you're right, just for the sake of discussion. You have figured out how to keep the law abiding from exercising thier rights, thereby being unable to protect themselves, and your employees, how do you intend on preventing the criminals from carrying thier guns?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    um, o k

    Mr. Carpenter Thank you for your feedback on our policy. We welcome input as we work to serve the Greater Grand Rapids region.

    Jennifer Kalczuk
    External Relations Manager

  9. #9
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Wow, another "authority" thinks that they can prohibit firearms. I see a new case ala CADL...
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sprinklerguy28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    666
    All the more reason to support the CADL v MOC case. More and more authorities will start restricting firearms.

  11. #11
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by sprinklerguy28 View Post
    All the more reason to support the CADL v MOC case. More and more authorities will start restricting firearms.
    Has MOC received any help from some of the larger 2A groups since this went to appeals. NRA, SAF, GOA, MCRGO? I thought I remember the NRA saying they would get involved at the appeals level.

Posting Permissions

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