DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
My first reaction is that I agree... but the private property issue is a problem... but I guess in my sarcastic post above, most property would be "public".
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Sample letter to legislature to ammend preemption
- Thread starter Venator
- Start date
My first reaction is that I agree... but the private property issue is a problem... but I guess in my sarcastic post above, most property would be "public".
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Would Walmart be considered a local unit of government? They get tax breaks, loans, not to mention the govt supported highways which is the main reason they can even be in business to the degree they are. How about my neighbor on social security... or people on unemployment?
Set a percentage of income? Good questions, keep thinking of all the loophole.
B
Bikenut
Guest
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)
Act 319 of 1990
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.
I still say (my opinion) the "or regulate in any other manner" portion is a catch all intended to apply to every possible attempt for a municipality to bypass the preemption law. Including forming entities that have different names than the ones specified in the law itself.
What is necessary is to have a judge realize that the law means what it says... not says what the judge means it to say.
Now... a question... and I hope I understand the Royal Oak/Arts Beats and Eats issue correctly....... If I have it wrong please tell me!
Since the Royal Oak fiasco with the city entering into a contract with a promoter.. a contract that had gun control rules more strict than State law and that contract fell under the preemption law because the city could not "or regulate in any other manner" ..... would a municipality forming an "authority" be a contract of sorts between the municipality and the new "authority"?
Perhaps the way to address this whole issue is through contract law?
Act 319 of 1990
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.
I still say (my opinion) the "or regulate in any other manner" portion is a catch all intended to apply to every possible attempt for a municipality to bypass the preemption law. Including forming entities that have different names than the ones specified in the law itself.
What is necessary is to have a judge realize that the law means what it says... not says what the judge means it to say.
Now... a question... and I hope I understand the Royal Oak/Arts Beats and Eats issue correctly....... If I have it wrong please tell me!
Since the Royal Oak fiasco with the city entering into a contract with a promoter.. a contract that had gun control rules more strict than State law and that contract fell under the preemption law because the city could not "or regulate in any other manner" ..... would a municipality forming an "authority" be a contract of sorts between the municipality and the new "authority"?
Perhaps the way to address this whole issue is through contract law?
Last edited by a moderator:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Think "Public Accommodation" of Private Property. Please see the following video starting at about 0:58...
[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Pick One!
Here are a few different versions I came up with...
Here are a few different versions I came up with...
TheQ
Regular Member
I like version #4 the most.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
+1
stainless1911
Banned
I only like 3 better than 4 because it actually has some teeth.
The .gov has shown that it cannot be trusted with the phrase "Due speed and diligence", I would reword that somehow. Perhaps within the quarter of its discovery?
Add a penalty to option #4 and you've got it. No point in having a law without a penalty. They could look at you holding the new law, asking them to change the ordinance, and say "Yeah, so what are you gonna do about it", and then shut the door in your face.
The .gov has shown that it cannot be trusted with the phrase "Due speed and diligence", I would reword that somehow. Perhaps within the quarter of its discovery?
Add a penalty to option #4 and you've got it. No point in having a law without a penalty. They could look at you holding the new law, asking them to change the ordinance, and say "Yeah, so what are you gonna do about it", and then shut the door in your face.
Haman J.T.
New member
4 seems to cover everything and fulfills the K.I.S.S method, IMO! EXCELLENT! Lawyer opinion needed.I recommend Steve Dulan!
stainless1911
Banned
How do you convince them to follow it if they dont want to?
It would be neat, if it also prohibited them under duress, from taking another route, such as trespass.
It would be neat, if it also prohibited them under duress, from taking another route, such as trespass.
Last edited: