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?