• 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.

Another county park ordinance

jm62383

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
43
Location
White Cloud, MI
Gratiot County seems to have a firearms ordinance for their county parks. Im new here, but from what Ive been reading this ordinance would be illegal because it would not allow someone to carry without a CPL?


SECTION 8 — FIREARMS
No person shall, at any time, bring into or upon Commission property, nor have in their possession, nor discharge or set off anywhere upon said property, a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, air rifle, air gun, or any gun, rifle, firearm or other weapon that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This section shall not apply to any deputy sheriff, police officer, authorized park ranger or other duly appointed law enforcement officer while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of their position, or to any person while upon designated target ranges or areas.
Any person who has satisfied the provisions of Public Act 381 of 2000, as amended, commonly referred to as the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) law and has in his/her possession a valid CCW permit, may carry a concealed pistol but may not discharge the pistol.


http://www.co.gratiot.mi.us/
 

wrcken2

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
23
Location
St. Clair Shores, Michigan, USA
This May help

This May help.......
Just edit to fit your city, and ordinance #'s

Dear Mayor, Councilmember’s


While researching the Code of Ordinances for the City of St. Clair Shores, I came across the Rules and Regulations 20.230 Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited.

Sec. 67A-20. outlined in brief, below. The ordinance listed in Chapter 20.230, Article A, Section 67A-20 lists multiple restrictions for the possession and transport of Firearms, "in any park or recreation area".
(1) No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.


Under the 1990 state preemption law (MCL 123.1102, outlined in brief below), this ordinance is unenforceable in regard to firearm possession and transport. Furthermore, the existence of this ordinance, being in conflict with the law of the State of Michigan, is misleading to the people of St. Clair Shores and other citizens who may visit the City.

As a St. Clair Shores resident, I am requesting this ordinance be amended within 90 days to comply with MCL 123.1102. Failure to amend this ordinance could be considered an act of malfeasance as it willfully misinforms the public of what is and is not allowed in the parks of the City of St. Clair Shores. I look forward to your resolution and response when this ordinance is amended.

Thank you,




Ordinances City of St. Clair Shores, Michigan
20.230 PUBLIC PARKS AND FORESTRY CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
Chap. 67 Effective:August 26, 1986
Sec. 67A-20.Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited

Sec. 67A-20.
(1) No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.
(2) No person shall discharge any of the weapons or instruments listed in section (1) into any park from outside a park.
(3) The Director may designate areas within a park where bows and arrows can be used. In such cases, the Director shall promulgate regulations for the safe use of such devices, and no person shall fail to abide by such regulations.
(chap. 67 eff. Aug. 26, 1986)




Michigan Legislature 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.

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

Gratiot County seems to have a firearms ordinance for their county parks. Im new here, but from what Ive been reading this ordinance would be illegal because it would not allow someone to carry without a CPL?


SECTION 8 — FIREARMS
No person shall, at any time, bring into or upon Commission property, nor have in their possession, nor discharge or set off anywhere upon said property, a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, air rifle, air gun, or any gun, rifle, firearm or other weapon that discharges projectiles either by air, explosive substance or any other force. This section shall not apply to any deputy sheriff, police officer, authorized park ranger or other duly appointed law enforcement officer while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of their position, or to any person while upon designated target ranges or areas.
Any person who has satisfied the provisions of Public Act 381 of 2000, as amended, commonly referred to as the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) law and has in his/her possession a valid CCW permit, may carry a concealed pistol but may not discharge the pistol.


http://www.co.gratiot.mi.us/
 

jm62383

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
43
Location
White Cloud, MI
Im not member of gratiot county, I was just looking for some contact info and came across their ordinances and thought hey why dont I check them out. Im going to send an email anyway, would I send it to the county adminstrator?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Im not member of gratiot county, I was just looking for some contact info and came across their ordinances and thought hey why dont I check them out. Im going to send an email anyway, would I send it to the county adminstrator?

The county administrator might be a good place to start, see if you can find a park administrator as well.
 

jm62383

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
43
Location
White Cloud, MI
Well I contacted the county admin and got a reply, to which I replied back with additional info I did not provide with my first email. Im still waiting the county admins second reply but I have a feeling that it isnt going to get fixed with just emails.


I have also discovered that Ottawa county has the similar ordinance about firearms for their county parks. They have also received an email from myself concerning the issue.

12.1a Be in possession of, discharge or set off a pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow, slingshot or any other
instrument which discharges a projectile by air, explosion or any other force except for any
deputy sheriff, police officer or other duly appointed law enforcement officer carrying out the
duties and responsibilities of their position; unless prior written permission is obtained from
the Commission or its Agent.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Well I contacted the county admin and got a reply, to which I replied back with additional info I did not provide with my first email. Im still waiting the county admins second reply but I have a feeling that it isnt going to get fixed with just emails.


I have also discovered that Ottawa county has the similar ordinance about firearms for their county parks. They have also received an email from myself concerning the issue.

12.1a Be in possession of, discharge or set off a pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow, slingshot or any other
instrument which discharges a projectile by air, explosion or any other force except for any
deputy sheriff, police officer or other duly appointed law enforcement officer carrying out the
duties and responsibilities of their position; unless prior written permission is obtained from
the Commission or its Agent.
Post their replies. If you need more help let me know.
 

jasonman17

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
60
Location
Mt.Pleasant
Mt.Pleasant

I know this is an older post but did you find anything out on this? Also Mt.Pleasant has the same thing for there parks as I'v looked because i live in Mt.Pleasant.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I know this is an older post but did you find anything out on this? Also Mt.Pleasant has the same thing for there parks as I'v looked because i live in Mt.Pleasant.

I live near Saginaw... and Mt. Pleasant has ignored my many emails concerning their illegal ordinance. No replies other than an automated thingy. I've been involved in other ordinances and other municipalities and haven't followed up for a while.

Feel free to take the initiative if you are so inclined.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.

Unfortunately, as long as the ordinance is on the books and available for anyone to read it... if a person who isn't aware of MCL 123.1102 reads it they will believe it to have the force of law and not carry a gun there.

Which means, although a police officer didn't arrest anyone, simply reading the ordinance does, in effect, enforce that ordinance.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Unfortunately, as long as the ordinance is on the books and available for anyone to read it... if a person who isn't aware of MCL 123.1102 reads it they will believe it to have the force of law and not carry a gun there.

Which means, although a police officer didn't arrest anyone, simply reading the ordinance does, in effect, enforce that ordinance.

...and put innocent lives at risk. Because of this sign, and others like it, someone might not come back home to their families. Let's never forget that this is why we do what we do.
 

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
Since the ordinance is illegal, I say just ignore it. If they press the issue and have someone arrested, then it sounds to me like lawsuit time.
this is the kind of thing we are trying to advoid, we never want it to get this far. also i agree that if someone not as knowlegeable should read an illegal ordance and follow it, it serves to enforce that ordinance. any ordinance like this needs to be addressed. if our goal is to get arrested, then we never would have stood up to royal oaks ban on weapons!
 

jm62383

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
43
Location
White Cloud, MI
Well I received a reply from ottawa county and I also found that monroe had the same ordinance and received a reply from them on the same day as I contacted them which I must say is impressive. Both counties have acknowledged the illegality of the ordinance and monroe has already addressed it and submitted the new language to their board of comm for approval. Ottawa is "aware and working on amending the rules to rectify the situation".

Gratiot county has yet to reply to my second email and when Im done moving from Waterford over to the Big Rapids area I may take the time to drive out there personally to talk to the county admin.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
this is the kind of thing we are trying to advoid, we never want it to get this far. also i agree that if someone not as knowlegeable should read an illegal ordance and follow it, it serves to enforce that ordinance. any ordinance like this needs to be addressed. if our goal is to get arrested, then we never would have stood up to royal oaks ban on weapons!

Preemption doesn't require municipalities get rid of current ordinances. It only requires they not pass new ones nor enforce existing ones.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Preemption doesn't require municipalities get rid of current ordinances. It only requires they not pass new ones nor enforce existing ones.

Not correct.

Relevant excerpt from MCL 123.1102:
"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 . . ." [prohibited acts highlighted]

Thus, when it comes to firearms/components/ammunition, cities may not:

1)Impose special taxation
2)Enact
3)Enforce
4)Regulate

A city's current ordinances are the laws which regulate behavior in the city. Any current ordinance which regulates behavior with regard to firearms/components/ammunition, no matter if it is enforced or not, is a violation of that fourth prohibition, simply by being on the books. You are correct that a city may not enact new or enforce existing, but you missed that they also may not regulate in the first place. Ordinances on the books do regulate behavior, quite often without enforcement because citizens read the ordinances and behave accordingly. But the existence of this very form of regulating is itself illegal according to MCL 123.1102 and the only remedy is removal of the offending ordinances.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Not correct.

Relevant excerpt from MCL 123.1102:
"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 . . ." [prohibited acts highlighted]

Thus, when it comes to firearms/components/ammunition, cities may not:

1)Impose special taxation
2)Enact
3)Enforce
4)Regulate

A city's current ordinances are the laws which regulate behavior in the city. Any current ordinance which regulates behavior with regard to firearms/components/ammunition, no matter if it is enforced or not, is a violation of that fourth prohibition, simply by being on the books. You are correct that a city may not enact new or enforce existing, but you missed that they also may not regulate in the first place. Ordinances on the books do regulate behavior, quite often without enforcement because citizens read the ordinances and behave accordingly. But the existence of this very form of regulating is itself illegal according to MCL 123.1102 and the only remedy is removal of the offending ordinances.

The term"regulate" is usually said to apply to "administrative law".
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
The term"regulate" is usually said to apply to "administrative law".

Such limitation to the definition of "regulate" does not exist in MCL 123.1102. In fact, with regard to the regulating it prohibits LUGs from engaging in, in addition to the specific prohibitions on taxing, enacting, and enforcing, it powerfully includes "or regulate in any other manner" [emphasis added]. Quite clearly and with very few state-defined exceptions, MCL 123.1102 prohibits LUGs from regulating in any manner--including in the manner of "administrative law" (whatever you meant by that).

MCL 123.1102 is a relatively powerful and complete piece of preemption legislation.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Such limitation to the definition of "regulate" does not exist in MCL 123.1102. In fact, with regard to the regulating it prohibits LUGs from engaging in, in addition to the specific prohibitions on taxing, enacting, and enforcing, it powerfully includes "or regulate in any other manner" [emphasis added]. Quite clearly and with very few state-defined exceptions, MCL 123.1102 prohibits LUGs from regulating in any manner--including in the manner of "administrative law" (whatever you meant by that).

MCL 123.1102 is a relatively powerful and complete piece of preemption legislation.

Not to make it personal, but if you've never heard of "administrative law", maybe you shouldn't be opining on law at all?

Go look up Administrative Law on wikipedia.
 
Top