Two things...

DrTodd · Jan 10, 2011

Tucker6900 said:
Finally, a response from the City of Charlotte. Looks like an education meeting is needed.

I sent him a response about the citizens not knowing of the law reading that and not excersising their rights. Awaiting further response.

I hate to say it but TECHNICALLY, he is correct as far as the "enforcing the law" goes. However, as they "enacted" this law after 1990, the year MCL 123.1102 was passed, they are still in violation... there is no "punishment" listed in MCL 123.1102 though.
----------------------------

Mr. Clark--

The City of Charlotte is well aware of Michigan's Open Carry law. The law does not prohibit keeping on the books an ordinance that regulates in this area. It merely prohibits enforcement of the ordinance in a manner that conflicts with state law. We will take under advisement the need to amend this ordinance.

Gregg Guetschow
City Manager

PDinDetroit · Jan 10, 2011

MCL 123.1102 also states "or regulate in any other manner". I believe a good argument can be made that leaving ordinances on the books that violate MCL 123.1102 is doing precisely that - "regulate in any other manner". Persons reading the ordinances will believe it is in effect if it is "still on the books" and therefore will "self-regulate".

Bikenut · Jan 10, 2011

PDinDetroit said:
MCL 123.1102 also states "or regulate in any other manner". I believe a good argument can be made that leaving ordinances on the books that violate MCL 123.1102 is doing precisely that - "regulate in any other manner". Persons reading the ordinances will believe it is in effect if it is "still on the books" and therefore will "self-regulate".

Yes... leaving the illegal ordinance on the books is "passive enforcement" at the very least..... "willfully misleading the public" at worse.

If only there were laws with penalties for "willfully misleading the public"................ because I can't find them with my weak googlefu.....

PDinDetroit · Jan 10, 2011

Bikenut said:
Yes... leaving the illegal ordinance on the books is "passive enforcement" at the very least..... "willfully misleading the public" at worse.

If only there were laws with penalties for "willfully misleading the public"................ because I can't find them with my weak googlefu.....

Maybe you were thinking about this???

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-11

MCL 752.11 said:
LAW ENFORCEMENT (EXCERPT)
Act 158 of 1966

752.11 Upholding or enforcing the law; duty of public officials.

Sec. 1.

Any public official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state and who wilfully and knowingly fails to uphold or enforce the law with the result that any person's legal rights are denied is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1966, Act 158, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967

The part that would have to be proven is that a person was denied legal rights due to this - they were not able to Carry a Firearm (Pistol) in accordance with Michigan Constitution Article I Section 6 due to the Local Ordinance. Then, you would have to get a prosecutor willing to charge said individuals. I am not saying it could not be done, just that it would probably not be easy.

What I think best about this law is that it be used as a "hold card" if we have "local units of government" unwilling to change ordinances. Just the mere fact that this law exists could mean that "qualified immunity" may not be all that it is cracked up to be.

Anyone know if someone has ever been tried/convicted with this law?

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jan 10, 2011

"sneaky disclaimer legislation"

DrTodd said:
I hate to say it but TECHNICALLY, he is correct as far as the "enforcing the law" goes. However, as they "enacted" this law after 1990, the year MCL 123.1102 was passed, they are still in violation... there is no "punishment" listed in MCL 123.1102 though.
----------------------------

Mr. Clark--

The City of Charlotte is well aware of Michigan's Open Carry law. The law does not prohibit keeping on the books an ordinance that regulates in this area. It merely prohibits enforcement of the ordinance in a manner that conflicts with state law. We will take under advisement the need to amend this ordinance.

Gregg Guetschow
City Manager

Nor does the law require them to remove laws that discriminate against minorities that I can find? So if I don't know that their discriminatory ordinance is trumped by state law should I take a seat in the back of the bus? See where this kind of "sneaky disclaimer legislation" leads folks?

DrTodd · Jan 11, 2011

PDinDetroit said:
Maybe you were thinking about this???

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-11

The part that would have to be proven is that a person was denied legal rights due to this - they were not able to Carry a Firearm (Pistol) in accordance with Michigan Constitution Article I Section 6 due to the Local Ordinance. Then, you would have to get a prosecutor willing to charge said individuals. I am not saying it could not be done, just that it would probably not be easy.

What I think best about this law is that it be used as a "hold card" if we have "local units of government" unwilling to change ordinances. Just the mere fact that this law exists could mean that "qualified immunity" may not be all that it is cracked up to be.

Anyone know if someone has ever been tried/convicted with this law?

Sad but since it is a misdemeanor, I doubt they really care

PDinDetroit · Jan 11, 2011

DrTodd said:
Sad but since it is a misdemeanor, I doubt they really care

To date, it appears that only one person has been charged under MCL 752.11. Unknown if they were successfully prosecuted. Please see the following thread at MGO under Legal Beagle forum (requires free registration).

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=118562

Two things...

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

PDinDetroit

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

PDinDetroit

Regular Member

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

PDinDetroit

Regular Member