Ypsilanti Township posted another sign

[Hevymetal]

If a sign says the speed limit is 35 and a cop writes a ticket to someone for speeding .... that is "active enforcement" of the law. If folks see the sign and voluntarily slow down ... that is "passive enforcement". Doesn't matter if the sign is old/outdated and the speed limit has changed.... the sign still caused people to obey it.

I believe that an illegal "no guns" sign and/or ordinance is also passive enforcement because even if the sign/ordinance isn't being actively enforced by arresting folks anyone who reads the ordinance/sees the sign will assume that what it says is actual law and not know they can legally carry there............ and the illegal law (ordinance) just got "enforced".

So it is disingenuous for a local government to say the illegal ordinance/sign will not be "enforced" because just by being there/being on the books it IS being enforced.

I also fully believe the politicians/officials/council members/police understand the concept of "passive enforcement" quite well and think it's a good thing.

You summed up my argument a little more eloquently. +1

I said the city could be liable should any incident arise because of the illegal signage. An argument between individuals disagreeing on the signs validity, an uneducated cop illegally arresting or detaining someone for violation of an illegal ordinance or sign. I also noted that now that the city has been notified of the violations, should they fail to address it in a timely manner, that would also add to their level of liability should an incident happen.

 

[kubel]

Thanks Hevymetal for getting the ball rolling. I don't think they will be in a rush to change the signs since they seem to be at every park in the township (there are 20+ of them, even at undeveloped parks).