Lake lansing park north(Ingham Co. Parks) no weapons sign

[lil_freak_66]

(sent them an email at 11:30am today, got a personally typed reply back by noon saying they would have the parks director look into it, awful quick response time!)

found this pasted onto the bathroom building at the lake lansing park north(across street from the boat launch)

if you cannot read it, it says
1)"no person shall have in their possession or control any rifle, shotgun, pistol or other firearm, slingshot, pellet gun, air rifle, fireworks or explosives within any park, provided that this rule shall not apply to any law enforcement officer."

2) "have in their possession or control any bow and arrow within any park except by prior written permission of the county"

**EDIT TO ADD 07-26-2012**
its been fixed.

Mr. Hilliker

I did some digging and found out what is going on with the rules signs. In 2004 the rules were changed to reflect appropriate language regarding the carrying of firearms and new signs were to be installed. Apparently, the copy that you read either did not get replaced or the one they used was the old version.

We have printed new copies for all of our parks and I have instructed all of the Park Managers to ensure that the correct version is posted. I have attached the resolution that authorized the change.

Thank you for pointing this mistake out to us, I appreciate the fact that you took time to contact us.


Willis Bennett, Director
Ingham County Parks Department
Ph. 517-244-7191
Fax 517-244-7190

 

[lil_freak_66]

just a little update, i got an email from the parks dept. which reads

This question has been referred to the County Attorney. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Debra Bavery
Ingham County Parks
Office Coordinator
517-244-7185




my email i sent to parks@Ingham.org is below, some personal identifiers omitted.

I recently visited the Lake Lansing Park North on July 21, 2012.

Placed upon a building housing bathrooms was a list of park rules, on the left hand side appx. halfway down the page it lists in section F the following,

1)No person shall have in their possession or control any rifle, shotgun, pistol or other firearm, slingshot, pellet gun, air rifle, fireworks or explosives within any park, provided that this rule shall not apply to any law enforcement officer.

2)Have in their possession or control any bow and arrow within any park except by prior written permission of the county

I feel such a rule is in direct violation of MCL. 123.1102, the firearms preemption law of 1990.I have included a link to it below.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0e...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

I look forward to hearing back from you on the matter soon.

 

[TheQ]

Please keep us informed and thank you for making these first steps.

I sense an open carry picnic at Lake Lansing looms if their attorney doesn't advise them correctly.

 

[DanM]

[strike]I feel such[/strike] Such a rule is in direct violation of MCL. 123.1102

FIFY, it's ok (and probably best) to be assertive. Thank you for noticing the sign and following up!

 

[DrTodd]

Please keep us informed and thank you for making these first steps.

I sense an open carry picnic at Lake Lansing looms if their attorney doesn't advise them correctly.

Wasn't the park in which the MOC meeting was held two weekends ago also an Ingham County Park? They didn't seem to have any problems at all, in fact, I thought they were fairly friendly.

 

[TheQ]

Wasn't the park in which the MOC meeting was held two weekends ago also an Ingham County Park? They didn't seem to have any problems at all, in fact, I thought they were fairly friendly.

It was. Often the best thing to do with these rules is ignore them and educate others the best you can to do likewise.

We'll have a very hard time eliminating all these local rules and I'd dare say we'll never do it (unless we modify preemption to give it citizen standing and make the local government pay the person's court cost/legal expense -- like Ohio...in which case I'm gonna make Dean Greenblatt and every other gun lawyer I know rich). Ignore it and by doing so and openly carry, encourage and educate others to do likewise.

 

[DrTodd]

It was. Often the best thing to do with these rules is ignore them and educate others the best you can to do likewise.

We'll have a very hard time eliminating all these local rules and I'd dare say we'll never do it (unless we modify preemption to give it citizen standing and make the local government pay the person's court cost/legal expense -- like Ohio...in which case I'm gonna make Dean Greenblatt and every other gun lawyer I know rich). Ignore it and by doing so and openly carry, encourage and educate others to do likewise.

Actually, on this one I'd give them a "pass" for now. Since they probably just left a sign up that was there previously, if they change the sign to reflect the "current" rules, then all is well. However, if they refuse, or even delay the change any longer than reasonably necessary to actually send someone there to change it, that is another issue.

 

[Bikenut]

It was. Often the best thing to do with these rules is ignore them and educate others the best you can to do likewise.

We'll have a very hard time eliminating all these local rules and I'd dare say we'll never do it (unless we modify preemption to give it citizen standing and make the local government pay the person's court cost/legal expense -- like Ohio...in which case I'm gonna make Dean Greenblatt and every other gun lawyer I know rich). Ignore it and by doing so and openly carry, encourage and educate others to do likewise.

There is a thing called "passive enforcement". Ordinances left on the books, although not legally enforceable, still have the power of enforcement when someone who doesn't know better reads them and takes them as being law.

Same thing with signs.... folks who read them but don't know any different believe what they read and the gun ban was............... passively (and illegally) enforced.

Yes we can educate... but there are more regular folks that go to the parks and read those signs than there are OC'er who are there to educate.

And I have no doubt that municipalities are quite content to let those signs passively enforce illegal gun bans.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

passive enforcement... also known as malfeasance

 

[TheQ]

There is a thing called "passive enforcement". Ordinances left on the books, although not legally enforceable, still have the power of enforcement when someone who doesn't know better reads them and takes them as being law.

Same thing with signs.... folks who read them but don't know any different believe what they read and the gun ban was............... passively (and illegally) enforced.

Yes we can educate... but there are more regular folks that go to the parks and read those signs than there are OC'er who are there to educate.

And I have no doubt that municipalities are quite content to let those signs passively enforce illegal gun bans.

I agree. Give me a million dollars and I'll get as many of those signs removed as I can fight court cases with that one million...and even after that there will still be illegal local government signs and rules. If not right then, wait 6 months.

Until then, we can only talk to them and/or sit on the Internet and complain.

 

[Bikenut]

I agree. Give me a million dollars and I'll get as many of those signs removed as I can fight court cases with that one million...and even after that there will still be illegal local government signs and rules. If not right then, wait 6 months.

Until then, we can only talk to them and/or sit on the Internet and complain.

Phil... please... you know as well as I do that there are many folks who take it upon themselves to get those ordinances and the signs changed... on their own time and on their own dime. Some come online and tell folks about their successes... some don't. Some spend months attending meetings never giving up.

As President of MOC and as a tireless fighter in Lansing for the right to bear arms your efforts do not go unnoticed. But there are many fronts in the war to regain the right to bear arms and, even though local ordinances in municipalities may not be as visible as working in Lansing, all fronts of all kinds are important. And I have no doubt that the folks in Lansing will take note of a concentrated effort to require... yes, require!... local municipalities to obey the laws the legislators in Lansing make.

And, my opinion as someone who fights for the right to bear arms in my own way on my own time and on my own dime but doesn't belong to MOC or any other organization (except the NRA that I have to join to use the only indoor range close to me), to hear the President of an activist organization make light of the efforts to require municipal councils to obey the law just doesn't... sit right.

I'm not belittling your efforts Phil... nor am I casting aspersions upon your character. I admire you and your efforts (don't let it go to your head my friend) as I believe that you have managed to gain the ear of many influential folks in Michigan's Congress and that is a very good thing.

But I do believe that a concentrated effort to repeal and/or reword any and all illegal municipal gun ordinances/signs to comply with State law WILL be noticed in Lansing. It's kind of like us right to bear arms activists actually putting our beliefs to work instead of just talking and writing letters... by actually getting off our arses and getting out there and fixing it.

Edited to clean up the post.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

.......like us right to bear arms activists actually putting our beliefs to work instead of just talking and writing letters... by actually getting off our arses and getting out there and fixing it.

Edited to clean up the post.

Above is the key to our victory or our defeat. Action speaks volumes, as does inaction. I know which I choose, how about you reading this?

Excellent post bikenut. Or to put it another way we must ALL stand together or in the worst case, we will all hang individually.

Food for thought people (I hope).

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

 

[DrTodd]

Ingham County Parks does not restrict firearms, at least according to their website. Like I stated above, the honorable thing to do is to inform them of their error. If this error is quickly corrected, then they realize the problem and we can instead focus on those places that actually violate the law, instead of places that may have inadvertently left a sign up. Work on the Grand Rapids Police Department's sign in their lobby.

 

[TheQ]

I agree. Give me a million dollars and I'll get as many of those signs removed as I can fight court cases with that one million...and even after that there will still be illegal local government signs and rules. If not right then, wait 6 months.

Until then, we can only talk to them and/or sit on the Internet and complain.

My point was...aside from lobbying local officials (who may not bend)...the only way we can force their hand is sue...and that requires $.

Yes, it's passive enforcement. Tell me...what's the game plan to end it.

 

[Bikenut]

My point was...aside from lobbying local officials (who may not bend)...the only way we can force their hand is sue...and that requires $.

Yes, it's passive enforcement. Tell me...what's the game plan to end it.

Perhaps our lawmakers would pay more attention to the folks lobbying in Lansing to add penalties for municipalities and local officials for ignoring (intentionally or not) MCL 123.1102 if more of us individuals got off our butts and attended local council meetings. After all... for a lawmaker to get off their arse they must first be presented with proof there is a problem... and if we don't show that there is a problem with illegal ordinances/signs then, to the lawmakers, there isn't any problem to fix.

And if those complaining aren't willing to put their efforts where their complaints are then... well.........

And there doesn't have to be arrests made for there to be a problem... all that is necessary is for "we the people", us activists, to have a problem with local government that thinks it can ignore the law.... because guys... this issue isn't even about ordinances concerning guns! The real issue here is that our local government officials believe they can ignore the law with impunity.... and when we don't stand up and require them to obey the law then they continue to ignore the law.... with impunity.

So what's the game plan? Well.. for one thing making light of the issue that those illegal ordinances/signs are still there only helps keep them there so they can be passively enforced... and for us to act as if hundreds of illegal ordinances and signs all over the State isn't important doesn't help either.

Now Phil... if I were the type of person who could organize a State wide endeavor to try to motivate individuals to attend meetings, keep track of who is attending which meeting and the progress made, maintain records that could be used when lobbying Lansing, I'd volunteer. But, as you and I have spoken at OC events, both Yooperlady and I prefer to work on our own and after 63 years I've learned not to take on a project/responsibility that I'm just not suited for because doing so is a disservice to both myself and the project. And organizing/directing things ISN'T my area of expertise.

Please Phil... do not read the above to mean that I think you should add this to your workload. But please do read it to mean that fixing local ordinances/signs is an important thing to do if for no other reason than to show our government officials that even in what might be considered to be the small area of local ordinances "we the people" demand "them the government" obey the law.

 

[DrTodd]

Is this a HUGE problem? My thought is that very few have refused to comply if it is pointed out to them. If the issue is one regarding even having the signs in the first place, I agree that it can cause issues... that is why I suggest to people to contact the governmental unit that posted the sign and ask that it be removed. Talking about suing, when the law does not state that they can't have a sign that is left up, is premature, it does however mislead individuals and should be argued on that issue. The law states they can't "enact" nor can they "enforce" and until they do so, a suit will be very difficult to win.

MCL 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.

 

[Bikenut]

Is this a HUGE problem? My thought is that very few have refused to comply if it is pointed out to them. If the issue is one regarding even having the signs in the first place, I agree that it can cause issues... that is why I suggest to people to contact the governmental unit that posted the sign and ask that it be removed. Talking about suing, when the law does not state that they can't have a sign that is left up, is premature, it does however mislead individuals and should be argued on that issue. The law states they can't "enact" nor can they "enforce" and until they do so, a suit will be very difficult to win.

MCL 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.

Ummmm.... you quoted me but I wasn't the one who mentioned "suing"... I mentioned individuals attending council meetings..........

Now... whether or not a legal argument can be made that "passively enforcing" an illegal ordinance by leaving it on the books or not changing signs would meet the wording of "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce" .... I have no clue.

Edited to add:

Perhaps, just perhaps, if the legal argument can be made that "passive enforcement" violates MCL 123.1102 then that could be used to prove malfeasance..... and that would mean the law concerning malfeasance is the "teeth" to enforce MCL 123.1102?

Or I'm engaging in wishful thinking?

 

[HKcarrier]

There is a thing called "passive enforcement". Ordinances left on the books, although not legally enforceable, still have the power of enforcement when someone who doesn't know better reads them and takes them as being law.

Same thing with signs.... folks who read them but don't know any different believe what they read and the gun ban was............... passively (and illegally) enforced.

Yes we can educate... but there are more regular folks that go to the parks and read those signs than there are OC'er who are there to educate.

And I have no doubt that municipalities are quite content to let those signs passively enforce illegal gun bans.

Worse yet, even if you know to ignore the sign, some busy-body or soccer-mom may not... they see the sign, then see your firearm, then decide to either A.) confront you or B.) call the po-po....

I think the fight to get the signs down is a good one, though I understand what Phil says... if they say "no" then what is the next step.... the next step takes $$$

 

[DrTodd]

Ummmm.... you quoted me but I wasn't the one who mentioned "suing"... I mentioned individuals attending council meetings..........

Now... whether or not a legal argument can be made that "passively enforcing" an illegal ordinance by leaving it on the books or not changing signs would meet the wording of "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce" .... I have no clue.

Edited to add:

Perhaps, just perhaps, if the legal argument can be made that "passive enforcement" violates MCL 123.1102 then that could be used to prove malfeasance..... and that would mean the law concerning malfeasance is the "teeth" to enforce MCL 123.1102?

Or I'm engaging in wishful thinking?

Fixed...I didn't intend to quote you; I only intended to post. My apology.

 

[Bikenut]

Fixed...I didn't intend to quote you; I only intended to post. My apology.

No apology necessary... I hope my pointing it out didn't come across as being jerkish... dang typed word oftentimes doesn't convey intent... and I only intended to point it out.. nothing more.

We are good DrTodd...........