Help Fight City of Lansing's Illegal Ordinances on Febuary 7, 2011

[TheQ]

Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 are on the books despite MCL 123.1102.

I have been to the Lansing City Council on a previous occasion to educate them about how their ordinances (specifically Sections 2, 3, and 5) violate MCL 123.1102.  the impression I got from them is they feel no need to change their laws.  They also told me if a member of the LPD mistakenly enforces one of these ordinances -- well, "that's why [the city] has liability insurance".

Please consider joining me on February 7, 2011 @ 7:00 PM in Downtown Lansing, across the Capitol Building, in Lansing City Hall as I once again approach them to discuss their ordinances.  Last time, I was a lone voice in the crowd.  I'm hoping at least 20 people between MGO, MOC, and OCDO will join me and stand with me to echo the message that their ordinances are not okay!

It has been pointed out in the past Section 5 is about a college, which isn't covered by preemption.  However, this is about a city's ordinance, not a college's ordinance or policy.

To Summarize:

When: February 7th, 2011 @ 7:00 PM
Where: City Hall, 124 W Michigan Avenue, Lansing, MI; 10th floor
Why: Lansing Local Ordinances Chapter 696 (Sections 2, 3, and 5)
Special Note: There is a Court in the City Hall, as such the whole building is ordered by the Court to be a Weapons Free (Including Firearms) Zone under penalty of contempt of Court.  Metal detectors are at the entry.
Please let me know via PM or posting in this thread if you plan to attend.

Updated to add: this post has also been cross posted on OpenCarry.org's forum and MGO's forum.

[hamaneggs]

I'll go if someone around Warren will give me a ride!

[Bronson]

How is 2 contrary to state law?

696.02.  Carrying weapons in public places.

No person shall carry any firearm, air rifle, bow and arrow, slingshot, crossbow or other dangerous weapon in any public place, subject to the following exceptions:

(a)   When it is in a case and is not loaded;
(b)   In the case of a bow or crossbow, when it is unstrung or encased, or when it is being carried under the direct supervision of authorized public recreational personnel; or
(c)   Where and as otherwise permitted by State law.

I can see going after 3 because it doesn't give an exception to CPL holders.  I can also see going after 5 because, like you said it is a city ordinance which attempts to regulate possession beyond what the state regulates.

I'd drop section 2 from the list of ordinances to fight since it appears to be in compliance with state law.

Bronson

[TheQ]

How is 2 contrary to state law?

696.02.  Carrying weapons in public places.

No person shall carry any firearm, air rifle, bow and arrow, slingshot, crossbow or other dangerous weapon in any public place, subject to the following exceptions:

(a)   When it is in a case and is not loaded;
(b)   In the case of a bow or crossbow, when it is unstrung or encased, or when it is being carried under the direct supervision of authorized public recreational personnel; or
(c)   Where and as otherwise permitted by State law.

I can see going after 3 because it doesn't give an exception to CPL holders.  I can also see going after 5 because, like you said it is a city ordinance which attempts to regulate possession beyond what the state regulates.

I'd drop section 2 from the list of ordinances to fight since it appears to be in compliance with state law.

Bronson

A copy of my reply from ODCO...

It would seem that subsection (c) brings this ordinance in line with state law.  I say drop this one from the list of ordinances to fight and focus on 3 & 5.
 
Bronson

1. Show me the place in Michigan law that permits Open Carry.  It doesn't.  Open Carry isn't permitted by law, it's only not forbidden by law.  What IS forbidden by law is municipalities making ordinances about firearms.

2. Subsection c puts the onerous task of knowing about MCL 123.1102 on to the citizen.

Ordinances with similar language has been fought (see Taylor's ordinances recently and its severability clause).

[Bronson]

A similar reply as the one I posted on OCDO 

I see where you're coming from and I also see it not working.  As written the law complies with state law.  It is poorly written and quite possibly deviously constructed but it still complies and I don't see them changing it.

Focus on the the other two.

Bronson

[ireland896]

Special Note: There is a Court in the City Hall, as such the whole building is ordered by the Court to be a Weapons Free (Including Firearms) Zone under penalty of contempt of Court.  Metal detectors are at the entry.
Please let me know via PM or posting in this thread if you plan to attend.

I saw this posted and am a little confused. MSP legal update No.86 states under the Open Carry Of Firearms header: a court, is not restricted to a person with a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by any state. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

If I am reading this update correctly, it is saying that a CPL holder may lawfully open carry in court.
I am very interested in going. Having a few friendly faces to back up a voice adds power and support.

[TheQ]

If I am reading this update correctly, it is saying that a CPL holder may lawfully open carry in court.
I am very interested in going. Having a few friendly faces to back up a voice adds power and support.

There is a Supreme Court ruling that allows Michigan Courts to bans weapons in their buildings under penalty of contempt of court.

Will you come to the meeting on the 7th of February?  We'd appreciate the support.  If you live in the Detroit Metro area (or on the way from there to Lansing) I know there is a carpool for people to come to Lansing.  Email board@michiganopencarry.org for details of the carpool.

[CrossPistols]

Not to start a debate in this thread, but Article 1 Section 6 is a Law. I'm sorry to say but any lawyer who studies the Constitution studies Constitutional Law. I am not posting to get a response but just to say that we need to be in sync with our Belief, as well as our Vocabulary. If you listen to any other Political, Social Activist group they all have one thing in common, The "Play book". It is based on a consensus of a belief, guidelines on media Communication, vocabulary, and repetitiveness. it's an Agenda of changing the perspective of their movement in every day life from a negative to a positive. Now the difference between them and us, is that our Agenda is constitutionally based and we don't really need a written Play book because we all ready have one "The Constitution", but we do need to work on a consistent and concise Vocabulary.  Most other Agendas are based on Feelings, and they twist the Constitution to promote their Idea of it's meaning. Ours is based on Constitution, but gets twisted by Media, liberals, and all Gun groups not being on the same page. The NRA is a good example of same 2nd Amendment agenda, but differ in Media communication, and Vocabulary.  Just saying IMHO.  The Library is violating the Michigan Law, and Michigan is violating Constitutional Law.

[mikanicolecollins]

I will be attending. 

[emt805]

I was stuck at work, what was their response? Did they take any action?

[emt805]

I just watched the video on facebook, who is the guy second from the left that came in after Scott started speaking and is constantly moving and not paying much attention to those speaking?

How bad does it look that the capital of the state has illegal firearm laws on the books and has no interest to change them when other cities have already fixed them to become legal?