Author Topic: Lansing Illegal firearm ordinances (Read 26731 times)

lil_freak_66 · « **on:** August 29, 2010, 11:59:27 PM »

This has been discussed in private amongst a few Lansing area members for a few weeks now,City attorney and Chief of police were made aware of said ordinances over a month ago,several calls and emails from various persons have also been submitted,no calls or emails have been returned.

Lansing usually has city council meetings on Monday at either 7pm or 7:30,city hall building(which is a supposed PFZ,even if OC with a CPL)

696.03. Transportation of firearms in motor vehicles.
No person shall transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle a firearm, unless the firearm is unloaded and is one or more of the following:
(a) Taken down;
(b) Enclosed in a case;
(c) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle; and/or
(d) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.
(Ord. No. 739, 12-22-86)

696.05. Weapons on college campuses and buildings.
No regularly enrolled student, guest or other person shall have in his or her possession on any college campus or in any college building, either concealed or not concealed, any rifle, shotgun, revolver, knife, fire bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon or ordnance.
(Ord. No. 739, 12-22-86)

696.06. Machines dispensing ammunition or explosives.
No person shall display for public patronage or keep for operation any machine or device which dispenses or vends cartridges, bullets, shotgun shells or similar articles of an explosive nature and capable of being used in firearms.

Those are the illegal ordinances,though the 3rd one i am a little unsure of,there might be a fed law regarding bullet vending machines.

TheQ · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:03:51 AM »

On 8/19 I emailed the following concerning this after freak brought this to my attention:

The City Attorney
Chief of Lansing PD
The Mayor's office
The City Council

To date I have heard back from none of them.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:07:36 AM »

I met in person with the Chief of police the last week of July i believe it was,then stopped in at they city attorney office,left his assistant with the ordinance#'s in question,and the MCL which voided them,as well as my contact information.

TheQ · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:08:28 AM »

This ordinance is found here 696.02 is also clearly illegal.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:44:56 AM »

technically,696.02 is not illegal.

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.
(Ord. No. 739, 12-22-86)

It is just purposely confusing.

If(and probably when) we attend a city council meeting,we could push for it to be revoked because it is rather useless anyways,i would like to see this one modified too:

696.01. Discharging weapons.
(a) No person shall fire or shoot any firearm, air gun, spring gun, bow and arrow, slingshot, crossbow or other dangerous weapon in any street or public place, or fire or shoot such a weapon in any place in a manner that would endanger, or be likely to endanger, any person or property, subject to the following exception(s):
A person who is an authorized participant in an approved recreational shooting program under the authority of the Lansing Police Department or Department of Parks and Recreation may use any of the following:
(1) Bows and arrows, and
(2) Crossbows.

I believe that air guns,spring guns and slingshots should be given an exception for recreational shooting programs as well,i doubt there would be much opposition to that request.

JoeCar · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2010, 07:10:58 AM »

I did a term paper on the Second Amend. and i discovered in my research that MSU is the only school that has carrying allowed on campus. The only one of the fifteen universities in the state.

TheQ · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2010, 08:12:51 AM »

Quote from: JoeCar on August 30, 2010, 07:10:58 AM

I did a term paper on the Second Amend. and i discovered in my research that MSU is the only school that has carrying allowed on campus. The only one of the fifteen universities in the state.

...just don't carry a knife.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:41:59 PM »

Quote from: TheQ on August 30, 2010, 08:12:51 AM

Quote from: JoeCar on August 30, 2010, 07:10:58 AM
I did a term paper on the Second Amend. and i discovered in my research that MSU is the only school that has carrying allowed on campus. The only one of the fifteen universities in the state.

...just don't carry a knife.

+1

Violation of MSU ordinance 18.01 is not a fun thing....

TheQ · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2010, 01:39:09 PM »

I called the chief today regarding our attempts to contact her and the city to correct these laws. She said there had been some internal traffic in the matter. She was going to follow up on that and call me back.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2010, 10:56:40 PM »

Has she gotten ahold of you again?

If not,probably best to start planning a meet at the city council meetings.

TheQ · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2010, 01:00:03 AM »

Quote from: lil_freak_66 on September 06, 2010, 10:56:40 PM

Has she gotten ahold of you again?

If not,probably best to start planning a meet at the city council meetings.

Nein. I'll defer to Venator on when/if to meet.

TheQ · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2010, 01:01:01 AM »

Quote from: TheQ on September 07, 2010, 01:00:03 AM

Quote from: lil_freak_66 on September 06, 2010, 10:56:40 PM
Has she gotten ahold of you again?

If not,probably best to start planning a meet at the city council meetings.

Nein. I'll defer to Venator on when/if to meet.

She did write back last Monday to say that she's contacted the city attorney and he's looking into it. Nothing since.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2010, 07:50:25 PM »

Me and TheQ were downtown filing an IA complaint(its not firearm related,dont worry) today and a few things were found out while i talked with the chief of police,and when we both went to the city attorney office.

Chief szysmanski (sp?) said she hasnt heard anything at all from the city attorney regarding this,since our initial contact with them.

According to the City attorney's assistant,he hasnt had much of a chance to review it and will get around to it whenever,she refused to give us an estimate on when we would even hear anything back.

City of Lansing is dragging they're feet...

TheQ · « **Reply #13 on:** September 13, 2010, 11:45:49 PM »

Quote from: lil_freak_66 on September 13, 2010, 07:50:25 PM

According to the City attorney's assistant,he hasnt had much of a chance to review it and will get around to it whenever,she refused to give us an estimate on when we would even hear anything back.

City of Lansing is dragging they're feet...

She said there was a staff person working on it and she didn't have an estimate on time for completion. I asked her if she could look into it and send me an email with a reasonable expectation. She agreed. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2010, 12:27:36 AM »

Ah,i didnt hear her say that,is that what the thing about email was for?

TheQ · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2010, 07:54:19 AM »

Quote from: lil_freak_66 on September 14, 2010, 12:27:36 AM

Ah,i didnt hear her say that,is that what the thing about email was for?

Yeah, though I get the feeling she was paying my lip service. I'll be surprised if I actually get an email. That office hasn't struck me as being good at follow up.

TheQ · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2010, 05:54:56 PM »

Quote from: TheQ on September 14, 2010, 07:54:19 AM

Yeah, though I get the feeling she was paying my lip service. I'll be surprised if I actually get an email. That office hasn't struck me as being good at follow up.

I must give credit where it is due. The City attorney's office responded -- kind of. I don't think we'll be getting much more than this as the city is not legally REQUIRED by preemption to remove laws already on the books when the State law passed. They are merely prohibited from enforcing them. We can try to lobby the city to remove the ordinances, but it's anyone's prediction on how successful we'd be.

Quote

From: Brigham Smith <bsmith@lansingmi.gov>
Date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Subject: City Ordinances 696.03 and 696.05
To: <redacted> (Venator)
Cc: Jerry Ambrose <jambrose@lansingmi.gov>, Randy Hannan <rhannan@lansingmi.gov>, Teresa Szymanski <tszymanski@lansingmi.gov>

Mr. <redacted>--

Please allow this e-mail to memorialize the City's position on the questions you, Mr. <redacted>, and Mr. <redacted> have raised regarding City Ordinances 696.03 and 696.05, especially regarding the effect of state law on them. The Office of the City Attorney (OCA) has advised the Lansing Police Department that to the extent these ordinances have been superseded by state statute, they are of no force or effect and should not be enforced. I reiterate that opinion to you.

The City has no immediate plans to amend the identified ordinances as the superseded portions have no legal force. In similar contexts, the OCA has opined that superseded ordinances need not be uncodified as they are of no legal effect.

I understand that Mr. <redacted> stopped by my office this afternoon to follow up on this issue. I was in meetings at the time and unable to break from them before he apparently had to leave. I would appreciate it if you would pass along this e-mail to him as well.

--Brig

Brig Smith
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Lansing
124 West Michigan Ave.
Lansing Michigan 48933
http://www.lansingmi.gov/attorney
(517) 483-4320 tel
(517) 483-4081 fax

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2010, 06:03:57 PM »

I personally think we should lobby for them to be removed.

Didnt we bring up like 4 or 5 ordinances too?he only mentioned 2 of them.

TheQ · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2010, 06:41:56 PM »

Quote from: lil_freak_66 on September 14, 2010, 06:03:57 PM

Didnt we bring up like 4 or 5 ordinances too?he only mentioned 2 of them.

I think Venator's original email only mentioned 2.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 14, 2010, 07:49:09 PM »

I know that i mentioned at least 3 to them,and requested modifications to the others.

TheQ · « **Reply #20 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:04:57 PM »

lil_freak and I will be attending the Lansing City Council meeting on Oct. 4 @ 7:30 PM @ City Hall (PFZ -- Courthouse). Support/attendance from fellows always appreciated.

Topic:

http://library1.municode.com/default-now/DocView/13231/1/33/54?hilite=firearm;firearms;

Specifically sections .03, .05, and .06

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2010, 02:50:53 PM »

Id personally like to see 696.1 modified to allow the discharge of bb/airsoft guns and slingshots for recreational shooting programs too...but im not too concerned about that one.

Here is the address to the city hall.

10th Floor of City Hall, 124 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing MI

TheQ · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2010, 08:52:46 PM »

I have prepared a statement, about 4 minutes in length, that I will read to the council tomorrow evening:

Quote

Honorable Council members,

Citizens have worked with city councils around Michigan to remove illegal ordinances pertaining to the lawful possession of firearms that are not enforceable from their books. I come before you today to do the same. I come before you not in possession of my firearm today because City Hall is attached to a court, which the Michigan Supreme Court has decreed may be considered a Firearm Free Zone under penalty of contempt of court.

My fellows and I have sent communications to the City Council, the Mayor's office, the Chief of Police's office, and the City Attorney's office. To date, we have received replies from the Chief of Police that she is working with the City Attorney's office. We have also received correspondence from the City Attorney’s office stating the ordinances are not enforceable and that he has communicated as much to the Lansing Police Department. Sadly, to date, we have received no communication from anyone on the city council nor the Mayor's office.

As mentioned in the handouts I have given you which are a copy of my email to the Mayor, Lansing City Ordinances 696.02, 696.03, 696.05, and 696.06 are ipso facto void per MCL 123.1102, which states:

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.

We recognize 696.02 offers sub-section (c) which makes it not in conflict with State law, but also makes the ordinance very misleading and put the onerous task of knowing the State law and knowing about MCL 123.1102 on to the citizen. Only by knowing this state law would a citizen know these ordinances are unenforceable.

Since the Chief of Police and City Attorney acknowledge these ordinances are unenforceable the only conceivable reasons they remain on the books are:
1) If the State revokes 123.1102, these ordinances instantly become enforceable.
2) Mislead law abiding citizens about the legality of possessing a firearm.
3) Allow prosecuting authorities to prosecute people who are less educated about State law and whose lawyers are not specialized in firearm laws.

If the reason is #1 and the council so strongly agrees with these illegal laws, there should be no political obstacle for the council to re-enact these ordinances if it becomes legal to do so at a time in the future. I would hate to believe that such an injustice as #3 would even happen in our great city. Therefore, the only reason left is the council would leave these laws on the books is to mislead the public. I cannot imagine that my city council would wish to mislead the public. Therefore, I choose to believe not all of you have been informed of the situation or read the email I sent to the council. I come before you today to ask you to revoke these ordinances and show the public you are not out to mislead them.

I'd be happy to provide copies of the emails I have sent to any interested parties. I can be reached by email at XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I thank the council for their time and look forward to working with the council in the future to bring Lansing's laws in compliance with State Law.

emt805 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 03, 2010, 11:45:28 PM »

The only thing is a typo? #3 is #2 twice not sure if that is just on this site or your handout as well

TheQ · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2010, 11:47:59 PM »

Quote from: emt805 on October 03, 2010, 11:45:28 PM

The only thing is a typo? #3 is #2 twice not sure if that is just on this site or your handout as well

Corrected, thank you. It was correct in my handout but something was lost in the copy/paste.

scot623 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2010, 09:06:51 PM »

Good speech. Let us know how it goes.

lil_freak_66 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2010, 11:04:50 PM »

Lansing said they arent even going to look into it.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2010, 11:31:32 PM »

Ah yes I forgot Lansing is above the law as Virg is there

TheQ · « **Reply #28 on:** October 07, 2010, 04:04:16 PM »

http://citytv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=b61ae2548eb12e50f6216f4b62977f0a

1:54:00

I didn't prep well, so I was reading it. Ergo, mostly what you see is the top of my head...

News:

Author Topic: Lansing Illegal firearm ordinances (Read 26731 times)