Is St Joseph County Preempting State law?

http://www.stjosephcountymi.org/parks.htm
According to this its on the official St. Joseph County Parks listings.


Suppose I stood up, Right now, And spoke my mind.
Suppose that I was Heard and that they all believed in Me.
What happens next? -- Teresa L. Rothman

To my recollection it is. It was established prior to the land fill changing hands to Waste Management and subsequently donated to the county.

Daryl

Thanks. I did just get a response from the John H. Pence, CPRP who is the Director of Parks & Recreation for St Jospeph County, which stated this: Meyer Broadway Park is maintained and operated by the St. Joseph County Parks & Recreation Commission, and is leased from Waste Management, Inc

All that brings up another question but I have a little more digging and asking to do before I can ask the right question.

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

Uh oh?[?] Buck's on to something? [;)]

Suppose I stood up, Right now, And spoke my mind.
Suppose that I was Heard and that they all believed in Me.
What happens next? -- Teresa L. Rothman

I am but until Mr. Pence replies to my second email I can't say anything more about that. I will say this though. Meyer Broadway has a sign that states that there are no firearms allowed in that or any county park. However I don't think they have the legal authority to make such a prohibition (a prohibition that would preempt state law).

The state says that I, as a concealed license carrier can carry my pistol anywhere in the state except federal land (which may change in the near future), designated pistol free zones (of which County parks are not listed) and Private Property where the owner has posted a no firearms sign.

For the complete text to the CPL law you can download the FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN pdf file from the Michigan State police.

The way I read the Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990 a local unit of government can not write an ordinance that preempts state law. The following text is from Act 319 of 1990.




AN ACT to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on 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

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

123.1101 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.

(b) “Pistol” means that term as defined in section 222 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.222 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

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.

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

123.1103 Permissible prohibitions or regulation.

Sec. 3.

This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.


History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

123.1104 Prohibiting discharge of pistol or other firearm.

Sec. 4.

This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearm within the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.


History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

123.1105 Conditional effective date.

Sec. 5.

This act shall not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 85th Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) House Bill No. 6009.

(b) House Bill No. 6010.


History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991
Compiler's Notes: House Bill No. 6009, referred to in this section, was filed with the Secretary of State December 20, 1990, and became P.A. 1990, No. 320, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.House Bill No. 6010, also referred to in this section, was filed with the Secretary of State December 20, 1990, and became P.A. 1990, No. 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991.

---

Although I haven't found the specific case I am pretty sure that this has already been tested in court and a Library in the Detroit area was ordered to remove a No Firearms sign from the premises. I'll post a link if I find it.

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

This is not the case I was talking about but it applies Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Jean Bruce, Alexander (Plaintiffs) Vs City Of Ferndale and Karen Pedro (defendants) (another PDF file).

In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically prohibits local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas. Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments of MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted

Had the Legislature intended to revoke the prohibitions placed on local units of government that are contained in § 1102, it could have repealed or amended MCL 123.1101 et seq. at the time it enacted the amendments of MCL 28.421 et seq. in 2000 or precisely stated in the latter act the intent to return authority to local units of government to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons in their jurisdiction. We note that the amendments of MCL 28.421 et seq. in 2000 repealed certain sections of that act, including sections 3, 6, 9d, and 12c, i.e., MCL 28.423, 28.426, 28.429d, and 28.432c.

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

I have recived a response from Mr. Pence in which he confirmed that the County does have an ordinance against firearms at County Parks. For reference: St. Joseph County Ordinance Number 12 Revisions, "St. Joseph County Parks Ordinance" states "Firearms are prohibited." (Chapter II, No. 4)

My first reply was a shortened version of my previous post and my second reply went like this:

Mr. Pence,

I realize you are very busy and finding the answer to my question may not be something you can do overnight. I do ask that you, at least, respond to this email to let me know you have received my email about my concerns with the Counties preemption of a State law.

I believe I am on pretty solid ground here and last night I was made aware of an Appellate Court Ruling that makes my case even stronger. The case is the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Jean Bruce, Alexander (Plaintiffs) Vs City Of Ferndale and Karen Pedro (defendants) and the entire text can be read from the pdf file from the Court of Appeals

edit: Link ommitted because it is included in the previous post.

I want to be very clear here. I am not interested in getting into a legal battle with the county. My number one concern is for my wife (or anybody) who walks/jogs the county parks alone.

It is my belief that self protection is one of the most basic human rights and that local (any) government should not be actively impeding that right. Especially when you consider that the State of Michigan has already defined clearly where concealed pistols can and can't be carried.

Again I thank you for your time and consideration of my questions.

Buck Hicks

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

I have a question--why would it be necessary to carry a gun to a recreational park? For protection? If so--from what--children and the elderly? As you can tell, I am not fond of firearms.

Lockport, as I said above, my number one concern is for my wife (or anybody) who walks/jogs the county parks alone. It is my belief that self protection is one of the most basic human rights and that local (any) government should not be actively impeding that right.

And second I am not a big fan of governmental bodies over stepping their limits. The state has established the law. I as a law biding, pistol carrying citizen want to be sure I am not actively breaking any laws, which as you can imagine gets complicated when many townships and counties write their own ordinances that conflict with the established law of the land.

Also it is OK with me that you are not fond of firearms. I have to be honest. I am not always fond of everyone’s right to free speech. But I tolerate it. I do so because we are a free people and tolerating things we don’t agree with or fully understand is one of the consequences or benefits, depending on your perspective, of that freedom.

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

Lockport,

I personally have a friend who, on my recomendation, went jogging on at Meijer Broadway park and was nearly pulled into into the woods by a man. So no, there are things in the parks other than just senior citizens and children. You may not be fond of firearms and that is fine. But please respect the rights of others who wish to protect themselves.

I wonder if the female jogger who was attacked and raped in Kalamazoo wishes now she had been carring a firearm. I know for her sake I wish she had. The nightmare of what happened to her will forever impact her life in a terrible way. Women need to protect themselves. A firearm certainly equals the playing field to a man's superior strength.

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

Stillwaters if you are talking about this incident A warning about Meyer Broadway Park it was determined that all wasn't what it first to be (check that link for the details).

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

This is the article that was in the newspaper about this.

A man accused of grabbing a woman in Meyer Broadway Park near Three Rivers June 29 has been identified by the victim.

But no charges will be filed after the victim decided not to press charges. The assault took place about 8:30 p.m., as the victim was jogging in the park. Several tips were received by police after information was given to the media. St. Joseph County Sheriff's deputies also increased patrols in the area.

On July 7, deputies identified a possible suspect, who later agreed to speak with Det. Lonnie Palmer. During the interview, the suspect told Palmer that he remembered the female jogger and speaking with her as they jogged through the park. The suspect denied ever touching the victim.

After the interview, the suspect agreed to have his picture taken for a photo lineup. Palmers said the suspect was identified by the victim in the line-up. The victim was contacted by police and had decided not to pursue any charges. "We want to thank the public for all of the tips they gave us," Palmer said. The case is now closed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard from others that this was a hoax. I know this person personally and she decided not to press charges to avoid the whole long drawn out court process. She did not recant her story.

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

Someone just asked me what my motivation is and how far am I willing to take this. I have already stated my motivations so I will just add that I will take this as far as I need to ensure that the city, township, and county respect the rights of licensed concealed pistol carriers to engage in a legal activities (for instance concealed carry in public places not designated as pistol free zones). Nothing short of that.

My next step is to start contacting the county commissioners. After that I may have to call in the Cavalry. [:D]

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

My email to the commisson:

To the St Joseph County Commission,

I have a concern about the no hand guns ordinance posted at county parks, which according to John H. Pence, CPRP is as follows.

St. Joseph County Ordinance Number 12 Revisions, "St. Joseph County Parks Ordinance" states "Firearms are prohibited." (Chapter II, No. 4)

My concern is that this ordinance is in conflict with State Law, specifically the Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990, which is AN ACT to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on 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.

I am a licensed concealed pistol carrier and I don’t believe the county as any authority to prevent me from carrying my pistol in a county park. I would like to know what the current county commission’s stance is on that ordinance and my right to carry in a county park.

By the way, I am keeping a public record of my questions and concerns regarding this issue here:

http://www.liberty1st.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1547

Thank you,

Buck Hicks

---

Laissez faire: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.

"Amendment 2

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

this takes me back to the whole "rights versus privileges" issue. you have to ask someone for permission for a privilege. a right needs no such request. the supreme court recently struck down the law banning firearms within DC. is this any different?

my 2 cents.