Posted on 06/12/2002 10:47:05 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Ferndale gun ban stands
But buildings may not stay weapon-free for long
June 13, 2002
BY BILL LAITNER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A judge's ruling upholding Ferndale's right to ban handguns from city buildings had the city's leaders jubilant Wednesday.
The ruling by Oakland Circuit Judge John McDonald could help similar ordinances pass in other cities such as Livonia and Novi, which have considered passing their own versions.
But lawyers for a gun-rights group that filed suit against Ferndale last year said they'd appeal the ruling in Oakland County Circuit Court. And a ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court this week could strengthen their case.
"You'd better believe we'll appeal," said Ross Dykman, a lawyer who heads the Lansing-based Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
"We have state residents licensed by Michigan to carry concealed firearms and Ferndale's saying, 'Well, just not in our buildings.'
"That's unconstitutional and just wrong," Dykman said.
But according to the state law cited by Karie Boylan, a Livonia lawyer retained by the city, local municipalities "can enact and enforce ordinances and resolutions for the care, protection, control and management" of city-owned buildings.
Michigan's Concealed Pistol Law, which went into effect last year, says a person issued a concealed weapons permit can carry a handgun anywhere in the state except in churches, schools, hospitals, sports arenas, college dormitories and establishments serving alcohol. The day after the law went into effect, Michigan's court system passed an administrative order banning weapons in courtrooms and courthouses.
But nothing protects city workers, who sometimes face irate residents, said Ferndale City Manager Tom Barwin.
"This is a huge victory for home rule, local government and most important, public safety and homeland security. The state cannot preempt us from protecting our employees," Barwin said.
Ferndale City Librarian Mary Trenner said she and other library workers have supported City Hall's attempt to keep guns out.
"I don't think guns should be in places with little children," Trenner said. She said she has shared a concern about patrons bearing arms with library directors in other cities.
But a ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court this week could give new life to opponents of Ferndale's ordinance.
On Monday, the court declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department had said the right to bear arms applies to more people than those in state militias.
That broader view of the Second Amendment, expressed earlier by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, has been denounced by gun-control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association. If future court decisions support the broader view, future attempts at gun control could be stymied, some advocates have said. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs, which represents more than 80,000 sports enthusiasts, is likely to become a party to the appeal of the lawsuit against Ferndale, said Sam Washington, its executive director.
Washington said Wednesday that the demands for better homeland security make it more important that people be allowed to carry guns in more places.
Quick, someone propose that Ferdale sell alcohol in their city owned buildings. LOL!
I must confess that I thought the Ferndale ban was for anywhere in the city. Obviously, I was mistaken.
I hope you guys win this anyway(you should), here in Florida, the State CCW law specifically names government buildings as prohibited places. Our list is much more lengthy than the Michigan one. Actually, many people in Florida with the license are not too up on the prohibited places. I routinely have conversations with people who think banks are prohibited places, but they are not. However, pharmacies are.
That's until the appeals court or Michigan Supremes(strict constitutionalist) slaps them down .
Tonky, I believe that fits the current Justice Department
position, as stated by John Ashcroft. Of course we should
all wait until we get the official word from GW, it probably
is different. Everything else is.
AO-62--63,64,65
It looks like the court ruled that another "law of this state" -- one authorizing cities to protect their buildings -- 'provides otherwise' and allows cities to prohibit firearms in their buildings: "But according to the state law cited by Karie Boylan, a Livonia lawyer retained by the city, local municipalities "can enact and enforce ordinances and resolutions for the care, protection, control and management" of city-owned buildings."
If that's what happened, then I don't think winning on appeal is such a slam dunk. Of course, that begs the question of whether it's Constitutional or not; but it'll be the preemption statute, not the 2nd Amendment, that'll be argued on appeal, and there's a pretty good argument that the Ferndale ordinance passes muster under the preemption statute because of the "except as otherwise provided by state law" language.
OTOH, I've been wrong before.
Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Support Free Republic by secure credit card.
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
The more obvious and direct recourse against the judge is that he was observed, opinion in hand, at the outset of arguments. This would seem to be judicial conduct suitable for review by whatever authority, whether the state's supreme court, a judicial review board, or the bar association. Of course, an appeal will probably prosper on the merits, but this judge needs to pay a price for his truculence and unfairness, and the official, aboveboard route would seem to be the best place to start. Even in states that have appointive judges and life tenure, the bar association can make a stink. In Texas, where judges from JP's up to the state supreme court are elected, the bar association offers ratings by attorneys who have practiced before each judge, and bar-association opinions or ratings of fitness to serve. The people, of course, are the final judges, and so the bar association directs its opinions to us.
However, I'm sure Ms Trenner, like the rest of her American Library Association friends, believes that pornography DOES belong in places with little children and has fought against internet filters in her library.
You've picked up a fine point/distinction of law. A specific statute trumps a general statute. In other words, the city can pass laws under their power to protect, unless it conflicts with a specific state law that says otherwise (the CCW law). This is exactly such a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.