[Dan from Michigan]

I think the ban is worse than it looks if I remember right. It's for city property. Not just govt building. If the city owns it, it's probably banned. If I rent a business from the city....banned.

That's until the appeals court or Michigan Supremes(strict constitutionalist) slaps them down .

[Iota]

I think I see what's going on here. The sticking point is the bolded text from the preemption law: "A local unit of government shall not . . . enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to . . . possession of pistols or other firearms . . . except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

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.