Skip to comments.City Should Stand by Gun Ordinance Despite State Law (Ferndale, MI-Daily Tribune Editorial)
Posted on 05/05/2002 12:49:10 PM PDT by historian1944
City Should Stand by Gun Ordinance Despite State Law
It's quite possibly true, as the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners suggests, that Ferndale's City Council members are violating state law by enacting an ordinance prohibiting guns inside city buildings.
The state law which made it far easier for Michigan residents to secure concealed-weapons permits banned carrying them in a number of public and public-assembly places, but not municipal buildings and libraries. And the state Legislature has already established a sorry precedent of pre-empting municipal gun control laws.
It's reasonable to suggest, as some city officials do, that guns should be banned in city buildings.
" We are often involved at city hall with resolving disputes and grievances where tempers run high," says City Manager Tom Barwin. " No one needs to be carrying a gun to conduct city business."
That kind of reasoning will doubtless get the city into trouble. If you exclude guns from a place where tempers run high, then, you might argue, they should be banned from the street. And so would we, if we thought the argument would fly as far as the sidewalk on East Third.
Regulating where people can legally carry guns has to do with the comfort level for the rest of us. Gun owners don't feel at ease unless they're carrying a gun. The rest of us don't feel at ease unless we're reasonably confident that no one, licensed owner or criminal, is carrying a gun in our presence. Gun owners trust no one but themselves for their personal protection. We don't trust them either.
We encourage Ferndale to continue breaking the law until a court decides the matter. It's a controlled, civil kind of civil disobedience. As for these communities leaning in Ferndale's direction but waiting until the coalition's lawsuit against the city has run its course, the least they can do is send cash.
What I think is so interesting is that the city of Ferndale is cutting budgets for all city services and departments (including fire and police) because of budget shortfalls. So they are going to attempt to fight this lawsuit too. Can't wait till they raise taxes again, we're currently at $49 per 1000 of home value.
Speaking of raising taxes, with the abolition of the law that forces city employees to live in the city, Mr. Barwin was freed from that requirement, and still resides in Hazel Park. So, he has little incentive to care about the taxes of the citizens of Ferndale; it doesn't affect him.
using this logic then no one needs to be driving to city hall as well, cars are very effective murder weapons as well. and pens and pencils too.
Lie. The govenment and members of the dem party trust only themselves with firearms. It's the fighters for the Second Amendment who trust others with firearms. A true believer in freedom isn't someone who just wants freedom for themselves.
1. I know Ferndale is single party rule, but why in the blue hell would any resident of Ferndale vote for someone who lives in Hazel Park?
2. I heard Ferndale's insurance is balking and might not fund this lawsuit. PArty because of that, I believe there are collection cans there. MCRGO doesn't care one way or the other what the insurance agency does. We'll take the money of either of them. No offense to Ferndale residents.
3. That kind of reasoning will doubtless get the city into trouble. If you exclude guns from a place where tempers run high, then, you might argue, they should be banned from the street. And so would we, if we thought the argument would fly as far as the sidewalk on East Third.
Defeatism already. They already believed they lost. I don't want to be cocky here, but I really like our chances here. I hope we win and they appeal and this gets settled at the Supremes so no other area tries this. Unfortunatly I think they ruling will only apply to Oakland County.
4. Gun owners don't feel at ease unless they're carrying a gun.
No, I feel at ease when others are allowed to carry as well. You see, I put more faith in gunowners than I do govt.
5. The rest of us don't feel at ease unless we're reasonably confident that no one, licensed owner or criminal, is carrying a gun in our presence.
Whose 'us'? If you speak of Newspaper officials, then you can perfectly well speak for a group.
6. Gun owners trust no one but themselves for their personal protection. I think I'm most CAPABLE of protecting myself. It is also nice to know that there are other armed citizens out there as well.
7. We don't trust them either.
THAT'S the key line of the whole editorial right there. BOOM. These newspaper people here think they know what's best for you. They think that you are not worthy to own a firearm. Well, I don't think they are worthy to write a newspaper. I don't trust what they have to say....so I don't buy their paper.
8. The Ferndale City lawyers are running scared. They are going for Hail Mary passes already. I can't swear to this(memory and secondhand), but I THINK that they tried to dismiss this already without a trial, and are trying to drag this out and delay a hearing(rescheduled once already - that's why you haven't heard about it lately). They won't speak to Ross or any of the other lawyers on our side at all. I think the writing is on the wall here. Unless they get a relative of Warshay(what a jackass) as a judge, I think we'll see a repeat of the pounding that Prosecutor Dunnings and his lawyer got in Lansing(and that was from a lib judge).
If the city tries to arrest anyone for carrying a firearm, would it be possible for that person to file a wrongful-arrest lawsuit against everyone involved in the chain of command (given that they willfully violated state law)? Would it be possible for a cooperative DA to file criminal charges as well?