Grand Rapids Mayor Heartwell pushing for a court battle?
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Grand Rapids Mayor Heartwell pushing for a court battle?

  1. #1
    ezkl2230 Guest

    Grand Rapids Mayor Heartwell pushing for a court battle?

    A customer called today who is interested in OC'ing in Grand Rapids. Before calling us, he first called the Grand Rapids Police and asked them about the legality of doing so. At first, he was told flat-out that Grand Rapids firearms ordinance prohibits open carry of a firearm. A sergeant corrected the officer, telling him that there were exceptions to that ordinance, but if they wanted to carry openly in Grand Rapids, then they had better have a good attorney available if the GRPD ever caught them doing it.

    This is the same ordinance that MOC tried to get the city council to remove from the books because Michigan is a pre-emption state; state law overrules local ordinances. Here is what the ordinance says:

    Sec. 9.172. Discharging or Flourishing.
    No person shall discharge any firearm in the City of Grand Rapids, and no person shall draw, handle or flourish any firearm in any public street, alley or other place open to the public in the City of Grand Rapids.

    (Ord. No. 67-11, 4-25-67)

    Sec. 9.173. Carrying.

    No person shall carry any firearm upon his or her person in any public street, alley or other placeopen to the public in the City of Grand Rapids unless:

    (1) The person has been issued a valid license to do so as provided by Act 372 of MichiganPublic Acts of 1927, as amended (MCL 28.421 et seq.), or
    (2) All ammunition has been removed from the chamber, cylinder, clip or magazine of the firearm and the firearm has been noticeably rendered inoperable by being broken down or disassembled or is completely enclosed within a case or other similar container.

    Sec. 9.174. Carrying for Purposes of Repair or Merchandising.

    No person shall carry any firearm upon his or her person in any building or other structure open to the public unless:

    (1) The person has been issued a valid license to do so as provided by Act 372 of the MichiganPublic Acts of 1927, as amended (MCL 28.421 et seq.), or
    (2)The firearm is being shown or otherwise handled in the regular course of merchandising, or is being carried from the building immediately after purchase of said firearm within the building,or the firearm is carried into the building for repair of said firearm.

    Sec. 9.175. Exceptions.

    The prohibitions in Sections 9.172, 9.173 and 9.174 hereof do not apply:

    (1) To persons acting in the lawful defense of person, property or family.
    (2) To police officers or other officers of the law in the lawful discharge of their duty.
    (3)
    To authorized military parades by permission of the Director of Public Safety.
    (4)
    To indoor enclosed firearm ranges so constructed as to prevent damage to property or injury or death to any person where such firearm ranges are otherwise lawful; provided, however, that the discharge of a bow and arrow is permitted upon unenclosed ranges where such ranges are constructed so as to prevent damage to property or injury or death to any person.
    (5) Reserved.
    Michigan law permits open carry in all places except courts, private property enforcing its own carry prohibition, one's vehicle, and the legally designated gun free zones without a permit. With a CPL, one can legally openly carry everywhere except courts or on private property enforcing its own carry prohibition.

    Heartwell has said that he has no interest in removing these laws from Grand Rapids city ordinances, and favors expanding the areas in which one may not carry openly to all city meetings/buildings, churches, schools, etc.

    In giving the advice it provided, the GRPD is evidently following instructions from the mayor to enforce the city ordinance in spite of Michigan state law. Heartwell has been unsuccessful in getting open carry eliminated, so it appears that he is now pushing for a court challenge to the law in the hope of getting state law overturned. This has never been done successfully, even though the cities of Lansing, Dearborn, and Grand Haven have all tried, but it is evidently not stopping Heartwell from trying. If he is successful in getting a court case, as a card-carrying member of MAIG, Bloomberg will no doubt front all the cash Heartwell needs to mount a court battle.

  2.   
  3. #2
    ezkl2230 Guest
    I just sent the following email to the senator from my district:

    Senator,

    A customer called my place of employment today who is interested in openly carrying in Grand Rapids. Before calling us, he first called the Grand Rapids Police and asked them about the legality of doing so. At first, he was told flat-out that Grand Rapids firearms ordinance prohibits open carry of a firearm. A sergeant corrected the officer, telling him that there were exceptions to that ordinance, but if they wanted to carry openly in Grand Rapids, then they had better have a good attorney available if the GRPD ever caught them doing it.

    This is the same ordinance that Michigan Open Carry tried to get the city council to remove from the books because Michigan is a pre-emption state; state law overrules local ordinances. Here is what the ordinance says:


    Sec. 9.172. Discharging or Flourishing.
    No person shall discharge any firearm in the City of Grand Rapids, and no person shall draw, handle or flourish any firearm in any public street, alley or other place open to the public in the City of Grand Rapids.

    (Ord. No. 67-11, 4-25-67)

    Sec. 9.173. Carrying.

    No person shall carry any firearm upon his or her person in any public street, alley or other placeopen to the public in the City of Grand Rapids unless:

    (1) The person has been issued a valid license to do so as provided by Act 372 of MichiganPublic Acts of 1927, as amended (MCL 28.421 et seq.), or
    (2) All ammunition has been removed from the chamber, cylinder, clip or magazine of the firearm and the firearm has been noticeably rendered inoperable by being broken down or disassembled or is completely enclosed within a case or other similar container.

    Sec. 9.174. Carrying for Purposes of Repair or Merchandising.

    No person shall carry any firearm upon his or her person in any building or other structure open to the public unless:

    (1) The person has been issued a valid license to do so as provided by Act 372 of the MichiganPublic Acts of 1927, as amended (MCL 28.421 et seq.), or
    (2)The firearm is being shown or otherwise handled in the regular course of merchandising, or is being carried from the building immediately after purchase of said firearm within the building,or the firearm is carried into the building for repair of said firearm.

    Sec. 9.175. Exceptions.

    The prohibitions in Sections 9.172, 9.173 and 9.174 hereof do not apply:

    (1) To persons acting in the lawful defense of person, property or family.
    (2) To police officers or other officers of the law in the lawful discharge of their duty.
    (3)
    To authorized military parades by permission of the Director of Public Safety.
    (4)
    To indoor enclosed firearm ranges so constructed as to prevent damage to property or injury or death to any person where such firearm ranges are otherwise lawful; provided, however, that the discharge of a bow and arrow is permitted upon unenclosed ranges where such ranges are constructed so as to prevent damage to property or injury or death to any person.
    (5) Reserved.



    Michigan law permits open carry in all places except courts, private property enforcing its own carry prohibition, one's vehicle, and the legally designated gun free zones without a permit. With a CPL, one can legally openly carry everywhere except courts or on private property enforcing its own carry prohibition.

    As you are no doubt aware, Mayor Heartwell has said that he has no interest in removing these laws from Grand Rapids city ordinances, and favors expanding the areas in which one may not carry openly to all city meetings/buildings, churches, schools, etc. This was his reply to the president of MOC who offered to work with him to find a mutually acceptable middle ground relating to this pre-empted ordinance:


    “Dear Mr. Lambert,Thank you for your offer to participate in my gun control task force. You are correct in your assessment that the goal for this group is to amend State law in an effort to curb gun violence. Having recently attended the US Conference of Mayors meetings in Washington, DC, I was struck by the near-universal call for more control on guns – background checks, local regulations on registration, large capacity and automatic weapons – from mayors of America who were in attendance. While you and I are at very different places with respect to this question I felt my position affirmed by my colleagues from every part of the country.

    “In offering to serve on my task force you suggested that we could, perhaps, find a middle ground. I am not interested in finding a middle ground and I suspect – let’s be honest here – that you aren’t either. My objective is to remove guns from government buildings and voting stations and to keep them out of the places where they are currently banned such as schools and houses of worship. Given your clear and strongly-held position on this matter I must decline your offer of service.
    “We share the distinction of Eagle Scout – mine earned in 1964, with Distinguished Eagle conferred in 2005 – and I see it as a reflection on the character of America that two citizens who obviously love God and country arrive at such different places on this subject, both having all the rights and feeling all the obligations to represent our position. Whether or not you respect my determination, I certainly respect yours. I will, however, continue to do my best to see that reasonable limits are put into place concerning ownership and open carrying of firearms.
    "Sincerely,
    Mayor George K. Heartwell”
    The Mlive article in which the mayor's reply was posted went on to report,


    "Heartwell said he plans to work with a group of about eight people to evaluate local and state policies that would keep guns out of public meeting places and voting stations, as well as several places guns already are prohibited."


    In giving the advice it provided to the customer, it would appear that the GRPD is evidently following instructions from the mayor to enforce the city ordinance in spite of Michigan state law. Mayor Heartwell has been unsuccessful in getting open carry eliminated (despite his affiliation with Bloomberg's MAIG, of which he is a card-carrying member), so it appears that he is now pushing for a court challenge to the law in the hope of getting state law overturned. To-date, efforts to circumvent the state law have been unsuccessful, even though the cities of Lansing, Dearborn, and Grand Haven have all tried, but if what I believe is happening is truly happening, it is evidently not stopping Mayor Heartwell from trying. If he is successful in getting a court case, as a card-carrying member of MAIG, Bloomberg will no doubt front all the cash he needs to mount a court battle.

    I am concerned that a public official or entity within the City of Grand Rapids would set out to circumvent clearly-written state law.


    Sincerely,




  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    A customer called today who is interested in OC'ing in Grand Rapids. Before calling us, he first called the Grand Rapids Police and asked them about the legality of doing so. At first, he was told flat-out that Grand Rapids firearms ordinance prohibits open carry of a firearm. A sergeant corrected the officer, telling him that there were exceptions to that ordinance, but if they wanted to carry openly in Grand Rapids, then they had better have a good attorney available if the GRPD ever caught them doing it.

    This is the same ordinance that MOC tried to get the city council to remove from the books because Michigan is a pre-emption state; state law overrules local ordinances. Here is what the ordinance says:



    Michigan law permits open carry in all places except courts, private property enforcing its own carry prohibition, one's vehicle, and the legally designated gun free zones without a permit. With a CPL, one can legally openly carry everywhere except courts or on private property enforcing its own carry prohibition.

    Heartwell has said that he has no interest in removing these laws from Grand Rapids city ordinances, and favors expanding the areas in which one may not carry openly to all city meetings/buildings, churches, schools, etc.

    In giving the advice it provided, the GRPD is evidently following instructions from the mayor to enforce the city ordinance in spite of Michigan state law. Heartwell has been unsuccessful in getting open carry eliminated, so it appears that he is now pushing for a court challenge to the law in the hope of getting state law overturned. This has never been done successfully, even though the cities of Lansing, Dearborn, and Grand Haven have all tried, but it is evidently not stopping Heartwell from trying. If he is successful in getting a court case, as a card-carrying member of MAIG, Bloomberg will no doubt front all the cash Heartwell needs to mount a court battle.
    we used to have the same problem here in FLA, some windbag libturd politicians who thought that they can flout the the state's preemption in the firearms laws. The law here was weak but now in the past year or 2 it was strengthened by making the people who refuse to bring their ordinances into compliance with the state laws PERSONALLY liable, both financially and criminally. May y'all up there in michigan need to peruse the FLA laws regarding this matter

  5. I live close to GR and this guy is a crappy mayor that somehow keeps being reelected. I hope he paid his own way to the anti gun conference.

  6. #5
    ezkl2230 Guest
    One more followup to the email I sent earlier:

    Senator,

    As a necessary followup to my first email, I need to emphasize the following quote from the Mlive article:

    "Heartwell said he plans to work with a group of about eight people to evaluate local and state policies that would keep guns out of public meeting places and voting stations, as well as several places guns already are prohibited."

    This is the kind of elitist demagoguery we are witnessing in other parts of the country. Mayor Heartwell, along with his "Gang of Eight," is going to determine what is best for the rest of the citizens of Grand Rapids, what we may do to defend ourselves, and WHERE we may defend ourselves, and they are going to look for any loophole in the law that can be construed as giving them that authority. He said in his published letter that no other viewpoints are of any value to him, and he has no intention of considering them as he goes forward. His stated intention is to impose a SINGULAR, unConstitutional (both Michigan AND US) point of view on our city. And while he refers to the affirmation he received at the US Conference of Mayors this past June in Washington, DC, a cursory look at the agenda will bear out that this conclave has become yet another bastion of liberal ideology and implementation, with seminars and sessions addressing such issues as implementation of the so-called DREAM Act and an update of Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), an name communicating the laudable goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, while the organization actually pursues policies that punish the law-abiding while accomplishing nothing to actually keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. The agenda may be perused here: http://usmayors.org/81stAnnualMeeting/media/agenda.pdf

    Mayor Heartwell's view is based on the premise that police alone are sufficient to keep us safe in all venues. This view ignores the multitude of court rulings, going all the way to the US Supreme Court, that the police have no duty to the individual, only to society as a whole. This doctrine was communicated explicitly in the decision, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, in which the justices declared,

    "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

    "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

    I am concerned that a public official or entity within the City of Grand Rapids would set out to circumvent clearly written state laws, laws that have been upheld by Michigan courts and in Michigan Attorney's General opinions. He cannot be allowed to impose his personal views on the rest of Grand Rapids under the guise of keeping us safe.

    Sincerely,

  7. #6
    I'm from Utah so I don't know how the court system works there but an interesting possibility is that there may be laws regarding frivolous lawsuits. I think an argument could be made that the city would be engaging in a frivolous lawsuit by enforcing a law clearly illegal by state statute - especially since virtually identical laws have been overturned in other jurisdictions.

    The frivolous counter suit could recapture funds used in pursuit of justice.

    So attys in Michigan, are such frivolous lawsuit laws on the books?
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast