|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Gun rights group suing Eastpointe over 'unique' law prohibiting guns in unlocked vehicles
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A pro-gun rights group is suing the city of Eastpointe over an ordinance that mandates all cars that people store their guns in must be locked.
The law in question took effect in October following a rise in reported gun thefts from vehicles located in the city. Eastpointe's Public Safety Director George Rouhib told the Detroit News that 60 gun thefts had been reported in the past three years.
The trend prompted the city to enact a provision punishing anyone who left a firearm in an unlocked vehicle with a $350 fine or 90 days in jail.
The city is now being sued over the law by Michigan Gun Owners, Inc., which argues that state law preempts local governments from regulating possession and transportation of firearms. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/3/2019)
|
| Michigan: Preempting BS like this for over 25 years and counting. (but that doesn't stop asshats from making you waste money suing them to make them obey the law) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
