Do you realize AG Hood issued an opinion that cities can ban weapons on their property?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Vicksburg bans firearms on city property with city ordinance
- Thread starter MSRebel54
- Start date
Do you realize AG Hood issued an opinion that cities can ban weapons on their property?
Eeyore
Regular Member
I don't believe he did. AFAIK, his opinion matches the existing state pre-emption law that specifically allows bans in courthouses, meetings of city government, and parks. If you've got something that says different, I'd love to see it. It wouldn't be surprised if certain media outlets and some city officials have over-simplified the issue and believe it applies to all city property.
Last edited:
MattinWA
Regular Member
To MSG:
Washington state does allow local municipalities to enact laws restricting the discharge of firearms and the location of new gun shops, refer please to :
RCW 9.41.300 weapons prohibited in certain places.
**** (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
**** (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
**** (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
**** (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
**** (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
**** (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
**** (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
The state preemption has made Washington gun laws far less complicated then say our neighbor to the south, Oregon, which is a cluster-explitive of jumbled laws. Oregon does have a preemption as well, but it is a joke and laws very from county to county and even town to town, Portland has even passed laws re-defining basic legal terms, flying in the face of the states preemption and state constitution.
Example: In Portland, without a CPL, one can not even have rounds in an unattached magazine anywhere on them in the public domain, even your car in Oregon has been ruled a "public" place... Sad but true.
However the state preemption in Oregon does not give cities or counties the ability to change legal definitions of loaded and unloaded, it only allows them to restrict "loaded" carry (open or concealed) to people with a CPL
As soon as your are out of maricopa county and the metro area around that area, (Salem, Oregon city, ect) you don't even need a CPL to open carry loaded in your vehicle. (in most counties, unlike WA state, where you must have a CPL to have a loaded pistol in your vehicle, regardless of how you choose to carry it)
Hope my anti Oregon rant helps =D thanks
Washington state does allow local municipalities to enact laws restricting the discharge of firearms and the location of new gun shops, refer please to :
RCW 9.41.300 weapons prohibited in certain places.
**** (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
**** (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and
**** (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
**** (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
**** (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
**** (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
**** (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
The state preemption has made Washington gun laws far less complicated then say our neighbor to the south, Oregon, which is a cluster-explitive of jumbled laws. Oregon does have a preemption as well, but it is a joke and laws very from county to county and even town to town, Portland has even passed laws re-defining basic legal terms, flying in the face of the states preemption and state constitution.
Example: In Portland, without a CPL, one can not even have rounds in an unattached magazine anywhere on them in the public domain, even your car in Oregon has been ruled a "public" place... Sad but true.
However the state preemption in Oregon does not give cities or counties the ability to change legal definitions of loaded and unloaded, it only allows them to restrict "loaded" carry (open or concealed) to people with a CPL
As soon as your are out of maricopa county and the metro area around that area, (Salem, Oregon city, ect) you don't even need a CPL to open carry loaded in your vehicle. (in most counties, unlike WA state, where you must have a CPL to have a loaded pistol in your vehicle, regardless of how you choose to carry it)
Hope my anti Oregon rant helps =D thanks
Last edited:
MSRebel54
Regular Member
What you said. I try to keep up with these type things, but this one may have slipped by me. I'd like to see that opinion.
The idiot mayor of Seattle got an "executive order" (shades of unitary executive a la bush and obama) passed that made it illegal to carry (openly or concealed) in certain city properties in direct contravention of preemption laws, as well as our state constitution. The AG explained that it was unlawful for him to do so, but he didn't care. Wasted time, wasted money and it was promptly overturned after a local attorney announced plans to show up at a property with a handgun, did so, was ejected from the property - and thus he had standing to challenge the law.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Meridian's version of superseding preemption
Here's the newspaper report for what Meridian did: (a thousand dollar fine? I believe I'd have to take that one up the ladder.)
MERIDIAN — In response to the state's new open-carry gun law, which is being challenged in the court system, the Meridian City Council unanimously passed a weapons ban on Tuesday. The ordinance prohibits openly carried weapons in City Hall, the Meridian Law Enforcement Center, all fire stations, all municipal offices, city parks, and playgrounds. It makes exceptions for public roads, streets and sidewalks.
Weapons included in the ban are handguns, pistols, rifles, shotguns, stun guns, knives and, according to the ordinance, "any other item of any kind or nature that could or may be used as a weapon …"
Police Chief James Lee said he fully supports the council's action.
"It is to clarify to the citizens of Meridian where they can and where they cannot carry firearms," Lee said. "We need to be able to protect the people of this city and in doing so, we need to rely on our city council for wise judgment and leadership in the right direction."
Michael Goggans, city attorney for Meridian, clarified Friday morning this ban does not address concealed carry permitted citizens. He did, however, refer to state statutes that do address where citizens can and cannot possess weapons.
According to Section 45-9-101 which addresses concealed carry permitted citizens, weapons are prohibited from, among other places, all law enforcement stations, detention facilities, any courthouse or courtroom, polling locations, and any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity.
The statute goes on to say that weapons, whether openly carried or in possession of someone with a concealed carry permit, are prohibited in any location where a sign is displayed stating that no weapons are allowed.
"In order to make this clear to everyone in regards to weapons on municipal property, the council members may have to go back and revisit this issue," Goggans said.
The ordinance maps out the reasoning behind the ban stating in many of these locations, emotions can run high which could lead to escalated incidents.
"Business is often transacted where unpopular decisions are made and emotions tend to be charged," the ordinance states. "The possession of weapons on such municipal properties is in direct contradiction to the sensitive nature of these areas and invites an escalation of conflict."
The ordinance goes on to say that across the nation properties such as those designated as municipal properties have become sites of wanton violence where disgruntled people have vented their anger through killing and wounding those who frequent said places.
Violations are considered misdemeanor crimes, according to Goggans who said the penalty for violating the ban is a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months.
Lauderdale County recently adopted a similar weapons ban. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved requests by Sheriff Billy Sollie to prohibit firearms at the Raymond P. Davis Annex Building, known as the county annex; the Lauderdale County Courthouse, and the Lauderdale County Juvenile Center, which houses the county youth court. - See more at:
http://meridianstar.com/local/x541284178/City-passes-weapons-ban#sthash.dyd7aQYl.dpuf
Here's the newspaper report for what Meridian did: (a thousand dollar fine? I believe I'd have to take that one up the ladder.)
MERIDIAN — In response to the state's new open-carry gun law, which is being challenged in the court system, the Meridian City Council unanimously passed a weapons ban on Tuesday. The ordinance prohibits openly carried weapons in City Hall, the Meridian Law Enforcement Center, all fire stations, all municipal offices, city parks, and playgrounds. It makes exceptions for public roads, streets and sidewalks.
Weapons included in the ban are handguns, pistols, rifles, shotguns, stun guns, knives and, according to the ordinance, "any other item of any kind or nature that could or may be used as a weapon …"
Police Chief James Lee said he fully supports the council's action.
"It is to clarify to the citizens of Meridian where they can and where they cannot carry firearms," Lee said. "We need to be able to protect the people of this city and in doing so, we need to rely on our city council for wise judgment and leadership in the right direction."
Michael Goggans, city attorney for Meridian, clarified Friday morning this ban does not address concealed carry permitted citizens. He did, however, refer to state statutes that do address where citizens can and cannot possess weapons.
According to Section 45-9-101 which addresses concealed carry permitted citizens, weapons are prohibited from, among other places, all law enforcement stations, detention facilities, any courthouse or courtroom, polling locations, and any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity.
The statute goes on to say that weapons, whether openly carried or in possession of someone with a concealed carry permit, are prohibited in any location where a sign is displayed stating that no weapons are allowed.
"In order to make this clear to everyone in regards to weapons on municipal property, the council members may have to go back and revisit this issue," Goggans said.
The ordinance maps out the reasoning behind the ban stating in many of these locations, emotions can run high which could lead to escalated incidents.
"Business is often transacted where unpopular decisions are made and emotions tend to be charged," the ordinance states. "The possession of weapons on such municipal properties is in direct contradiction to the sensitive nature of these areas and invites an escalation of conflict."
The ordinance goes on to say that across the nation properties such as those designated as municipal properties have become sites of wanton violence where disgruntled people have vented their anger through killing and wounding those who frequent said places.
Violations are considered misdemeanor crimes, according to Goggans who said the penalty for violating the ban is a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months.
Lauderdale County recently adopted a similar weapons ban. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved requests by Sheriff Billy Sollie to prohibit firearms at the Raymond P. Davis Annex Building, known as the county annex; the Lauderdale County Courthouse, and the Lauderdale County Juvenile Center, which houses the county youth court. - See more at:
http://meridianstar.com/local/x541284178/City-passes-weapons-ban#sthash.dyd7aQYl.dpuf
NeverAgain
Regular Member
McComb has banned the carrying of any firearm on city property also,unconstitutional but still. Obama Tards
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Does anyone know if the Attorney General's office has issued an opinion on the legality or constitutionality of all these cities and towns enacting their local ordinances despite what 45-9-51 and 53 restrict?
NeverAgain
Regular Member
I saw a small post just browsing around and saw where AG Hood told the LEO's to ignore and not bother people Open Carrying. I can't believe that no sheriffs,chiefs,or anyone speak out saying they're not going to side with the president on the gun bans in Mississippi but have from other states
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Yes, that was an opinion on HB2 before the injunction went into effect. Although HB2 may be the catalyst for the sudden passing of city ordinances, it is actually two separate questions. Whether cities and towns can pass gun bans over state preemption is a valid concern, regardless of whether HB2 is the law or not. A preemption opinion from the AG was the one I was asking about.
MyGlockisaRedneck0
Regular Member
Signs
In going about Philadelphia, I noticed two places where "no guns allowed" signs have popped up. A local bbq place, Dickies, has a sign down at the bottom of a window at floor level on their store front. Can't see the thing from four feet much less the required by law distance of ten feet. A local grocery, Vowells, has large signs posted at eye level at the entrances. County Courthouse also has signs at it entrances.
In going about Philadelphia, I noticed two places where "no guns allowed" signs have popped up. A local bbq place, Dickies, has a sign down at the bottom of a window at floor level on their store front. Can't see the thing from four feet much less the required by law distance of ten feet. A local grocery, Vowells, has large signs posted at eye level at the entrances. County Courthouse also has signs at it entrances.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
My prediction is that if the Supreme Court vacates the Circuit Court judge's injunction of HB2, that you will see somewhat of a surge of gun buster signs going up in establishments around the state. More in some areas of the state, less in others. Rather like a novelty, that is, we know nothing about anything, and everyone's doing it, so we'll do it too. My further prediction is that in a years time, most of them will be gone. Once people realize that not EVERYONE in the state of Mississippi will be wearing a gun, and the one's they do see wearing a gun are the good guys, it won't matter as much.
For me personally, and I hope everyone else does this too, if it's a non-government place with the gun buster sign, I will make it a point for the owner or manager to know exactly why I am not spending my money in their establishment, and will spend it at their competitors. I will let them know that goes for myself, my family, and anyone else I can convince. Whether that means talking to someone in person, or just leaving a card on their door, I will make sure they know that their sign is causing them to lose money. If a business got 15 or 20 cards per week on their door, or people saying, "I just wanted you to know....." , a lot of them would re-think their policy. If I get to talk to the owner or manager, I will let them know that all their sign is doing is posting notice that his is an easy place to rob, there will be no resistance should a criminial rob the place, and shoot the clerk. And more than likely, by the way, the criminal would ignore the "no guns allowed" sign.
If it is a governmental entity on the other hand, many times we citizens have to enter their premises to carry out our business. About the only thing we can do in that case, is keep harping on the fact that local ordinances restricting firearms are null and void due to preemption by state law. Complaining often and enough to the right people may eventually get changes made, even if it has to be take up the ladder to someone in state government who sees the light.
Well, that's my two cents worth.