Ruling: Cities have right to effectively ban hunting
Kathy Barks Hoffman
Associated Press
LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the right of cities to ban the use of firearms and bows and arrows within their limits, even if it interferes with someone's ability to hunt.
Michael Czymbor had argued that such bans passed by the city of Saginaw in 1999 unfairly kept him from hunting on a 56-acre parcel within the city boundaries where he had hunted in the past. He said the municipal ordinances were pre-empted by the state Department of Natural Resources' right to regulate hunting.
But in a 4-3 ruling, the court disagreed.
"While the DNR enjoys 'the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game' ... there is no indication that the legislative grant of authority to regulate the taking of game is superior to or supersedes the specific legislative grant of authority at issue here — the authority to regulate the discharge of weaponry," the majority wrote.
The DNR does have the right to designate areas for hunting, an arrangement it can make with townships. But that right doesn't extend to telling cities what they can do within their boundaries, justices Robert Young, Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan and Stephen Markman ruled.
They upheld the summary discharge of the suit brought against the city of Saginaw and the Saginaw City Council.
The decision didn't please the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, which had filed a friend of the court brief in support of Czymbor. In a release, MUCC called the ruling "a slap in the face" to Michigan hunting that circumvents regulations already in place.
"Astonishingly, the court has said that Michigan's citizens who own land or choose to hunt close to their homes within city limits do not have that right," MUCC interim director Donna Stine said.
"This ruling ... essentially is a green light to ban hunting," she added. "There simply was no reason for the Supreme Court to make such a radical statement with statewide implications."
Three justices seemed to share that opinion, writing dissents that sided with the DNR.
Justice Elizabeth Weaver was joined by Justice Marilyn Kelly in arguing that the DNR had the right to define a hunting area, even if it was within municipal boundaries.
"When the state reserves exclusive jurisdiction to regulate a field, a municipal corporation cannot regulate the same field if the regulation results in a conflict between state regulations and local regulations," Weaver wrote.
Since the state had designated Czymbor's land a hunting area in the past, that decision superseded the city's right to stop hunting on it through an ordinance, she said.
"I remain convinced that the DNR has the exclusive authority to regulate hunting in Michigan, including the discharge of firearms and bows and arrows for hunting purposes," she added.
Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote in a separate dissent that the city's ordinance was pre-empted by the DNR because the ordinance didn't allow for the taking of game. He said such ordinances usurp the DNR's exclusive authority to regulate hunting throughout the state.
The majority's opinion scolded the DNR, noting that the agency first declined to issue Czymbor a hunting license because of the city ban on discharging weapons, then claimed those ordinances were invalid insofar as they didn't provide an exception for hunting. The department had argued only it could ban the discharge of weapons in hunting areas.
Topic: Michigan ruling could have bad repercussions. (Read 1262 times)
