NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Act 451 of 1994
324.41901 Regulation and prohibitions in certain areas; powers of department; area closures; hearings, investigations, studies, and statement of facts; regulations.
Sec. 41901.
(1) In addition to all of the department powers, in the interest of public safety and the general welfare, the department may regulate and prohibit hunting, and the discharge of firearms and bow and arrow, as provided in this part, on those areas established under this part where hunting or the discharge of firearms or bow and arrow may or is likely to kill, injure, or disturb persons who can reasonably be expected to be present in the areas or to destroy or damage buildings or personal property situated or customarily situated in the areas or will impair the general safety and welfare. In addition, the department may determine and define the boundaries of the areas. Areas or parts of areas may be closed throughout the year. The department, in furtherance of safety, may designate areas where hunting is permitted only by prescribed methods and weapons that are not inconsistent with law. Whenever the governing body of any political subdivision determines that the safety and well-being of persons or property are endangered by hunters or discharge of firearms or bow and arrows, by resolution it may request the department to recommend closure of the area as may be required to relieve the problem. Upon receipt of a certified resolution, the department shall establish a date for a public hearing in the political subdivision, and the requesting political authority shall arrange for suitable quarters for the hearing. The department shall receive testimony on the nature of the problems resulting from hunting activities and firearms use from all interested parties on the type, extent, and nature of the closure, regulations, or controls desired locally to remedy these problems.
(2) Upon completion of the public hearing, the department shall cause such investigations and studies to be made of the area as it considers appropriate and shall then make a statement of the facts of the situation as found at the hearing and as a result of its investigations. The department shall then prescribe regulations as are necessary to alleviate or correct the problems found.
History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
PopularName Notes:
NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Czymbor’s Timber, Inc v. City of Saginaw, 733 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 65× “Plaintiffs claim that, because neither ordinance contains a hunting exception, the ordinances conflict with and are preempted by MCL 324.41901, a statute that gives the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the authority to regulate and prohibit the discharge of…”
Czymbor’s Timber, Inc v. City of Saginaw, 711 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiffs alleged that the ordinances are preempted by MCL 324.41901. Defendant city of Saginaw moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”
Capital Area Dist. Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc., 826 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiffs sought to hunt on their private land located within the city of Saginaw. They challenged the validity of the ordinances, contending that “because neither ordinance contains a hunting exception, the ordinances conflict with and are preempted by MCL 324.”
Czymbor’s Timber Inc v. City of Saginaw, 725 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 2007).
“Court directs each party to file a supplemental brief not later than 42 days after the date of this order specifically addressing the following two questions: (1) whether privately owned land is generally open for hunting with the permission of the owner unless a local…”
Czymbor's Timber, Inc. v. City of Saginaw, 717 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. 2006).
“The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the Saginaw City Ordinances, which prohibit the discharge of firearms and other weapons within the city limits, are preempted by the hunting control act or other state statutes that regulate hunting, see MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.41901(1) — 4 cases
Czymbor’s Timber, Inc v. City of Saginaw, 733 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2007).
“Plaintiffs claim that, because neither ordinance contains a hunting exception, the ordinances conflict with and are preempted by MCL 324.41901, a statute that gives the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the authority to regulate and prohibit the discharge of…”
Czymbor’s Timber, Inc v. City of Saginaw, 711 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Plaintiffs alleged that the ordinances are preempted by MCL 324.41901. Defendant city of Saginaw moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”
Capital Area Dist. Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc., 826 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“The plaintiffs sought to hunt on their private land located within the city of Saginaw. They challenged the validity of the ordinances, contending that “because neither ordinance contains a hunting exception, the ordinances conflict with and are preempted by MCL 324.”
Czymbor's Timber, Inc. v. City of Saginaw, 717 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. 2006).
“The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the Saginaw City Ordinances, which prohibit the discharge of firearms and other weapons within the city limits, are preempted by the hunting control act or other state statutes that regulate hunting, see MCL…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.