reporting and prohibits the reporting of transactions on paper forms. Thus, according to Stretch-A-Buck, the city ordinance “prohibits what the statute permits,” McNeil, supra at 697, and is therefore preempted by state law. We disagree. The city of Saginaw’s electronic reporting requirements are additional to the requirements of the secondhand and junk dealers act and do “ ‘not constitute a conflict therewith.’ ” Walsh, supra at 636 (citation omitted). While the city ordinance contains more specific regulations than the state law regulating the same area, the laws are not contradictory in the sense that they cannot “ ‘coexist and be effective.’ ” Rental Prop Owners Ass’n of Kent Co, supra at 262 (citation omitted). Cf. Detroit v Qualls, 434 Mich 340, 345, 363-364; 454 NW2d 374 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The same rationale applies to the provisions
holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state holding that a city ordinance prohibiting the storage of more than 100 pounds of certain fireworks in a place of retail sales did not conflict with state law regulating the storage of fireworks but containing no limit on the amount of fireworks a retailer could store holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law holding that a city could not apply its rent control ordinance in conflict with tribal ordinance to nonindians on reservation trust land holding that a local ordinance prohibiting rental housing for illegal aliens was not field preempted and did not conflict with the federal removal process and where the ordinance specified it did not prohibit conduct expressly permitted by federal law did not conflict with federal antiharboring law