Unlawfully Detained while Voting and Banned from all GRPS Schools

Someone locked the thread.

Redundant but......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

We need to post this video more often.

I'm a little suprised the waterford schools didnt pull this with someone too.

Generaldet said:

CLSD has reached out to the news station to provide them with more accurate information regarding OC'ing at a school. We will also be contacting the prosecutor's office.

Click to expand...

my eyes must be getting really bad, i thought your post said cadl was getting involved, i was really going to be upset.

happy to see you and moc are trying to get the correct information out there, keep up the good work.

So is it lawful to carry at a school in MI with a CPL? And can this group ban it posting?

You have to openly carry it , but yes.

I dont understand your second question

ComradeV said:

So is it lawful to carry at a school in MI with a CPL? And can this group ban it posting?

Click to expand...

With a Michigan CPL, a person can Open Carry at a School in Michigan. Please see the following Michigan State Police Legal Update on Open Carry:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

Not sure about your second question...

GRPS said they will post in the future in order to ban further carrying. Is this lawful?

It is undecided if a school can trespass, and the other issue, if they are subject to preemption. There is an important case about a library that could have an affect on it, but that depends on some specifics in the case, wether it will affect schools at all.

I would suspect that it would be difficult to trespass someone who is voting...lol

My feeling is that without a change in the laws, the school will simply have to suck it up.

The man was voting (Exercising his Constitutional rights) within the law and was Open Carrying (exercising his constitutional rights) within the law.

If anything, the school official and the GRPD are going to have to answer some questions, probably in a civil case.

Technically, they can't. They would have to wait till later to charge you. If it prevented you from voting in the future, it would be felonious, but the absentee ballot may negate that.

The CADL Case has nothing to do with Schools, CADL dropped that argument.

A quick reminder on Michigan Firearm Preemption:

FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT) Act 319 of 1990 said:

123.1101 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.

(b) “Pistol” means that term as defined in section 222 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.222 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-319-of-1990

As to Preemption (MCL 123.1102), since the schools are either part of the City or the County, a case could be made that they are under Preemption and would not be able to ban Firearms. Even if they are a School District formed by multiple Cities or a City and County, then MCL 124.504 comes into play:

URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967 (EXCERPT) Act 7 of 1967 (Ex. Sess.) said:

124.502 Definitions.

Sec. 2.

As used in this act:

(a) “Interlocal agreement” means an agreement entered into under this act.

(b) “Local governmental unit” means a county, city, village, township, or charter township.

(c) “Province” means a province of Canada.

(d) “Property” means any real or personal property, as described in section 34c of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.34c.

(e) “Public agency” means a political subdivision of this state or of another state of the United States or of Canada, including, but not limited to, a state government; a county, city, village, township, charter township, school district, single or multipurpose special district, or single or multipurpose public authority; a provincial government, metropolitan government, borough, or other political subdivision of Canada; an agency of the United States government; or a similar entity of any other states of the United States and of Canada. As used in this subdivision, agency of the United States government includes an Indian tribe recognized by the federal government before 2000 that exercises governmental authority over land within this state, except that this act or any intergovernmental agreement entered into under this act shall not authorize the approval of a class III gaming compact negotiated under the Indian gaming regulatory act, Public Law 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467.

(f) “State” means a state of the United States.

124.504 Joint exercise of powers.

Sec. 4.

A public agency of this state may exercise jointly with any other public agency of this state, with a public agency of any other state of the United States, with a public agency of Canada, or with any public agency of the United States government any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-7-of-1967-Ex-Sess-

Since Neither the City nor the County has the Power to Ban Firearms due to MCL 123.1102, then any resulting "joint exercise of powers" like a School District could not either.

Not saying that they might not try to ban Firearms though... Since Firearms are allowed in Vehicles and in Parking Lots for CPL Holders due to MCL 28.425o, I believe any School District Firearm Ban would not stand a Legal Challenge. The School District, School District Officials, School Officials, and Police Officers would then open themselves up for Misdemeanor Prosecution at a minimum under MCL 752.11

MCL 752.11 said:

Upholding or enforcing the law; duty of public officials.

Sec. 1.

Any public official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state and who wilfully and knowingly fails to uphold or enforce the law with the result that any person's legal rights are denied is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-11

This could also quite possibly devolve into a Deprivation of Civil Rights Case and depending upon how the Police Officers and Police Department handles it, an FBI Color of Law Complaint leading to Criminal and Civil Prosecution of those involved.

My hope is that none of this occurs and that the School District/Police Department quickly realizes the legalities involved and lets the matter "die a quiet death".

BTW - The GRPD Officers, in detaining the Open Carrier, more than likely violated at least MCL 600.1825 and quite possibly MCL 168.932:

MCL 600.1825 said:

Arrest; privileged persons.

Sec. 1825.

(1) Every elector is privileged from arrest while going to, attending, and returning from elections in all cases except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-600-1825

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT) Act 116 of 1954 said:

168.932 Prohibited conduct; violation as felony.

Sec. 932.

A person who violates 1 or more of the following subdivisions is guilty of a felony:

(a) A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-168-932

I know they dropped the schools argument. However, the case might decide that the definitions in 123.1101 are not all inclusive. That could impact schools like this and what happened in Waterford. It seems like the legislature doesnt want to touch preemption, but the courts might fall into it.

CADL thinks they are exempt with the whole authority argument. If the court rules that a city is preempted, so the authority created by the city is therefore preempted, it may have a bearing on schools as well

stainless1911 said:

Technically, they can't. They would have to wait till later to charge you. If it prevented you from voting in the future, it would be felonious, but the absentee ballot may negate that.

Click to expand...

The absentee ballot can only be requested under specific circumstances.

Absentee Ballots said:

Absentee voter ballots are available for all elections. They provide voters with a convenient method for casting a ballot when they are unable to attend the polls on Election Day.

As a registered voter, you may obtain an absentee voter ballot if you are:

age 60 years old or older
unable to vote without assistance at the polls
expecting to be out of town on election day
in jail awaiting arraignment or trial
unable to attend the polls due to religious reasons
appointed to work as an election inspector in a precinct outside of your precinct of residence.

Click to expand...

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_11619-123989--,00.html#7

The School cannot force a person to vote with an Absentee Ballot...

stainless1911 said:

I know they dropped the schools argument. However, the case might decide that the definitions in 123.1101 are not all inclusive. That could impact schools like this and what happened in Waterford. It seems like the legislature doesnt want to touch preemption, but the courts might fall into it.

CADL thinks they are exempt with the whole authority argument. If the court rules that a city is preempted, so the authority created by the city is therefore preempted, it may have a bearing on schools as well

Click to expand...

And that is why MCL 124.504 comes into play...

Stay tuned... Game has just begun.

Im watching.

Quote PD :The absentee ballot can only be requested under specific circumstances.

then the law you posted earlier about commiting a felony in prohibiting a person from voting would come into the picture .

stainless1911 said:

Im watching.

Quote PD :The absentee ballot can only be requested under specific circumstances.

then the law you posted earlier about committing a felony in prohibiting a person from voting would come into the picture .

Click to expand...

You HAVE been paying attention.... :banana:

yessir

Email SENT

I have sent an email to the REP for GRPS that made the inaccurate statement to WZZM. I have ask him to correct his false statement.

"The man told officers he was trying to make a political statement that people who are legally permitted to carry concealed weapons could bring them to polling sites, according to Helmholdt. But the district spokesman says state law does not allow people with concealed carry permits to take them to properties like schools and churches. Helmholdt says schools are also legal gun-free zones."


GRPS REP
John Helmholdt
Director of Communications & External affairs
Email: helmholdtj@grpublicschools.org
Phone: 616-819-3740

I encourage others to do so...

Email sent ty for the link.

Schools are not gun free zones. They are concealed carry free zones. State law requires that a person carry openly, provided they have a permission slip to exercise the pre existing right to keep and to bear arms. The law does nothing to provide protection whatsoever, only punishments to those who don't care, or are unaware of the laws. Only the criminals will carry concealed in the schools. The no guns policies do nothing to prevent school shootings as our history repeatedly shows. The only way to stop a gunman, is with a gun that is already present when the threat becomes apparent.