How to ban OC at Hoedown..change venue

stainless1911 · Mar 13, 2012

excuses, excuses.

DrTodd · Mar 13, 2012

PDinDetroit said:
It has been clearly and publicly stated that the Michigan Legislature is waiting for the Michigan Court of Appeals to Rule on the CADL Case before they act.

Take your angst somewhere else.

Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.

TheQ · Mar 13, 2012

DrTodd said:
Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.

We are all free individuals and each may do as he wishes. Michigan open carry has no plans to be getting involved in any lawsuit resulting from the hoedown as any such effort would be duplicate.

That all being said, Rob is our person that is involved in lobbying the locals in the Detroit area. If he or someone else in leadership would like to address the matter with the "authority", I leave that to him.

PDinDetroit · Mar 13, 2012

DrTodd said:
Really, when and by whom? Is this "official" or a rumor? Why would the legislature wait for the Michigan Court of Appeals? Perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals is waiting for the legislature... who knows? It is surprising, too, that people are so quick to say that we should wait for a CADL decision to attempt to carry at the Hoedown... unless I have misunderstood the response.

I will refer you to TheQ, scot623, and sprinklerguy as they are who stated it to me (among others - like the lawyers we are working with).

If the Court of Appeals finds CADL is Preempted, then the Preemption Law has been upheld and does not require changes (even though there are changes we would like to see made). This is more than likely how the Michigan Legislators "see" it - Laws are "confirmed" to some degree by court cases such as with CADL (although that is not necessary). I am in no way saying it is "right", but I believe it to be the case.

I do not think people are saying not to carry at the Hoedown, more so that there may not be clear legal standing either way until the CADL Decision is made. I believe that an argument may be made WRT MCL 124.504 more than likely, but I believe that Resources being limited cause priorities to be set.

stainless1911 · Mar 13, 2012

that only accunts for, in a sickeningly weak way, for the legislatures inaction on one small corner of the changes in law that need to be made. It says nothing of their incompetence in other matters such as transportation and PFZs, yet they can still screw around with letting military minors carry, while costing reciprocity in other states.

TheQ · Mar 13, 2012

stainless1911 said:
that only accunts for, in a sickeningly weak way, for the legislatures inaction on one small corner of the changes in law that need to be made. It says nothing of their incompetence in other matters such as transportation and PFZs, yet they can still screw around with letting military minors carry, while costing reciprocity in other states.

You are I'll informed.

What's more -- the military minor bills was merely introduced. It hasn't been heard. Many bills get introduced but never heard. Examples: the two bills to add libraries to 750.234d and 28.425o. Those bills (by the sponsor's own admission) were dead on arrival -- they were introduced to make certain people (CADL) "feel good".

stainless1911 · Mar 13, 2012

They had time to introduce it, that means they had time to do something more productive with their time.

PDinDetroit · Mar 13, 2012

stainless1911 said:
They had time to introduce it, that means they had time to do something more productive with their time.

I believe that there are others this applies to as well.

TheQ · Mar 13, 2012

stainless1911 said:
They had time to introduce it, that means they had time to do something more productive with their time.

And you had time to write this post...

stainless1911 · Mar 13, 2012

Whats with you today PD? Not ripping on you or anything, just a little concerned.

TheQ said:
And you had time to write this post...

yes, Its better than not being able to make rent.

PDinDetroit · Mar 13, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Whats with you today PD? Not ripping on you or anything, just a little concerned.

yes, Its better than not being able to make rent.

You sit there and rip on others when there are plenty of better things to do with your time, many have made suggestions, I see it not being heeded. You are your own worst enemy.

stainless1911 · Mar 13, 2012

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that I got a job a couple months ago, and I could pay the rent. No food, gas, or medical care mind you, but hey, at least Id have a job right? Then all this crap went down (which I'll explain shortly), and because of it, I can't drive anywhere. I would have lost that job, and then would be evicted at the end of the month.

brilliant plan.

DrTodd · Mar 13, 2012

PDinDetroit said:
I will refer you to TheQ, scot623, and sprinklerguy as they are who stated it to me (among others - like the lawyers we are working with).

If the Court of Appeals finds CADL is Preempted, then the Preemption Law has been upheld and does not require changes (even though there are changes we would like to see made). This is more than likely how the Michigan Legislators "see" it - Laws are "confirmed" to some degree by court cases such as with CADL (although that is not necessary). I am in no way saying it is "right", but I believe it to be the case.

I do not think people are saying not to carry at the Hoedown, more so that there may not be clear legal standing either way until the CADL Decision is made. I believe that an argument may be made WRT MCL 124.504 more than likely, but I believe that Resources being limited cause priorities to be set.

I was just wondering. If the message was that MOC resources are limited and anyone who carries there is on their own, that is fair. But, the way it was written seemed to imply that people shouldn't carry there because the law is unclear. There is a difference, which I think was acknowledged later. Interpretation of any law is almost always open and that fear should never be the point; the fact that we can OC could be determined at some point to be "brandishing", AG opinion Opinion No. 7101 notwithstanding.

As Janet Granholm, former MI AG, stated in AG Opinion No. 7101, "Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases, none of the cases define the term."

Should we not OC because OC has never been determined to be distinct from "brandishing"? I think people here would heartily disagree.

Onnie · Mar 13, 2012

PDinDetroit said:
It has been clearly and publicly stated that the Michigan Legislature is waiting for the Michigan Court of Appeals to Rule on the CADL Case before they act.

Take your angst somewhere else.

there is my new word for the day!!!! Thanks

maustin195 · Mar 13, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that I got a job a couple months ago, and I could pay the rent. No food, gas, or medical care mind you, but hey, at least Id have a job right? Then all this crap went down (which I'll explain shortly), and because of it, I can't drive anywhere. I would have lost that job, and then would be evicted at the end of the month.

brilliant plan.

When you are plotting the cause and effect you seem to forget that if you had been working maybe you would not be have gotten into the trouble you did.

scot623 · Mar 13, 2012

DrTodd said:
I was just wondering. If the message was that MOC resources are limited and anyone who carries there is on their own, that is fair. But, the way it was written seemed to imply that people shouldn't carry there because the law is unclear. There is a difference, which I think was acknowledged later.

Let me clarify. First, I have not heard or been told firearms are banned. Knowing the event organizers and Detroits predisposition against guns(it took me a full year to get them to reverse previous firearm ban, when law was crystal clear), I can only assume they will enact a ban because of the venue change. My post was simply a warning to those who may choose to open carry based on last years success that they may be met with opposition this year. Anyone who wants to OC there...rock on!

Second, because of the clouded issue of authorities possibly not being covered by preemption, I am not going to pursue a fight against said possible firearm ban unless the CADL case is won giving me clear case law to cite.

Now if anyone else feels up to the task should a firearm ban be enacted, feel free to pursue the issue and post about it here.

TheQ · Mar 13, 2012

scot623 said:
Second, because of the clouded issue of authorities possibly not being covered by preemption, I am not going to pursue a fight against said possible firearm ban unless the CADL case is won giving me clear case law to cite.

Now if anyone else feels up to the task should a firearm ban be enacted, feel free to pursue the issue and post about it here.

There you have it. The President and Vice-President of MOC pretty much said the same thing.

Now go forth and as our "favorite" singer (Ted :banghead

says: Carry many guns.

DrTodd · Mar 13, 2012

scot623 said:
Let me clarify. First, I have not heard or been told firearms are banned. Knowing the event organizers and Detroits predisposition against guns(it took me a full year to get them to reverse previous firearm ban, when law was crystal clear), I can only assume they will enact a ban because of the venue change. My post was simply a warning to those who may choose to open carry based on last years success that they may be met with opposition this year. Anyone who wants to OC there...rock on!

Second, because of the clouded issue of authorities possibly not being covered by preemption, I am not going to pursue a fight against said possible firearm ban unless the CADL case is won giving me clear case law to cite.

Now if anyone else feels up to the task should a firearm ban be enacted, feel free to pursue the issue and post about it here.

Scot623, no need to clarify, I realize no one has been told that firearms are banned. I also understood that you assume it may happen... based upon your personal experience. I also understand that for you, personally, you aren't comfortable OCing there at this time. I'm fine with that too.

I would like to direct my thoughts to the the rest of the post. What I find interesting is the amount of weight that is being applied to the CDL issue, not only in this post but in other posts written by others.

I am not trying to downplay the significance of the case, but it's significance comes in possible events, not what has already been done. The ruling, as it stands right now, carries no precedent and has very little that currently threatens carry in Lansing, let alone elsewhere in Michigan.

In regards to the POSSIBLE Court of Appeals decision, let's assume the case is taken up by the Court of Appeals soon and it is decided that CADL's power to regulate firearms is preempted. That outcome may or not be decisive for any other situation: it could be decided narrowly that the CADL can't regulate but not mention other libraries formed under different law; the court could decide that all library authorities are preempted but not mention other authorities; or the court could decide all authorities are preempted. But even with the outcome that seems best, that all authorities are preempted, the court could decide to designate the opinion as "unpublished"... which would mean that it does not stand as precedent for future cases. So basically, only one out of the five outcomes I mentioned would be enough to guarantee, to some degree, that all authorities are specifically preempted and the decision would apply to other cases as precedent. Then, if CADL appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court... :shocker: (Notice I didn't even include the possibility that CADL power to regulate firearms is decided to NOT have been preempted)

My point is... what are the chances that we would receive clear case law that could be cited?

PDinDetroit · Mar 13, 2012

DrTodd said:
Scot623, no need to clarify, I realize no one has been told that firearms are banned. I also understood that you assume it may happen... based upon your personal experience. I also understand that for you, personally, you aren't comfortable OCing there at this time. I'm fine with that too.

I would like to direct my thoughts to the the rest of the post. What I find interesting is the amount of weight that is being applied to the CADL issue, not only in this post but in other posts written by others.

I am not trying to downplay the significance of the case, but it's significance comes in possible events, not what has already been done. The ruling, as it stands right now, carries no precedent and has very little that currently threatens carry in Lansing, let alone elsewhere in Michigan.

In regards to the POSSIBLE Court of Appeals decision, let's assume the case is taken up by the Court of Appeals soon and it is decided that CADL's power to regulate firearms is preempted. That outcome may or not be decisive for any other situation: it could be decided narrowly that the CADL can't regulate but not mention other libraries formed under different law; the court could decide that all library authorities are preempted but not mention other authorities; or the court could decide all authorities are preempted. But even with the outcome that seems best, that all authorities are preempted, the court could decide to designate the opinion as "unpublished"... which would mean that it does not stand as precedent for future cases. So basically, only one out of the five outcomes I mentioned would be enough to guarantee, to some degree, that all authorities are specifically preempted and the decision would apply to other cases as precedent. Then, if CADL appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court... :shocker: (Notice I didn't even include the possibility that CADL power to regulate firearms is decided to NOT have been preempted)

My point is... what are the chances that we would receive clear case law that could be cited?

All excellent questions, no one here will be able to answer with any certainty.

It could well be that the Hoedown goes down not even trying to Ban Firearm Carry. Do we even know the answer to that question?

DrTodd · Mar 13, 2012

PDinDetroit said:
All excellent questions, no one here will be able to answer with any certainty.

It could well be that the Hoedown goes down not even trying to Ban Firearm Carry. Do we even know the answer to that question?

Agreed... (I mentioned it in the first paragraph, though

). But, I probably could have reiterated that we don't even know what the policy may be. Even then, if firearms are banned...if asked to reconsider, they may. Thank you for accentuating that point... an oh-so-very-important point.

How to ban OC at Hoedown..change venue

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator