stainless1911
Banned
Depending on the wording of the CADL ruling, assuming it goes our way, and it probably won't, schools could be covered under preemption.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
local high school posting "no firearms allowed" on doors and property
- Thread starter honest2pete
- Start date
TheQ
Regular Member
I don't see that happening in any case.
stainless1911
Banned
If they say that just authorities arent covered, then no, its just authorities that will likely get someone killed.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
....but but but....it's for the children!
TheQ
Regular Member
An appeals court decides a case as narrowly as it can to answer the appealed question. I see now way schools could become involved in this decision.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
If the court's opinion is that the legislature occupies the entire field of firearm regulation, then the cadl case would apply to schools.
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Read post #25. I doubt the scope will be that wide.
Even if it was, the whole OC in a PFZ exception was left unresolved by People v Watkins
Last edited:
tenletters
Regular Member
So I might ask again. Who can petition the AG for an opinion on this matter that might be available to us? It's a cinch that every unit of government is perfectly satisfied that school open carry is (probably) unlawful. Most law enforcement would love to taze you, lay you prostrate and crab walk you to jail. My guess is, the majority of the populace are in favor to no guns in schools as are most school boards, and as such are unlikely to petition the AG. Save an arrest, who then is left to ask for an opinion with a legitimate expectation of a response?
TheQ
Regular Member
lapeer20m
Regular Member
Read post #25. I doubt the scope will be that wide.
Even if it was, the whole OC in a PFZ exception was left unresolved by People v Watkins
I did not know that there was any resolution needed. The law explicitly exempts cpl holders from the prohibition of firearms on school property.
I will be carrying for the third year in a row at the high school tonight for the fireworks.
One of the arguments in the briefs in the mgo case is whether the legislature occupies the entire field. It is within the realm of possibility that the court will use this as the reason that auhorities are preempted.
We will just have to wait and see.
TheQ
Regular Member
You must not be up to date on People v Watkins? Judge Rosemarie Aqualina (of the 30th(?) Circuit Court in Lansing) said OC in a PFZ is an "absurd" interpretation of the law...making it clear she does not believe in a plain letter reading of the law.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
You must not be up to date on People v Watkins? Judge Rosemarie Aqualina (of the 30th(?) Circuit Court in Lansing) said OC in a PFZ is an "absurd" interpretation of the law...making it clear she does not believe in a plain letter reading of the law.
Just wait until someone throws a bucket if water on her.....
Ahhhh.................I'm melting!
stainless1911
Banned
Last edited:
tenletters
Regular Member
It is indeed relevant Stain, to the question that I asked. Namely, who could be approached to solicit an AG opinion that I, a mere citizen, cannot ask of the AG.
My point was, most who COULD avail themselves of an AG opinion are not in favor of school open carry and thus would be reluctant to request the opinion. Thus, how they feel is the ONLY thing relevant.
My point was, most who COULD avail themselves of an AG opinion are not in favor of school open carry and thus would be reluctant to request the opinion. Thus, how they feel is the ONLY thing relevant.
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
I tend to agree with the above statement.
Due to Preemption, it does appear that the State intended to occupy the Field of Firearm Law, which is a main point in the MOC v CADL Argument. If this argument holds and the MI COA bases a decision on it, then the State would have to specifically grant to Schools the Power to Regulate Firearms before signs like these would be "relevant".
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Your local MI Legislator can request one.
TheQ
Regular Member
A legislator can request one -- but the AG's office isn't required to answer a single legislator. See the link I posted in this thread above.
Small_Arms_Collector
Regular Member
You must not be up to date on People v Watkins? Judge Rosemarie Aqualina (of the 30th(?) Circuit Court in Lansing) said OC in a PFZ is an "absurd" interpretation of the law...making it clear she does not believe in a plain letter reading of the law.
Her ruling is absurd, a plain reading of the law shows she is dead wrong, and clearly did not even read the law, and just went off of her personal bias, and since she is only a local judge it is hardly binding on the whole state. So given that, and the fact that the law is very clear on it despite this judge's deliberately not reading the word concealed I would say to continue carrying as always.
TheQ
Regular Member
...at your own risk, especially in Ingham County.
stainless1911
Banned
At this rate, all it would take to eliminate all of our rights, not just guns, is to follow the whims of every minor league local activist judge in the state. If you're going for public office, you really need to correct your posture.