Denied Access to Oakland Co. Records

Bronson · Jul 25, 2012

Yance said:
I'll break it down the best I can:

Nice job explaining...unfortunately he'll read BLAH BLAH BLAH and then counter with one or more of the following:

My CCW instructor told me...
My dad/mom/sister/brother/friend/cousin has their CCW and they told me...
My dad/mom/sister/brother/friend/cousin is a cop and they told me...
I'm a reserve officer and I was told by the cops I ride with...

ETA: We can only teach those that want to learn. So people like Scotchman who seem to be genuinely interested in learning and expanding their knowledge of the issue will likely find folks here to be helpful, while people like mirussel that come here and throw around what they think they "know" will tend to find the opposite.

Bronson

Bronson · Jul 25, 2012

Scotchman said:
And with the recent bill signed, isn't registration and Purchase Permits done?

The bill that would repeal the MI registration of pistols has passed the MI House but still needs to pass the MI Senate and then be signed by the Governor before it would become law.

Replace "president" with "governor" in this clip and it's pretty much the same process:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8

Bronson

Scotchman · Jul 25, 2012

Yance said:
I'll break it down the best I can:

OK I wont repeat all that but Thank You very much.

I learned a new aspect of this law. Doesn't help me at church but it does everywhere else.

What a confusing patchwork we lay-people have to deal with.

Thanks Guys.... Until my next question -- I'll keep reading.

stainless1911 · Jul 25, 2012

response

Mr. Carpenter:

Thank you for your email. The sign you mention was placed by facilities on a door I never use so I had not seen it. Under the Sheriff’s orders, that portion of the sign at Records was covered up and employees who were under the assumption it was court ordered were advised it is not our policy.
Thanks for your e-mail.

Pamela Covarrubias Newsom, M.A.
Administrative and Human Resource Supervisor
248-858-5026

I replied as follows:

Then why was I escorted out, and blocked from re entry, despite Michigans preemption law?

stainless1911 · Jul 25, 2012

scot623 said:
Neil, what in the F is all this in your email for??!?! This is not pertinent to the issue. The more giberish you put in your emails, the more likely they are to be ignored. Carl Levin?!?! UN treaty?!?! Wtf. Stay on point. Geesh.

It wasn't gibberish. It was a VERY common method of communication in which the speaker wishes to illustrate a point, using two opposite extremes of an argument to show the scope of the subject matter being covered.

budlight said:
Just curious....how does someone get a Maine CPL. Even if it's a non-resident one I would think they would require someone to show up in person. Again I'm just curious how this works? Good luck, hopefully it works out.

http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/documents/Weapons/non-resident application package.pdf

Yance said:
I'll break it down the best I can:

MCL 750.227 is the law that concerns carrying a CONCEALED weapon as well as possession in a vehicle.

750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a.

(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:

(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.

MCL 750.234d

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

2(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon

So to break it down, 750.231a requires a license to carry a concealed weapon issued by this state or anothers state of residence, state of residence being the key issue here for carrying a CONCEALED weapon.

750.234d only specifies someone needing to be licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. Now that simply says that if another state gives you a license to carry a concealed weapon you are exempt, even if its a non resident.

So, because 750.234d is regarding the POSSESSION of a firearm and not carrying a concealed firearm, if you have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued from another state you may POSSESS a firearm on the premises listed in 750.234d, possession including the open carry of a pistol.

Therefore if you are issued a license to carry a concealed weapon from another state you may possess that firearm on the premises of the locations listed in 750.234d without violating the law as long as you open carry.

Very well done Yance.

stainless1911 · Jul 25, 2012

Michigander said:
Just another example of the normal reasons why I will not be working with or on behalf of stainless.

But again, if anyone else wishes to help me contact the sheriff directly regarding clarification, I will happily write up a memo, and we can sign it, then hand deliver it to the front desk cop at their HQ. If anyone is interested in this, please PM me, and we'll make it happen.

What you think you know about me, and how it plays out off line are completely different. If you really want to know how I work, you can speak with people who have worked with me on specific issues in the past. PM or call Yance and Venator or Eileen Kowall, my state representative, if you really want to know, or you could simply visit my youtube channel, and you will find that your assertions of me are a little off.

I have always held most of what you say in high regard, and would like you to feel the same.

http://www.youtube.com/user/stainless1911?feature=mhee

Super Trucker · Jul 25, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Mr. Carpenter:

Thank you for your email. The sign you mention was placed by facilities on a door I never use so I had not seen it. Under the Sheriff’s orders, that portion of the sign at Records was covered up and employees who were under the assumption it was court ordered were advised it is not our policy.
Thanks for your e-mail.

Pamela Covarrubias Newsom, M.A.
Administrative and Human Resource Supervisor
248-858-5026

I replied as follows:

Then why was I escorted out, and blocked from re entry, despite Michigans preemption law?

What did I miss?
I read her reply to you as saying, "sorry we effed up and the problem has been fixed". Why not go back and see if she is correct before continuing to berate them for something they claimed to have corrected?

Unless I am not reading something correctly, your reply should have been "Thank you for correcting this issue".

scot623 · Jul 25, 2012

Super Trucker said:
What did I miss?
I read her reply to you as saying, "sorry we effed up and the problem has been fixed". Why not go back and see if she is correct before continuing to berate them for something they claimed to have corrected?

Unless I am not reading something correctly, your reply should have been "Thank you for correcting this issue".

I thought the exact same thing.

detroit_fan · Jul 25, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Mr. Carpenter:

Thank you for your email. The sign you mention was placed by facilities on a door I never use so I had not seen it. Under the Sheriff’s orders, that portion of the sign at Records was covered up and employees who were under the assumption it was court ordered were advised it is not our policy.
Thanks for your e-mail.

Pamela Covarrubias Newsom, M.A.
Administrative and Human Resource Supervisor
248-858-5026

I replied as follows:

Then why was I escorted out, and blocked from re entry, despite Michigans preemption law?

sounds like they are trying to fix it right away. why did you reply that way?

stainless1911 · Jul 25, 2012

I thought that she was talking about the previous sign that had been up there on the main door. That sign had been taken down, probably covered up first. I will go down there tomorrow to verify, and If I misunderstood which sign she was referring to, I will apologize for the mistake.

Bronson · Jul 26, 2012

stainless1911 said:
If you really want to know how I work

Congratulations!

Bronson

stainless1911 · Jul 26, 2012

Trying to say something here?

griffin · Jul 26, 2012

Super Trucker said:
What did I miss?

What you missed is that Pamela Covarrubias Newsom has a poor grasp of the English language. What she should have written is this: "Under the Sheriff’s orders, that portion of the sign at Records has now been covered up and employees who were under the assumption it was court ordered have now been advised it is not our policy."

See, that's what happens when people can't speak or write proper English--other people can't understand what you are saying. I don't blame Stainless. The way it was written, it sounded like it had previously happened before he arrived. "It was," meaning it was at the time, rather than "since then it has been," meaning it since has been changed. C'mon people, this is like fourth or fifth grade stuff. I find it disheartening gun-owners (and bureaucrats) aren't as smart as a fifth grader.

What I find amusing, though, is that Stainless just berated someone else for criticizing another's improper use of English, stating proper English wasn't necessary.

smellslikemichigan · Jul 26, 2012

i just got this response

"Thank you for your email. The sign you mention was placed by facilities on a door I never use so I had not seen it. Under the Sheriff’s orders, that portion of the sign at Records was covered up and employees who were under the assumption it was court ordered were advised it is not our policy.
Thanks for your e-mail."

stainless1911 · Jul 26, 2012

I sent this last night, in case i was mistaken.

Perhaps I misunderstood your response, if so, I do apologize. There was, at one time, a sign on the door. I thought that might have been the one you referred to as having been covered in accordance with the law. I remember seeing that one a couple months ago, but the one the officer pointed out was on the left side window adjacent to the door, hence my question of why I had been asked to leave.

HKcarrier · Jul 26, 2012

So the sign's down and people have been 'retrained' correct? Nice work.

stainless1911 · Jul 26, 2012

I'll drop by today, and check.

Shadow Bear · Jul 26, 2012

DrTodd said:
#2. Since this one says that in order to get the exception, one must not be a resident of the state, I don't think that a person could avoid registration... just the OC in a PFZ. (MCL 750.234d)

MCL 28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.
Sec. 2.
(8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.
(b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).
(c) The individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports.
(d) The individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
(e) The individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in this state.

#3 In order to get a CPL, Michigan requires that a person be 21 years old. Some states allow a person to get a license to carry a concealed weapon/firearm/etc at 18 years old. Although the resident 19-20 year old could not conceal, they would have a MCL 750.234d exception.

See above highlighted text

stainless1911 · Jul 26, 2012

Sign Covered. Victory!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JJHpYwqPY&feature=youtu.be

The deputy wouldn't look me in the face.

Evil Creamsicle · Jul 26, 2012

cutting text for now... forgot to read two pages and this question might be answered already... lol

ETA: Yep, Yance answered it, thanks.

Was gonna post:

mirussell said:
Venator first of all i'm not trying to be a ass but where did you come up with this info i'd like to look at it
i see that 750.234d says
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

a person lic by another state but we don't accept a NON RESIDENT permit from any state so how does a permit that we don't even accept give you power to carry if you were to say a resident permit i would agree

Words mean stuff. The law says what it says. What you are asserting [that we do not accept non-resident permits from any state] is NOT written in this law, therefore it does not apply to this law. This law, and all laws, mean exactly what they say, and nothing more.

Thus, the exemption for "a person licensed by ... another state to carry a concealed weapon" means, in the context of this law, a person who possesses any license [resident or non-resident] from any state that permits that person to carry a concealed weapon.

This does not allow a person to carry concealed under that license, because this law does not pertain whatsoever to concealed carry. There is another law that covers that.

Does this clear up your question?

Denied Access to Oakland Co. Records

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Banned

Regular Member