New Township rule on firearms for poll workers and voters NO GUNS or be arrested.

By a strict reading their policy prohibits an employee from bearing, or even owning arms of any kind, whether actually on township property, or not, and whether actually working, or not. It also would seem to deny 4th amendment protections as well.

Given the over reach of the policy it seems to clearly exceed MCL 123.1103, and directly violate MCL 123.1102, not to mention civil rights under the 2nd, and 4th amendments, and depending on your reason to carry (such as a political statement) you could argue that it violates your 1st Amendment rights as well, not to mention your right to vote should they attempt to prohibit you from voting while your carrying.

It would seem that you have a pretty good Title 18 civil rights lawsuit, not to mention the violations of MCL 123.1102, and the crimininal violations of MCL 752.11. If you care to fight it, see if you can't suck a couple million out of them.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

By a strict reading their policy prohibits an employee from bearing, or even owning arms of any kind, whether actually on township property, or not, and whether actually working, or not. It also would seem to deny 4th amendment protections as well.

Given the over reach of the policy it seems to clearly exceed MCL 123.1103, and directly violate MCL 123.1102, not to mention civil rights under the 2nd, and 4th amendments, and depending on your reason to carry (such as a political statement) you could argue that it violates your 1st Amendment rights as well, not to mention your right to vote should they attempt to prohibit you from voting while your carrying.

It would seem that you have a pretty good Title 18 civil rights lawsuit, not to mention the violations of MCL 123.1102, and the crimininal violations of MCL 752.11. If you care to fight it, see if you can't suck a couple million out of them.

Click to expand...

Could you explain to me, as written, how this policy for employees violates the law?

Hevymetal said:

As promised a copy of the letter sent to me by the township.

Click to expand...

I have one question for you. Are you an employee, or is this volunteer work that you do at the polls?

You should immediately call a department head or supervisor and report the mayor for violating this township policy as dairy creamer, coffee and water are all chemical compounds, additionally all township vehicles should be immediately drained off all fluids as those too are chemical compounds.

After reading the letter, that is perfect evidence of violation of state law. As I said, as an employee, you are bound by their rules, but citizens are allowed by law to carry. Almost makes me want to come home to vote.

Big Gay Al said:

I have one question for you. Are you an employee, or is this volunteer work that you do at the polls?

Click to expand...

You are a paid volunteer, so I guess you could classify the position as a contractor just for the election. I can make more money in 2 hrs working at my normal job then I can all day at the polls. I was doing it not for the money but as a sense my civic duty. I never filled out an application, however you do have to receive training (1/2 day course) and you are certified by the county/state. No taxes are withheld from your check and no 1099/W-2 is issued.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

By a strict reading their policy prohibits an employee from bearing, or even owning arms of any kind, whether actually on township property, or not, and whether actually working, or not. It also would seem to deny 4th amendment protections as well.

Click to expand...

That was my initial interpretation as well. By signing this I felt it would potentially open me up to a world of hurt if I showed up to a township meeting a month after the election with my sidearm or to the polls to vote in an election I am not working? The whole document seems rather far reaching and ambiguous. Am I only prevented from carrying while working the polls on the day of the election or am I signing my right to carry away on township property and functions forever? Could they show up at my house a week later and demand to search my car? I truthfully wouldn't put anything past them since the last ordeal at the primary.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but that doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

scot623 said:

As written for employees , it appears mostly legal based on mcl123.1101. I don't see where this apply's to voters?
Also, searching employees cars no matter where they are parked? Really? What if you left your gun in your car at home?? Are they going to demand to search it and fire you when you tell them to pound sand??

Click to expand...

Agreed, for a full-time employee during the course of his duty while on township property or in a township owned vehicle. But it seems to far overreach that. If I secure my sidearm in my car and park it on the side of the road off of township property it appears I am still in violation and they will go after me. Am I interpreting this wrong?

Phoenix David said:

You should immediately call a department head or supervisor and report the mayor for violating this township policy as dairy creamer, coffee and water are all chemical compounds, additionally all township vehicles should be immediately drained off all fluids as those too are chemical compounds.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VgD-I-0_Qk

Hevymetal said:

You are a paid volunteer, so I guess you could classify the position as a contractor just for the election. I can make more money in 2 hrs working at my normal job then I can all day at the polls. I was doing it not for the money but as a sense my civic duty. I never filled out an application, however you do have to receive training (1/2 day course) and you are certified by the county/state. No taxes are withheld from your check and no 1099/W-2 is issued.



That was my initial interpretation as well. By signing this I felt it would potentially open me up to a world of hurt if I showed up to a township meeting a month after the election with my sidearm or to the polls to vote in an election I am not working? The whole document seems rather far reaching and ambiguous. Am I only prevented from carrying while working the polls on the day of the election or am I signing my right to carry away on township property and functions forever? Could they show up at my house a week later and demand to search my car? I truthfully wouldn't put anything past them since the last ordeal at the primary.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but that doesn't mean they are not out to get you.



Agreed, for a full-time employee during the course of his duty while on township property or in a township owned vehicle. But it seems to far overreach that. If I secure my sidearm in my car and park it on the side of the road off of township property it appears I am still in violation and they will go after me. Am I interpreting this wrong?

Click to expand...

Here is what I suggest you do. First, write them a letter, include the county PA, and let them know of the possible violations of state law. Second, quit. I feel your civic duty no longer lies in helping people vote, but instead helping the township follow the law. Then, show up to a township meeting and inform the public of the attempt in breaking state law. Then show up to vote, armed, with gun and camera.

DrTodd said:

Could you explain to me, as written, how this policy for employees violates the law?

Click to expand...

The way it's written it would prohibit employee possession anywhere at any time, even when off community property, even when not working, and even out of the state. There is no exception for private property, or for when your not working. Thus it would seem to stray in to MCL 123.1102, but certainly in to a second amendment violation, in fact a total ban was directly addressed in Heller, and it was applied to the states under Mcdonald. It would also seem to stray in to 4th amendment territory with mandatory warrentless searches where there is no probable cause. It also may extend to a first amendment violation to if the reason for carry was political speech. Not to mention the violation of voting rights for not allowing you on to community property (or anywhere) to vote.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

The way it's written it would prohibit employee possession anywhere at any time, even when off community property, even when not working, and even out of the state. There is no exception for private property, or for when your not working. Thus it would seem to stray in to MCL 123.1102, but certainly in to a second amendment violation, in fact a total ban was directly addressed in Heller, and it was applied to the states under Mcdonald. It would also seem to stray in to 4th amendment territory with mandatory warrentless searches where there is no probable cause. It also may extend to a first amendment violation to if the reason for carry was political speech. Not to mention the violation of voting rights for not allowing you on to community property (or anywhere) to vote.

Click to expand...

That's odd. I didn't see that in the letter provided. I read where it says township employees aren't allowed to have weapons on township property or in township vehicles, or at any function run by the township, whether on township property or not. And that township employees can't possess any weapons while performing their jobs. But I didn't read anything that says they can't own weapons at all, when not working, nor out of state.

Where did it say that?

Big Gay Al said:

That's odd. I didn't see that in the letter provided. I read where it says township employees aren't allowed to have weapons on township property or in township vehicles, or at any function run by the township, whether on township property or not. And that township employees can't possess any weapons while performing their jobs. But I didn't read anything that says they can't own weapons at all, when not working, nor out of state.

Where did it say that?

Click to expand...

It's that it doesn't not say it. It says that township employees can not posses weapons, period. It does not go on to say that it does not apply while not working, or when on private property, it's just a blanket prohibition.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

The way it's written it would prohibit employee possession anywhere at any time, even when off community property, even when not working, and even out of the state. There is no exception for private property, or for when your not working. Thus it would seem to stray in to MCL 123.1102, but certainly in to a second amendment violation, in fact a total ban was directly addressed in Heller, and it was applied to the states under Mcdonald. It would also seem to stray in to 4th amendment territory with mandatory warrentless searches where there is no probable cause. It also may extend to a first amendment violation to if the reason for carry was political speech. Not to mention the violation of voting rights for not allowing you on to community property (or anywhere) to vote.

Click to expand...

I disagree. See Page 1, the fourth paragraph:

"Employees are also prohibited from possessing a weapon while in the course and scope of performing their jobs for the Township."

If, for example, an employee is working the polls and he or she is sent out to purchase supplies or pizza for lunch, then I would agree that said employee is in the course and scope of his or her job. But certainly, not while he or she is off-duty and/or off-duty while out of state.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

It's that it doesn't not say it. It says that township employees can not posses weapons, period. It does not go on to say that it does not apply while not working, or when on private property, it's just a blanket prohibition.

Click to expand...

I disagree too.

SpringerXDacp said:

I disagree. See Page 1, the fourth paragraph:

"Employees are also prohibited from possessing a weapon while in the course and scope of performing their jobs for the Township."

If, for example, an employee is working the polls and he or she is sent out to purchase supplies or pizza for lunch, then I would agree that said employee is in the course and scope of his or her job. But certainly, not while he or she is off-duty and/or off-duty while out of state.

Click to expand...

I also disagree. They have, unfortunately, seemingly complied with the law. I, however, am not an attorney nor do I play one on the interwebs. Do not take my opinion as anything other than...uneducated ramblings.

In my non lawyerly opinion, this policy appears to only cover employees, and only in the coarse of employment. This is permitted under mcl123.1102 et seq.

As a general rule, whenever you are covered by workers compensation your local government employer can restrict the possession of firearms, possibly even if you do not park on city property as there have been cases won by people seeking to be covered by workers comp who were injured walking from their vehicle that was not parked on the employers property.

lapeer20m said:

In my non lawyerly opinion, this policy appears to only cover employees, and only in the coarse of employment. This is permitted under mcl123.1102 et seq.

As a general rule, whenever you are covered by workers compensation your local government employer can restrict the possession of firearms, possibly even if you do not park on city property as there have been cases won by people seeking to be covered by workers comp who were injured walking from their vehicle that was not parked on the employers property.

Click to expand...

That seems a little far fetched though, especially for a mostly local type job where there is a very good chance that you could walk from home to your job for little more hassle parking your car off grounds. I can potentially see a court demanding workers compensation in such an instance, but it seems quite a stretch for a gun rights issue.

I was required to sign a similar policy. Enter company property or come to events (even if off company property and not on company time) with a gun and you will be disciplined, up to and including termination (everyone knows that means termination, but they don't want to say that just in case one of the executives gets caught). Sucky rule. They even searched me once WHILE I was carrying. Pitiful thing was I wasn't deep concealing at the time. It was in my pocket. They didn't find anything. ::facepalm::

The real goal isn't to protect people. It's to give people the illusion of security with unenforceable rules, and it's something to point the lawyers to when someone shoots up the place. "It's not our fault, it's supposed to be a CEZ!"

My suggestion: Don't sign the policy, tell the township you are no longer providing them with services, but show up to the polls to vote while carrying. You are privileged from arrest on the way to, at, and coming from voting. If you do get arrested, or they don't allow you to vote, it's payday.

Let me see if I have this correct...

A unit of Michigan government.. that is supposed to abide by Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution..:

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%284pnzc355mrsrbprekebauh3e%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-article-i-6

is making an infringement upon said Article as a condition of employment with... Michigan's government?

Bikenut said:

Let me see if I have this correct...

A unit of Michigan government.. that is supposed to abide by Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution..:

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%284pnzc355mrsrbprekebauh3e%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-article-i-6

is making an infringement upon said Article as a condition of employment with... Michigan's government?

Click to expand...

I hate to tell you, many governmental agencies limit the exercise of constitutional rights by employees. One's 1st amendment rights to speak one's mind could cause someone to be fired for expressing some views and one's 4th amendment rights are equally limited. Although I disagree with this restriction, but doing so is fairly typical and is not limited to restricting only the 2nd amendment.

DrTodd said:

I hate to tell you, many governmental agencies limit the exercise of constitutional rights by employees. One's 1st amendment rights to speak one's mind could cause someone to be fired for expressing some views and one's 4th amendment rights are equally limited. Although I disagree with this restriction, but doing so is fairly typical and is not limited to restricting only the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

Yep... aware of that... but where I was going is....

While private sector employers are not restricted by the Constitution and also have the private property right to set any rules and conditions for employment/access to the private property as a condition of employment...

Why does the public sector, the government that is supposed to be restricted by the Constitution, have the right to set rules and conditions for employment/access to public property that are in direct conflict with the Constitution as a condition of employment?