• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Policy at my kids school.

J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
Thanks Jarod...I only know this because an off-duty officer USED to volunteer at a school in Grand Rapids and ran into an issue a few years ago. I still can learn a few things here :D

Do local officers commonly carry a department-issued firearm when off duty? The local LEOs I know don't but don't know if that's just a local choice or something commonly done.

Back OT: OneForAll, I think you are handling this appropriately. If you do hear back from them, I'd really like to know how they respond.
Click to expand...

Every department is different. I have no idea what most departments in Michigan do, but I know many local LEO's in Wayne County who carry personal guns.

I know some there are some cops in Massachusetts who are prohibited possessors under Federal law; however, they can carry their work gun on duty and off duty as long as they are within department policy. These same officers have no LEOSA protection as they are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, but they can carry in Mass.

I know back in Rhode Island a Lincoln cop was recently convicted of a felony for roundhouse kicking a cuffed suspect in the face at the casino (caught on tape) and he was fighting for over a year to keep his job and it was argued that the Chief didn't have to fire him because felons and other prohibited people under Federal law can still be cops and carry guns and the same holds true for RI.

Can you say what happened in Grand Rapids with the off duty cop, inquiring minds would like to know :) ?
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Jared said:
Every department is different. I have no idea what most departments in Michigan do, but I know many local LEO's in Wayne County who carry personal guns.

I know some there are some cops in Massachusetts who are prohibited possessors under Federal law; however, they can carry their work gun on duty and off duty as long as they are within department policy. These same officers have no LEOSA protection as they are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, but they can carry in Mass.

I know back in Rhode Island a Lincoln cop was recently convicted of a felony for roundhouse kicking a cuffed suspect in the face at the casino (caught on tape) and he was fighting for over a year to keep his job and it was argued that the Chief didn't have to fire him because felons and other prohibited people under Federal law can still be cops and carry guns and the same holds true for RI.

Can you say what happened in Grand Rapids with the off duty cop, inquiring minds would like to know :) ?
Click to expand...

I did know about the law regarding prohibited possessors employed as a LEO, but the information is still good for readers here.

Regarding the officer, I was employed in the building and mentioned to the officer that federal law precluded his possession of his pistol while on school grounds. He didn't believe me, as he was a "20+ year veteran and knew the law, Michigan law says he can carry, etc" when I told him that, under federal law, ME carrying a pistol would be entirely legal whereas he doing the same would be illegal. After arguing for a while, and his general change from friendly discussion to mild anger, he decided to ask someone at his agency. A few weeks later I saw him at the grocery store and he apologized and told me I was correct...and then proceeded to tell me that he should have believed me because by asking at work someone decided to ask the attorney with whom the agency went to with legal questions. The attorney then had the chief post that officers would be violating the federal GFZA by carrying as he did. He was angry at the law and, in his spite, decided that by having to disarm he was no longer willing to volunteer at the school. Frankly, I was just playing with his pompous behavior and, as far as I know, the school was unaware of his carrying a firearm. I did tell him he could get a CPL and carry, but he thought his badge should be enough.
 
FreeInAZ

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
@DrTodd sounds like that officer suffers from a GOD complex. He is too good to have to get a cpl like the rest of the law-abiding serfs in MI. Come to think of it, maybe it is a good thing he stopped volunteering at the school. We wouldn't want that kind of attitude rubbing off on the "kids". :eek:
 
NHCGRPR45

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
Logan 5 said:
You missed the point I was making...ok. I made an inquiry and if they respond I'll get you their answer. Essentially if they receive any funding from any government program then now they cannot punish your child or you for your lawful exercise of a Constitutional right. On the other hand what they really do in real life is completely different.

That is why I suggested that you could ask them via e-mail. What are they gonna do? Try to trace back the e-mail to you and see who you are? IIRC there's a couple federal laws that say they can't do that, but then I could be wrong about that.

I suggest getting a copy of the rule, regulation, laws and by laws for the group and reading up, and it wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer.

Personally I think you're paranoid, but that's me.
Click to expand...
They are not punishing your child they are punishing you. However if your kid gets hurt in the process....Well friendly fire accidents do happen:banghead:
 
22Luke36

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Logan 5 said:
If you carry a firearm onto the school property then I think they have that option., even if you have a CPL. I think that should be covered on the CPL, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

One of the primary functions of this forum is to educate about firearm law, so people here are going to touch on both CPL and carrying according to the constitution.
 
J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
I did know about the law regarding prohibited possessors employed as a LEO, but the information is still good for readers here.

Regarding the officer, I was employed in the building and mentioned to the officer that federal law precluded his possession of his pistol while on school grounds. He didn't believe me, as he was a "20+ year veteran and knew the law, Michigan law says he can carry, etc" when I told him that, under federal law, ME carrying a pistol would be entirely legal whereas he doing the same would be illegal. After arguing for a while, and his general change from friendly discussion to mild anger, he decided to ask someone at his agency. A few weeks later I saw him at the grocery store and he apologized and told me I was correct...and then proceeded to tell me that he should have believed me because by asking at work someone decided to ask the attorney with whom the agency went to with legal questions. The attorney then had the chief post that officers would be violating the federal GFZA by carrying as he did. He was angry at the law and, in his spite, decided that by having to disarm he was no longer willing to volunteer at the school. Frankly, I was just playing with his pompous behavior and, as far as I know, the school was unaware of his carrying a firearm. I did tell him he could get a CPL and carry, but he thought his badge should be enough.
Click to expand...

That is funny. Most departments in RI or MA would just ignore the info and carry with impunity.

The GRPD Officer has three options.

1. Get a CPL.
2. Use a License to Purchase/Possess and maintain ownership of the pistol used under the license.
3. Carry a department issued gun provided that the agency allows for carry in Michigan and that would meet 18 USC 925(a)(1).


Keep in mind, you could put on a CPL class for the Grand Rapids PD :) The training requirements are only waived for retired officers, not active.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Jared said:
That is funny. Most departments in RI or MA would just ignore the info and carry with impunity.

The GRPD Officer has three options.

1. Get a CPL.
2. Use a License to Purchase/Possess and maintain ownership of the pistol used under the license.
3. Carry a department issued gun provided that the agency allows for carry in Michigan and that would meet 18 USC 925(a)(1).


Keep in mind, you could put on a CPL class for the Grand Rapids PD :) The training requirements are only waived for retired officers, not active.
Click to expand...

For clarification, it wasn't GRPD, the school itself was in GR though.

I was surprised also; my experience is that local LEOs just ignore the law when it applies to them. This is NOT a criticism, just what I have observed with admittedly very few officers (5-6). I especially think the fact that it would be enforced by the feds also lends to my surprise. I also did not personally verify what he said to me in regards to having the chief post that officers would be violating the law. Just repeating what he told me.
In terms of what the cop could do to mitigate the prohibition, I doubt he'd do so. He liked to be push the notion that he was a member of the "privileged class", hence his disbelief regarding the fact that federal law exempted a mere mortal with a cpl but not a LEO.
 
smellslikemichigan

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
Somewhat OT: Interesting thing besides no exemption for them in the Head Start regs...LEOs also have no exemption from the federal gfz law if they are off duty... unless they have a CPL...

Regarding carry in a home that runs a Head Start program, it appears that firearms could be kept in an area of the home that is not accessible to the children. If that were the case, OC or CC around the kids would be out but "keeping" a firearm in an area of the home that you keep children out of seems "legal". I'm not a lawyer so take this conjecture for what it's worth...
Click to expand...

what about LEOSA?
 
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
DrTodd said:
Do local officers commonly carry a department-issued firearm when off duty?
Click to expand...

Didn't see this specific question addressed yet.

I know as a point of department policy that some departments require officers to carry when off-duty. I would imagine that they would not be able to do this without allowing same officers to carry their department issued firearm. What if they don't own one of their own, etc? [Clearly that is an unlikely scenario but, a possible one]

These officers may still carry their personal firearms, but, to my knowledge based on chats with cops I know, some do carry there issue pieces off-duty.
 
J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
For clarification, it wasn't GRPD, the school itself was in GR though.

I was surprised also; my experience is that local LEOs just ignore the law when it applies to them. This is NOT a criticism, just what I have observed with admittedly very few officers (5-6). I especially think the fact that it would be enforced by the feds also lends to my surprise. I also did not personally verify what he said to me in regards to having the chief post that officers would be violating the law. Just repeating what he told me.
In terms of what the cop could do to mitigate the prohibition, I doubt he'd do so. He liked to be push the notion that he was a member of the "privileged class", hence his disbelief regarding the fact that federal law exempted a mere mortal with a cpl but not a LEO.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you mention that, I'm having the same discussion with some arrogant NYPD officers.

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/la...-act-arrest-didnt-make-news-7.html#post615220
 
OneForAll

OneForAll

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
278
Location
Davison
I received a recorded message from my kids school today. The Davison school district went into lock-down today because someone called 911 and reported seeing a man walking down Lapeer Rd. carrying a gun. The police say that they believe it was a false report because they never found anyone. For those of you who are not familiar with the Davison area, where this supposed man with a gun was reported walking is around 1,000 yards away from any school.
 
Raggs

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,181
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
OneForAll said:
I received a recorded message from my kids school today. The Davison school district went into lock-down today because someone called 911 and reported seeing a man walking down Lapeer Rd. carrying a gun. The police say that they believe it was a false report because they never found anyone. For those of you who are not familiar with the Davison area, where this supposed man with a gun was reported walking is around 1,000 yards away from any school.
Click to expand...

It does suck when a school goes into lock down not only because of an legal activity but also a non confirmed incident.
 
22Luke36

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
OneForAll said:
I received a recorded message from my kids school today. The Davison school district went into lock-down today because someone called 911 and reported seeing a man walking down Lapeer Rd. carrying a gun. The police say that they believe it was a false report because they never found anyone. For those of you who are not familiar with the Davison area, where this supposed man with a gun was reported walking is around 1,000 yards away from any school.
Click to expand...

The solution is within the problem. If the schools have a policy (*tinfoil hat time* to indoctrinate the next generation through teaching the kids when a person is seen with a gun, that the expected and responsible thing, is to lockdown the schools etc...), then we play along with the system.

Open carry outside the schools, each one in the offending district, let them hit the panic button daily if need be, let them lock down the school, and by their own doings will have to acknowledge the legality of the activity.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
22Luke36 said:
The solution is within the problem. If the schools have a policy (*tinfoil hat time* to indoctrinate the next generation through teaching the kids when a person is seen with a gun, that the expected and responsible thing, is to lockdown the schools etc...), then we play along with the system.

Open carry outside the schools, each one in the offending district, let them hit the panic button daily if need be, let them lock down the school, and by their own doings will have to acknowledge the legality of the activity.
Click to expand...

+1. As a teacher, I can tell you the first few would most likely cover their quota of "drills" that they need to have. Carrying as school is letting out might be a hassle, but as was said above, if it happened often enough that policy would be scrapped. I bet they don't go into lockdown every time a person shows up with a handgun; I'm sure they have an armed person, carrying under authority of a CPL, pick up their money on hand from time to time...my school does. That being the case, what they appear to be doing is regulating firearms in a way that violates preemption. Hope they have deep pockets.
 
FreeInAZ

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
22Luke36 said:
The solution is within the problem. If the schools have a policy (*tinfoil hat time* to indoctrinate the next generation through teaching the kids when a person is seen with a gun, that the expected and responsible thing, is to lockdown the schools etc...), then we play along with the system.

Open carry outside the schools, each one in the offending district, let them hit the panic button daily if need be, let them lock down the school, and by their own doings will have to acknowledge the legality of the activity.
Click to expand...

Outstanding idea! If this was done nation wide on a regular basis, it would stop the gun madness at schools or atleast make it so obvious that the stick your head in the sand approach is ....well for lack of a better term...stupid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top