MOC to Attend Huron Valley School Board Meeting - Monday 11/03/2014

MOC SE Events · Nov 1, 2014

Huron Valley School Board will be discussing the subject of restricting the lawful possession of firearms on school property, at its meeting this Monday. This is in response to a parent who lawfully open carried a holstered handgun recently while accompanying his children to and from school. The parent took extraordinary measures to inform the school administration and the sheriff's department beforehand, in order to prevent hysteria. There was none during any of his visits. The school board has however deemed it necessary to research ways in which to unlawfully curtail the lawful activities of parents.

In an email from MOC Vice President Tom Lambert, the School Board was been provided with all of the statutory citations surrounding the lawful possession of firearms on school property. They were also been provided with the statutory citations indicating that it is unlawful for them to enact any policies regulating firearms on school property. The School Board is not concerned with following state law. They obviously believe they are above the law.

Huron Valley School Board President Rebecca Walsh said the issue of open carrying of handguns will be on the agenda for discussion and possible action at either the Nov. 3 or Nov. 17 meeting of the school board.

Michigan Open Carry will be there representing, and speaking on behalf of the affected parents.

Citizens of the Huron Valley School District, along with other supportive persons are encouraged to attend the board meeting, to let the board know of their opposition to any unlawful actions by the school board.

Only persons with a Concealed Pistol License may lawfully open carry a holstered handgun at this meeting, since it will be conducted on school property.

Date: Monday November 3, 2014
Time: 7:00pm
Location: Milford High School
2380 S Milford Rd
Highland, MI 48357

Map: https://goo.gl/maps/ev9hB

FreeInAZ · Nov 1, 2014

Thanks for standing up for the law. What a good example Milford schools / Huron valley district is setting for the "kids". Don't like the law? No worries, just ignore it & make up your own rules/policy & claim they trump the laws you don't like! If you or I did this, we would go straight to jail! A$$hats, for for thinking they are above the law of the people.

MKEgal · Nov 1, 2014

People in that town need to be made aware that their elected officials are getting set to ignore state law & waste a bunch of tax money fighting the lawsuit that WILL come, as well as paying the settlement for that suit.

Also, if I lived in MI & any school did one of those lockdowns & called 911 simply because I was lawfully OCing, I think I'd file suit for false imprisonment.

davidmcbeth · Nov 2, 2014

I believe that Israel started clamping down on carry at their schools .... then folks just used bombs.

Killers just choose a different weapon system.

DeSchaine · Nov 2, 2014

Wonder if it would be possible to record this meeting. I'd like to see it (well, I'd like to be there, but work comes first, sad to say). If it's anything like the experience I had with a different issue at the Kalamazoo School Board, they'll put that topic off until last and talk every other topic to death in the hopes that the MOC folks will leave.

Raggs · Nov 2, 2014

DeSchaine said:
Wonder if it would be possible to record this meeting. I'd like to see it (well, I'd like to be there, but work comes first, sad to say). If it's anything like the experience I had with a different issue at the Kalamazoo School Board, they'll put that topic off until last and talk every other topic to death in the hopes that the MOC folks will leave.

I know it CAN be recorded, whether or not it WILL be and that recording will be made public I haven't a clue.

Grapeshot · Nov 3, 2014

Please let us know how that meeting went.

DanM · Nov 3, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Please let us know how that meeting went.

OC'ers and supporters came out in numbers, for a weekday night (20-30 or so). Almost all of us stood up and gave good talk. A couple or few on the anti-gun side. The board seemed somewhat surprised, to me, on the turnout we generated. I think they got the message to tread carefully.

DeSchaine · Nov 4, 2014

Well, it sure as heck made the news...

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oak...en-carry-at-huron-valley-school-board-meeting

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...l-grounds-has-some-up-in-arms-in-one-district

Grapeshot · Nov 4, 2014

It seems quite clear to me that the school board is enjoined from passing any rules regarding guns by Michigan's preemption statute - Section 123.1102

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lt...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

Am I missing something?

DanM · Nov 4, 2014

Grapeshot said:
It seems quite clear to me that the school board is enjoined from passing any rules regarding guns by Michigan's preemption statute - Section 123.1102
(snip)
Am I missing something?

Not really. We've had to have a couple of court cases for knucklehead lower units of government that thought they were above the law.

It's the board that's missing some things, and that is knowledge of the law and a little common sense. We've given them a lot of info on the law and the case law, and also made obvious the lack of common sense (and, frankly, danger of) their seemingly hastily drafted policy to go into lockdown every time they see those scary parents with holstered handguns.

Grapeshot · Nov 4, 2014

DanM said:
Not really. We've had to have a couple of court cases for knucklehead lower units of government that thought they were above the law.

It's the board that's missing some things, and that is knowledge of the law and a little common sense. We've given them a lot of info on the law and the case law, and also made obvious the lack of common sense (and, frankly, danger of) their seemingly hastily drafted policy to go into lockdown every time they see those scary parents with holstered handguns.

Is not having a rule requiring a lockdown at the sight of a gun covered by any "regulation pertaining to" in 123.1102 ?

IMO it is - much like Virginia's "no administrative action" allowed in our preemptive statute.

Emotional arguments are fine - i.e. we aren't the bad guys, we just want to protect our kids; but when black letter law is available, it works much better. I can see this working - give it some thought.

DanM · Nov 4, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Is not having a rule requiring a lockdown at the sight of a gun covered by any "regulation pertaining to" in 123.1102 ?

If the lockdown rule or its implementation regulates my "ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms", then it would violate preemption.

If they go forward with a "lockdown" rule, we'll have to see what they implement. If the "lockdown", for example, does not actually prevent a lawfully armed parent from having access to all parts of the campus she would normally have access to if she were unarmed, then there's probably no preemption violation problem (notwithstanding all the other problems such a nonsensical policy has).

But, if the "lockdown" done when the lawfully armed parent shows up closes off parts of the campus that the parent would have normal access to if unarmed, then that would at least be an arguably de facto regulation of pistol possession in those "otherwise normally accessible" parts of the campus.

Grapeshot · Nov 4, 2014

DanM said:
If the lockdown rule or its implementation regulates my "ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms", then it would violate preemption.

If they go forward with a "lockdown" rule, we'll have to see what they implement. If the "lockdown", for example, does not actually prevent a lawfully armed parent from having access to all parts of the campus she would normally have access to if she were unarmed, then there's probably no preemption violation problem (notwithstanding all the other problems such a nonsensical policy has).

But, if the "lockdown" done when the lawfully armed parent shows up closes off parts of the campus that the parent would have normal access to if unarmed, then that would at least be an arguably de facto regulation of pistol possession in those "otherwise normally accessible" parts of the campus.

Let's look at the statute again:

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

The part (underlined) is a stand alone condition, not dependent or connected to the rest of the statute as it is separated with an or.

So it still would seem to me that any rule/regulation pertaining to guns and not specifically authorized by the state would be null and void.

But what do I know? I'm just a poor country bumpkin from Nebraska, who woke up one day in Virginia, and now trying to understand Ohio law. :uhoh:

FreeInAZ · Nov 4, 2014

DeSchaine said:
Well, it sure as heck made the news...

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oak...en-carry-at-huron-valley-school-board-meeting

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...l-grounds-has-some-up-in-arms-in-one-district

Nice to see Fox2 did a unbiased story. Channel 7 on the other hand did their usual biased spin story, IMHO. The lockdown policy is at best foolish. At worst dangerous.

What all these "academic" types seem to forget is this: We (U.S.A.) have had schools with no guns "policies" in place for decades now. What has been the effect of these policies? It appears that schools are the "goto places" for loons that want to rack up a body count as fast as they can! So these policies are no more than ineffective "warm fuzzy" feel good good measures that in fact ENDANGER CHILDREN, not protect them!

Ever wonder why there are more mass shootings at schools than a Wal-mart? That's because the crazy goofs that shoot up kids at schools know that: they will almost immediately be engaged by a armed Wal-mart shopper if they try their crap there. Something they wish to avoid, these A-HOLES often kill themselves the minute they encounter anyone who can fight back. That is why they go to schools simply put!

Good job to all the responsible people that showed up and stood up for MI law and the right to defend themselves and their children, instead of being lambs led to the slaughter by school bureaucrats. +1 Well done!

DanM · Nov 4, 2014

I emailed this to the board members:

Dear Members of the Board,

Last night, you heard from many concerned citizens about your "lockdown" policy with regard to open carry of a firearm - a lawful activity in Michigan. I caution you to be careful and review this policy. It would be illegal under preemption, if by wording or implementation it is based on the mere possession of a pistol and it closes off areas of a campus that otherwise are normally open to parents or the public.

MCL 123.1102 provides:
"A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

Mere possession of a pistol is entirely lawful in Michigan. A person who appears as an adult and carrying a handgun in a holster secured to their body is presumptively lawful, barring any other fact known or observation made that they are engaged in an illegal act.

It would be illegal under preemption, for example, for you to observe such a presumptively lawful person and just based on the mere fact that they possess a firearm, then proceed to close off all or parts of a campus that otherwise would have been accessible to them. Called a "lockdown" or by any other name, that would be a regulation which has the effect of prohibiting lawful firearm possession beyond the boundaries set for you by state law.

I assure you that if you violate preemption, either by indiscriminate wording in a "lockdown" plan or actually implementing it against a law-abiding handgun carrier, you are at a high likelihood for a civil lawsuit. Gun owners and their organizations in Michigan have demonstrated they will take on entities that wish to persist in violating preemption and suppressing gun owners' civil rights. The case law record in Michigan demonstrates this as fact.

I wish simply to advise you to avoid this, and avoid spending a lot of money on litigation which you will not ultimately win.

Kind regards,
(DanM)

FreeInAZ · Nov 4, 2014

DanM said:
I emailed this to the board members:

Dear Members of the Board,

Last night, you heard from many concerned citizens about your "lockdown" policy with regard to open carry of a firearm - a lawful activity in Michigan. I caution you to be careful and review this policy. It would be illegal under preemption, if by wording or implementation it is based on the mere possession of a pistol and it closes off areas of a campus that otherwise are normally open to parents or the public.

MCL 123.1102 provides:
"A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

Mere possession of a pistol is entirely lawful in Michigan. A person who appears as an adult and carrying a handgun in a holster secured to their body is presumptively lawful, barring any other fact known or observation made that they are engaged in an illegal act.

It would be illegal under preemption, for example, for you to observe such a presumptively lawful person and just based on the mere fact that they possess a firearm, then proceed to close off all or parts of a campus that otherwise would have been accessible to them. Called a "lockdown" or by any other name, that would be a regulation which has the effect of prohibiting lawful firearm possession beyond the boundaries set for you by state law.

I assure you that if you violate preemption, either by indiscriminate wording in a "lockdown" plan or actually implementing it against a law-abiding handgun carrier, you are at a high likelihood for a civil lawsuit. Gun owners and their organizations in Michigan have demonstrated they will take on entities that wish to persist in violating preemption and suppressing gun owners' civil rights. The case law record in Michigan demonstrates this as fact.

I wish simply to advise you to avoid this, and avoid spending a lot of money on litigation which you will not ultimately win.

Kind regards,
(DanM)

Well said Dan! Let's hope it sinks in to their skulls, that they too must obey the law.

DeSchaine · Nov 5, 2014

If my understanding of the lockdown rules is correct, this means that the school seals all exits, requiring students and teachers to cover in place, until law enforcement shows up to deal with the situation. Now, if a parent is there to pick up their child for whatever reason, and the lockdown prevents that by design, then I believe Grapeshot is correct in that this policy violates 123.1102. Now, if they were to implement it only in an "active shooter" situation, then I think it passes muster.

Plan B · Nov 5, 2014

Is this "the" school thats getting sued right now despite the opportunity having been squandered a couple years ago?

MOC to Attend Huron Valley School Board Meeting - Monday 11/03/2014

MOC SE Events

Regular Member

FreeInAZ

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

DeSchaine

Regular Member

Raggs

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

DanM

Regular Member

DeSchaine

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

DanM

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

DanM

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

FreeInAZ

Regular Member

DanM

Regular Member

FreeInAZ

Regular Member

DeSchaine

Regular Member

Plan B

Banned