Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Carrying into a bank, had a conversation.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    113

    Carrying into a bank, had a conversation.

    Open carried today (as I always do) into my bank to do some HELOC paperwork. Took about 40 minutes or so. As we were wrapping up I stood up and gathered papers, turned strong side to the girl who was doing the paperwork, and had the following conversation.

    Now let me ask you something. You got a CCW?
    Me: Yes.
    You know it's supposed to be concealed when you come into a bank.
    Me: Ah, it doesn't matter, actually.
    That's why it's called a concealed weapons carry...
    Me: You can open carry.
    You can **open** carry.
    Me: Which is what that is. (point at my sidearm)
    But if you had a CCW I thought it had to be concealed.
    Me: No, you don't have to conceal if you have a CCW.
    And if it says it on the door...
    Me: Which you guys aren't, aren't posted.
    If it says on the door then you can't come in..
    Me: Then that's a trespassing.
    But that's whether you conceal or whether it's open carry?
    Me: Right. So like TGIF Friday's, they are posted and you can't...
    (she interjects) Well that's because they sell alcohol.
    Me: Well, no. It's not a bar, it's a restaurant.
    I thought you couldn't walk into anywhere that alcohol was sold, with a CCW or carrying it.
    Me: If 50% of the profits [I meant revenue] of the organization is alcohol then it's a bar.
    Oh, okay I got you.
    Me: So like Buffalo Wild Wings or Applebees...
    (she interjects) You can't walk into something like that.
    Me: ...it's fine. No, it's fine, it's not a bar, it's a restaurant. A bar bar, you can open carry into a bar...
    That makes no sense.
    Me: ...with a CCW.
    That's ridiculous.
    Me: There's different paragraphs of the law. There's the gun free zone and then the CCW zone. [I hold up left hand for GFZ and right hand for the CCW restrictions.] If you are open carrying, you don't even care what the CCW one says [I throw away my right hand], you just look at this one [wave my left hand]. And this one [wiggle left hand] has four exclusions. And if you are a law enforcement officer, if you are a private investigator [I misspoke here, the PI stuff is mentioned in other sections of firearm law], or if you have a CCW, they don't apply. So if you have a CCW and you open carry, you can open carry [pretty much] anywhere. [For clarity, the exclusions are 1) hired security, 2) LEO, 3) CCW, and 4) with permission of owner.]
    So, what do you do for a living.
    Me: I'm an engineer.

    So then we just go into general gun talk, the discussion of open carry is over at this point. She's talking about how she just got rid of her old gun (a Springfield 1911 45ACP) in order to get something smaller, that her husband is a big gun nut, that her 16 year old son wants to get a Desert Eagle, that she likes going up to Close Quarters Tactical up on 23 mile and Hayes, that her husband has H&K stuff, the pros / cons of a revolver for ease of use, etc etc etc. Talked for a total of 14 minutes about guns.

    So overall a nice encounter, got to set someone straight about how gun laws work and chatted about firearms for a while.
    Last edited by jeffrey-r; 12-23-2014 at 06:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    It's not 50% of revenue. Also I personally would not consider BWW or Applebee's a bar or tavern, but that's just me.

    (d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primarysource of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?
    that is the unanswered question, which is why it's easier to open carry with a CPL in any licensed joint
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    So all those idiotic details about exact percentages of revenue, small print at entrances, permits for rights, etc, etc, but she thinks it's the carrying of a gun that is the ridiculous part?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Tomahawk and Abbotsford, Wi.
    Posts
    561
    How are you supposed to know what percentage of revenue is from alcohol at any place? I suppose if it is a bar vs. an eating establishment that serves alcohol. I believe BWWs are all no firearms, but I could be wrong as I don't see any point of the place being in business. Ironically, my wife's favorite place of that type. Go figure. With Mom's and Bloomberg and such it is getting hard to keep track of who bans guns and who merely asks that you don't bring them in.

    My bank manager thanked me for coming in open carry, said they all felt safer when I was there. I didn't tell her that I'm not their armed guard so unless the gun is pointed at me, bullets are flying, or they are asking for MY money, I'm probably just gonna be a really good witness and let the guy walk.

    There are tons of misconceptions about gun laws pretty much everywhere from what I can tell. I'm sure I don't have them all down. Leave your home state and things get immensely more complicated real quickly.

  7. #7
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?
    Either could be. Think about it this way:
    Sources of revenue:
    Food: 30%
    Merchandise: 25%
    Alcohol: 45%

    Alcohol is less than 50%, but is the primary. The law says primary, not majority or any reference to a specific percentage. The law also says it must be a "bar or tavern". I'm sure there are places out there where the primary source of income is alcohol, but they're not a bar or tavern.
    Last edited by xmanhockey7; 12-24-2014 at 11:11 PM.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Either could be. Think about it this way:
    Sources of revenue:
    Food: 30%
    Merchandise: 25%
    Alcohol: 45%

    Alcohol is less than 50%, but is the primary. The law says primary, not majority or any reference to a specific percentage. The law also says it must be a "bar or tavern". I'm sure there are places out there where the primary source of income is alcohol, but they're not a bar or tavern.


    This is still confusing, your stats could also be interpreted that 55% of their income does not come from alcohol, so how can it be primary? Unfortunately, I dont think anybody wants to be a test case for this law. The law is very ambiguous. Perhaps just avoid place with he word "bar" or "tavern" in the name?

  9. #9
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Carrying into a bank, had a conversation.

    The law in MI in regards to firearms is all too often intentionally vague or at best unclear. It is meant to do exactly as you suggest above. To discourage honest law abiding citizens from exercising their rights. MI has some really good laws on the books, but it also has some half @$$ ones too (as do many states). The wording needs to be revamped so a citizen doesn't have to "hope" the business in question even knows exactly how much of their profit is generated from the sale of alcohol. Hopefully it can be amended to simply allow carry regardless of what % is generated. To me this is just a silly burden to place on lawful carriers. Or looked at another way, a easy catch all for police to bring charges against citizens.
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 12-25-2014 at 10:18 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by w3man View Post
    This is still confusing, your stats could also be interpreted that 55% of their income does not come from alcohol, so how can it be primary? Unfortunately, I dont think anybody wants to be a test case for this law. The law is very ambiguous. Perhaps just avoid place with he word "bar" or "tavern" in the name?
    Argue all you want, but he is correct. Primary is not the same as majority. In his example, it's not alcohol vs. everything else- each category stands on it's own. If they had 10 different categories, all at 9.9%, and alcohol is is 10.9%, it's an OC only zone (with CPL).
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  11. #11
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    The law in MI in regards to firearms is all too often intentionally vague or at best unclear. It is meant to do exactly as you suggest above. To discourage honest law abiding citizens from exercising their rights. MI has some really good laws on the books, but it also has some half @$$ ones too (as do many states). The wording needs to be revamped so a citizen doesn't have to "hope" the business in question even knows exactly how much of their profit is generated from the sale of alcohol. Hopefully it can be amended to simply allow carry regardless of what % is generated. To me this is just a silly burden to place on lawful carriers. Or looked at another way, a easy catch all for police to bring charges against citizens.
    It is my understanding that a business that sells alcohol must be able to specify if alcohol is the primary source of income. Perhaps someone with more experience with this can chime in, but persons on probation may not patronize such an establishment. There surely is a method that they can call ahead to determine if it would violate their probation.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  12. #12
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    It is my understanding that a business that sells alcohol must be able to specify if alcohol is the primary source of income. Perhaps someone with more experience with this can chime in, but persons on probation may not patronize such an establishment. There surely is a method that they can call ahead to determine if it would violate their probation.
    Don't think probation is the question, not sure where that came from, a CPL holder or equivalent, can carry if they are in compliance with the 50% profits
    or more rule. Now having managers of such places in my family I can tell you that the # can vary wildly from: quarter to quarter month to month or day to day for that matter. So you could be in compliance or not technically depending on how the evidence of a alleged violation was framed, via date & time span, etc...

    As I said - the intent of the law is clear: to discourage people from carrying that may have done so legally for fear of being charged under this vague law. Or put another way, making GFZ's without technically declaring them so.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    Argue all you want, but he is correct. Primary is not the same as majority. In his example, it's not alcohol vs. everything else- each category stands on it's own. If they had 10 different categories, all at 9.9%, and alcohol is is 10.9%, it's an OC only zone (with CPL).
    Post 30
    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...ty-check/page3
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    Argue all you want, but he is correct. Primary is not the same as majority. In his example, it's not alcohol vs. everything else- each category stands on it's own. If they had 10 different categories, all at 9.9%, and alcohol is is 10.9%, it's an OC only zone (with CPL).

    Cite please...

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Cite please...
    See post #2 and the dictionary, since 'primary' is not defined in the law.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary >> a : of first rank, importance, or value : principal <the primary purpose>
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primary >>> something that is first in order, rank, or importance.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/primary >>> First or highest in rank or importance; principal

    Ergo, the various sources of income should be ranked individually, and the primary would be that which is ranked first. Prosecution could (and likely would) argue that there is no provision for ranking 'sales of alcohol by the glass to be consumed on premises' versus 'every other source of income consolidated in one sum'.

    Unless someone knows of some case law otherwise, it's best to follow the strictest possible interpretation of the law, lest your name become the title of such cite.

    But, hey, I'm not a lawyer, but I've also managed to never get even close to being arrested. I credit that with always looking at the worst possible circumstances, and avoiding those.....
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    Argue all you want, but he is correct. Primary is not the same as majority. In his example, it's not alcohol vs. everything else- each category stands on it's own. If they had 10 different categories, all at 9.9%, and alcohol is is 10.9%, it's an OC only zone (with CPL).
    Yes, but who defines the categories, and what are they? It's entirely arbitrary, and so the effect of the law can be argued to be whatever you want it to be.

    That was my original point.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    This is why we HAVE to get rid of "Pistol Free Zones."
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Either could be. Think about it this way:
    Sources of revenue:
    Food: 30%
    Merchandise: 25%
    Alcohol: 45%

    Alcohol is less than 50%, but is the primary. The law says primary, not majority or any reference to a specific percentage. The law also says it must be a "bar or tavern". I'm sure there are places out there where the primary source of income is alcohol, but they're not a bar or tavern.
    This! It is confusing so if it ever became an issue, I would certainly argue the law is void for vagueness. Also, it is interesting that Michigan does have a "tavern" license and also has a definition of "bar" in their Liquor Licensing law. So, it COULD be that the prohibited place needs to be licensed as a tavern, needs to be in an area defined as a "bar", and the primary source of income of the business needs to be the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. I am no attorney, but that would seem to set a pretty high bar for any place to be truly a No Concealed Carry Zone.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    This! It is confusing so if it ever became an issue, I would certainly argue the law is void for vagueness. Also, it is interesting that Michigan does have a "tavern" license and also has a definition of "bar" in their Liquor Licensing law. So, it COULD be that the prohibited place needs to be licensed as a tavern, needs to be in an area defined as a "bar", and the primary source of income of the business needs to be the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. I am no attorney, but that would seem to set a pretty high bar for any place to be truly a No Concealed Carry Zone.
    The bar area makes no difference. Their premises are off limits to concealed carry regardless of where on the premises you are. Sorry if I misunderstand the bolded part. But yeah, the people who say BWW is a gray area I think are wrong (other than them posting no gun signs). I wouldn't consider BWW a bar or tavern despite the bar area. IANAL
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    The bar area makes no difference. Their premises are off limits to concealed carry regardless of where on the premises you are. Sorry if I misunderstand the bolded part. But yeah, the people who say BWW is a gray area I think are wrong (other than them posting no gun signs). I wouldn't consider BWW a bar or tavern despite the bar area. IANAL
    Then I guess I'm never going there, unless it's to drop off a "No guns=No $" card.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Gay Al View Post
    Then I guess I'm never going there, unless it's to drop off a "No guns=No $" card.
    I have never seen a No Gun sign at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Michigan. I know there was some issue with BW3 in other states, but none of the ones I frequent.

  22. #22
    Regular Member ElevenBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Roanoke Virginia
    Posts
    90
    VA: OC without a permit, of any kind (as long as theres no prohibited sign). Looking to change banks, the one that took over my old bank now has no guns stickers on the door.

    EB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •