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.

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.

Click to expand...

Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?

marshaul said:

Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?

Click to expand...

that is the unanswered question, which is why it's easier to open carry with a CPL in any licensed joint

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?

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.

marshaul said:

Is 49% the primary source of revenue? What about 51%?

Click to expand...

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.

xmanhockey7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

w3man said:

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?

Click to expand...

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).

FreeInAZ said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Bear said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shadow Bear said:

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).

Click to expand...

Post 30
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?315588-Sanity-check/page3

Shadow Bear said:

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).

Click to expand...

Cite please...

xd shooter said:

Cite please...

Click to expand...

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.....

Shadow Bear said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

This is why we HAVE to get rid of "Pistol Free Zones."

xmanhockey7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DrTodd said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

xmanhockey7 said:

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

Click to expand...

Then I guess I'm never going there, unless it's to drop off a "No guns=No $" card.