Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: New OC Lawsuit at U-M

  1. #1
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    537

    New OC Lawsuit at U-M

    http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/...l#incart_river

    Well, this one should be interesting. The guy that ticked off Ann Arbor Public Schools is now going after a Herman Melville sized target: the University of Michigan. While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Wade, I somehow dont think this is going to get far.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,826
    I've disagreed with Steve Dulan on certain things over the years, but he is no fool and is a very good lawyer. This will be interesting.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,159

    It is important to remember

    that the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University are in a different position than other Michigan public colleges and universities. This suit might work against Eastern Michigan or Ferris State. It is not going to succeed with UM. Sorry. If this is an important issue, you need to change the state constitution.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    124
    You are correct in saying there are three hard targets and a bunch of soft targets.

    But look at it this way:

    If you attack the hardest of the hard targets and win, the war is over and all the Unis will have to obey the court decision.
    If you attack the hardest target and lose, you're in the same position you were in to begin with.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,550
    Quote Originally Posted by taxman View Post
    You are correct in saying there are three hard targets and a bunch of soft targets.

    But look at it this way:

    If you attack the hardest of the hard targets and win, the war is over and all the Unis will have to obey the court decision.
    If you attack the hardest target and lose, you're in the same position you were in to begin with.
    Not necessarily so - case law is very weighty and tips the beam.


    See no reason to provide a history on the wrong side of the scales.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,159

    Pick Your Battles

    Quote Originally Posted by taxman View Post
    You are correct in saying there are three hard targets and a bunch of soft targets.

    But look at it this way:

    If you attack the hardest of the hard targets and win, the war is over and all the Unis will have to obey the court decision.
    If you attack the hardest target and lose, you're in the same position you were in to begin with.

    I see it as three impossible targets and many hard targets. I suppose if you have unlimited resources and don't mind spending up to five years fighting, your view may be acceptable to some. I think the better approach is to attack the prohibitions via the federal courts by making a (U.S.) constitutional argument. The best method is to amend the Michigan constitution to prohibit firearms regulation other than by the legislature.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,550
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    I see it as three impossible targets and many hard targets. I suppose if you have unlimited resources and don't mind spending up to five years fighting, your view may be acceptable to some. I think the better approach is to attack the prohibitions via the federal courts by making a (U.S.) constitutional argument. The best method is to amend the Michigan constitution to prohibit firearms regulation other than by the legislature.
    Do you mean like this:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28slmskzrjq00orxek15gaee2f%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-123-1102

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=2014-HB-5500
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,159

    Yeah, Something Like That

    But it would have to be in the constitution, not a mere statute. Also it needs to be very explicit. UM is not a unit of local government.

Posting Permissions

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