Private Propety Rights

imported post

DrTodd,

Any idea of what relevant 1st amendment rulings there are for state owned private property, like a public university?

I suspect those would be a good basis for challenging a university's no gun policy.

imported post

Not really that would be of much help... in regards to the 1st Amendment, limits on time/place (Free-speech-Zones) and even content (require that students who speak up for CC by e-mail or public debate be evaluated for a mental illness)have been declared constitutional by most state courts (courts outside of Michigan)

I think there is a much larger hurdle to any headway regarding carry rights on campus than is apparent by looking at other states, though. In regards to public university governance, the Michigan Constitution confers a unique constitutional status on our public universities and their governing boards.
(Federated Publications, Inc. v Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 460 Mich 75, 82; 594 NW2d 491, 495 (1999).)

The Supreme Court has described the governing boards’ status as “the highest form of juristic person known to the law, a constitutional corporation of independent authority, which, within the scope of its functions, is co-ordinate with and equal to that of the legislature.”
(Board of Regents of the University of Michigan v Auditor General, 167 Mich 444, 450; 132 NW 1037, 1040 (1911).)

As the Court explained in Federated: “This Court has long recognized that Const, art 8, sec. 5 and the analogous provisions of the previous constitutions limit the Legislature’s power. ‘[T]he legislature may not interfere with the management and control of’ universities. The constitution grants the governing boards authority over ‘the absolute management of the University and the exclusive control of all funds received for its use.’ The Court has ‘jealously guarded’ these powers from legislative interference.”
(460 Mich at 86-87; 594 NW2d at 497)

So, my (unprofessional) opinion is that the cases mentioned make it pretty difficult to change the Public University-carry situation. Perhaps the only way to really move things forward is to speak up and try to influence the trusties/board to change policy (very difficult, I know) (Or run for the position yourself; they're statewide positions)

imported post

(Side note, I like this forum already. I thought I'd never find intelligent debate on the internet!)

At the very least, you've given me some good starts for researching this, so thanks

Now for a rebuttal. In Federated v. MSU, the Supreme Court also went on to cite two previous decisions:


This Court has not, however, held that universities are exempt from all regulation. In Regents of the Univ of Michigan v Employment Relations Comm, 389 Mich 96, 108; 204 NW2d 218 (1973), we quoted Branum v Bd of Regents of the Univ of Michigan, 5 Mich App 134, 138-139; 145 NW2d 860 (1966):

• [align=justify]It is the opinion of this Court that the legislature can validly exercise its police power for the welfare of the people of this State, and a constitutional corporation such as the board of regents of the University of Michigan can lawfully be affected thereby. The University of Michigan is an independent branch of the government of the State of Michigan, but it is not an island. Within the confines of the operation and the allocation of funds of the University, it is supreme. Without those confines, however, there is no reason to allow the regents to use their independence to thwart the clearly established public policy of the people of Michigan.
  [/align]​

Legislative regulation that clearly infringes on the university’s educational or financial autonomy must, therefore, yield to the university’s constitutional power.

Although this doesn't entirely open the door, it would go a long way. The next question would be whether an agency of the state may enact it's own firearms policies. For example, is the Secretary of State's office allowed to enact a no firearms policy for their offices? Or is this inherently contradictory in the case of a CPL licensee who is authorized to "carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state."

imported post

nuxi,

The Public Universities are required to follow SOME state laws; the recent Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, listed on the ballot as Proposal 2, prohibits state and local governments from "discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." This affects how the University of Michigan and other public schools select their students and also public employment & contracting. When the school tried to force the court to issue an injunction, they were denied.

In the documents concerning the injunction to stop implementation of the proposal, UofM argued that they control all decisions regarding educational benefit and tried to use this justification as grounds for the injunction, saying that such programs are under their jurisdiction based on that educational benefit clause; they would probably use the same argument in regards to firearms on campus.

They are not alone in the belief that state law has no impact on other branches of Government. Also, the district courts have argued that they are immune from the state CPL law, believing they are not required to allow weapons into buildings administered by the court, as it is prohibited based on a 2001 administrative order by the Michigan Supreme Court, not on legislation. However, this year Circuit Judge Michael Smith ordered the "no guns" signs removed at the courthouse in downtown Hillsdale, saying the ban is against state law. Smith said that courthouses are not exempt from state concealed-weapons laws, so there's no way to lawfully stop people from carrying a concealed weapon if they're licensed properly.

So, I guess the only way to truly know is to find someone who has standing, perhaps you if you are a student there, and challenge UofM's rules in court.

imported post

Just a note, Judge Smith did issue a clarification, saying that the building was not exempt, but the courtroom was. And so guns are still not allowed in Hillsdale County courtrooms.

I'd be interested to see how far this goes, since the Lansing Police HQ has been declared a gun free zone and is covered with metal detectors, based on there being court rooms in the building.

imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:

Just a note, Judge Smith did issue a clarification, saying that the building was not exempt, but the courtroom was. And so guns are still not allowed in Hillsdale County courtrooms.

I'd be interested to see how far this goes, since the Lansing Police HQ has been declared a gun free zone and is covered with metal detectors, based on there being court rooms in the building.

Click to expand...

Which is also BS. I've wanted to take that on for years now, but everybody seems to be okay with it...apparently. I can't seem to get any interest in a challenge, perhaps now is the time.

imported post

I'm not ok with it, but I don't have the means to fight it. Otherwise, I would.

imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:

I'm not ok with it, but I don't have the means to fight it. Otherwise, I would.

Click to expand...

Come on now, that's just an excuse, we all have means to fight injustice.

imported post

I don't have the means to afford a lawyer. If I try to force the issue, and get charged, I'm pretty much screwed. Any public defender that gets assigned to defend me is going to want to plea me out to some lesser charge that gets him through the court system quickly. In the mean time, my CPL is temporary toast, and my job is in the toilet.

The only other thing I could do, is stand outside with a sign and picket the place. And that, most likely would not work out very well either.

But if you have a suggestion, I'm all ears. Um, eyes.

imported post

Venator wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

Just a note, Judge Smith did issue a clarification, saying that the building was not exempt, but the courtroom was. And so guns are still not allowed in Hillsdale County courtrooms.

I'd be interested to see how far this goes, since the Lansing Police HQ has been declared a gun free zone and is covered with metal detectors, based on there being court rooms in the building.

Click to expand...

Which is also BS. I've wanted to take that on for years now, but everybody seems to be okay with it...apparently. I can't seem to get any interest in a challenge, perhaps now is the time.

Click to expand...

Brian, come up with a plan and I can bet there will be many here who will stand with you...or behind.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Venator wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

Just a note, Judge Smith did issue a clarification, saying that the building was not exempt, but the courtroom was. And so guns are still not allowed in Hillsdale County courtrooms.

I'd be interested to see how far this goes, since the Lansing Police HQ has been declared a gun free zone and is covered with metal detectors, based on there being court rooms in the building.

Click to expand...

Which is also BS. I've wanted to take that on for years now, but everybody seems to be okay with it...apparently. I can't seem to get any interest in a challenge, perhaps now is the time.

Click to expand...

Brian, come up with a plan and I can bet there will be many here who will stand with you...or behind.

Click to expand...

Oh now I have to think, I hate thinking,

imported post

Venator wrote:

Oh now I have to think, I hate thinking,

Click to expand...

Me too, it gives me a headache, and spreads the dust all over the house.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

nuxi,

So, I guess the only way to truly know is to find someone who has standing, perhaps you if you are a student there, and challenge UofM's rules in court.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not a student there, but I have been told that they prohibit visitors from carrying. That is how Michigan Tech (where I went) did it. None of the times walking across the diag at UMich have I seen any postings saying carry was prohibited.

I have no idea how enforceable it is to have an unposted policy like that. I'm not sure if its immediately trespassing or if you have to be told so and asked to leave first.

imported post

Personally, although I am not a lawyer, I would carry openly on my visits. I can see them asking me to leave. I would, thereby avoiding a tresspassing charge. However, I could see the possibility of a school issuing a summons. My knowledge of their "law", or my lack thereof, would probably not protect me in this circumstance. But, a strong case could be made that "I assumed" it was OK since state law allows, and even mentions areas on a campus where I can't CC (appearing to preempt the power of the university/college to regulate the possession of firearms). A judge would ultimately have to decide.

imported post

Do they allow armed couriers on campus to pick up money?? If so, then it appears they allow it in some circumstances as the couriers usually are just citizens who have a CPL and open carry (albeit for their job). They are not considered peace officers.