Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Help taxwhat with article comments.

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Taxwhat: AKA Jan Jay is having problems with access to the Monroe County courthouse. They ban weapons at the door to the courthouse in violation of the preemption law. Also the metal detector is too narrow to let him pass in his wheelchair.This makes it very difficult for him to attend county meetings or conduct county business. This all is about several rights including firearm rights. Read the article if you want to support his position please leave a comment. Help a fellow members.

    Follow link to article: http://monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...WS01/109159984
    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.

  2. #2
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Left message. Great article.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cadillac Area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    I have posted a comment on the Newspaper site. Thanks for calling this matter to my attention.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Post imported post

    I have a question. What about buildings that are pretty much only "COURT" buildings. Take 54 District court in mason. There are no other services available besides criminal and civil matters. They have metal detectors at the door. Would that building be in violation of state law?
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    I read the article and I agree with taxwhat. I'm posting a comment supporting him on there as well, as JohnM.




  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ortonville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    Oakland county is also in violation. All of the courtrooms are on the second floor and above, and yet they have the metal detectors at the from door. My friend that is in a wheelchair had no problem getting through, but he also has a very compact chair.

  7. #7
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Tucker6900 wrote:
    I have a question. What about buildings that are pretty much only "COURT" buildings. Take 54 District court in mason. There are no other services available besides criminal and civil matters. They have metal detectors at the door. Would that building be in violation of state law?
    I beleive they are.

    It seems the Michigan Supreme Court ruled itself exempt from the state preemptive laws. The problem is that courts are supposed to enforce the law, not make it. But, when they have the Supreme Court to hide behind it is difficult to argue against it. If someone had the time, they could address the Supreme Court judge(s) that feel they are above the law.

    I beleive I saw a post in here that linked toa case file or somethingwhere the Supreme Court made that call.
    United we STAND!

  8. #8
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    It seems the Michigan Supreme Court ruled itself exempt from the state preemptive laws. The problem is that courts are supposed to enforce the law, not make it.
    I really do disagree with what the courts are doing in putting whole buildings off-limits to CC or OC, but there is some cold water to be thrown on your argument.

    You are correct that courts aren't supposed to make law. That's the legislative function. However, you are incorrect that they are supposed to enforce the law. That is the executive function. The judicial function is to provide "judicial review", via specific cases,of enforcement of the lawby the executiveand the constitutionality and/or applicability to the caseof the law itself made by the legislative.

    Therefore, an argument can be made that the judicial branch finds that the laws we are discussing are invalid in part or in whole, and it can go ahead and put in policies prohibiting CC or OC in it's courts and buildings it occupies. Of course, I don't agree with their policies but what they are doing would have to be tested, yes, in their courts in order to determine the validity of the policies.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Livingston County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Quick question, maybe someone can point me in the right direction here. I'm trying to find the section of MCL that restricts firearms from courts (does one exist, or is this all brought down from the Supreme Court ruling?). I see that MCL 750.234d restricts the possession of firearms from a court in part 1c. However, 2c lists CPL-holders as exempt from restrictions in part 1.

    I have checked the restrictions on concealed carry (MCL 28.425o), and it does not list a court either.

    I guess this is why I'm not a lawyer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Matt`G wrote:
    Quick question, maybe someone can point me in the right direction here. I'm trying to find the section of MCL that restricts firearms from courts (does one exist, or is this all brought down from the Supreme Court ruling?). I see that MCL 750.234d restricts the possession of firearms from a court in part 1c. However, 2c lists CPL-holders as exempt from restrictions in part 1.

    I have checked the restrictions on concealed carry (MCL 28.425o), and it does not list a court either.

    I guess this is why I'm not a lawyer.
    FIRST THANKS please keep it going .................LOOK under Michigan's court rules state of Michigan court administrator

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gosirr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    You got my support Jan. Added a post in support.
    What Do I Feel When I Kill A Terrorist? .........A Little Recoil

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Judge Costello said a local court order issued in 2001 states in the first paragraph that "No weapons are allowed in the courthouse." He cited a Michigan Supreme Court ruling that allows such rules to be enacted.

    After the 38th Circuit Court issued the order that disallowed weapons from the entire courthouse, it was supported in writing by the Michigan Supreme Court. Judge Costello said Wednesday that based on the Supreme Court's own administrative order and its support of the local ruling, *********he believes the Monroe courts are legally allowed to ban all weapons from the entire courthouse, not just courtrooms. ********

    "Pursuant to the local administrative order and approved by the Michigan Supreme Court, no weapons are allowed in the courthouse," he said HELP find out ! who what where why???? thanks

  13. #13
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I found the 2002 Court Security Manual. The pages that seem to deal directly with weapons are pages 115, 140, and 231. But, I noticed on page 231 it seems that CPL holders are exempt from the prohibition concerning weapons in the courtroom. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on why CPL holders can't bring a firearm according to the rules as written.

    The manual can be found at this link; because it is a HUGE file I had difficulty attaching it to this post.

    http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/reso...rityManual.pdf
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    I found the 2002 Court Security Manual. The pages that seem to deal directly with weapons are pages 115, 140, and 231. But, I noticed on page 231 it seems that CPL holders are exempt from the prohibition concerning weapons in the courtroom. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on why CPL holders can't bring a firearm according to the rules as written.

    The manual can be found at this link; because it is a HUGE file I had difficulty attaching it to this post.

    http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/reso...rityManual.pdf
    Per MSP:

    Furthermore, effective March 29, 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court:


    • "Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."
    http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/monroe/up...es/2001-01.pdf

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Livingston County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Great, that's what I was looking for! Thanks Springer!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    I will call
    Chief Judges

    cc Court Administrators

    From: John D. Ferry, Jr.

    Date: March 29, 2001

    Re: Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1

    Security Policy for Court Facilities

    Attached is Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1: Security Policy for Court Facilities

    which was entered on March 27, 2001. The order provides that weapons are not permitted in

    any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judical employees.

    Public comments on the order will be invited and it will be considered at the Supreme Court’s

    June 14, 2001, public hearing.

    The order calls for each court to submit a written weapons policy to the State Court

    Administrative Office. To assist courts in developing such a policy, we have attached a model

    administrative order and a notice that can be used.

    If you have questions, please feel free to contact Dan Voss (517/373-7498 or vossd@jud.state.

    mi.us) or Bill Bartels (517/373-5975 or bartelsb@jud.state.mi.us

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    I did bump out a comment on the thread. The one place I did differ on opinion from everyone is the metal detectors. I feel they should stay, as they really do make the facility safer. If a wheelchair doesn't fit, there needs to be a handicap accessible door as well for that. On top of the metal detector... fine, if someones legally carrying permit them to enter, a BEEP BEEP BEEP from a metal detector is still just a BEEP BEEP BEEP, let the legally carrying individuals in the building and KEEP the metal detector. It is the criminals concealed carrying we need to be worried about.


    edited to adjust jstu to just (every time i spell it that way, i need some serious therapy)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Do not ask WHY ? PLEASE check your post on monroenews.com does not allow cut and paste you must hand oops finger type thanks

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post





    â–Ľ To the point
    Monroe County commissioners have more than one way to bring gov­ernment to the people.
    County board right to reach out to voters


    Jan Jay must be some Monroe County officials’ worst nightmare.
    He’s had a personal protec­tion order filed against him by the county administrator.
    He’s run — unsuccessfully — for several public offices.
    He appears regularly at county board meetings and isn’t afraid to speak his mind or give opinions. He’s been called a gadfly by some and no doubt worse by others.
    The Exeter Township resi­dent also has been a county official; he was appointed to the county’s Emergency Medical Authority Board. He wasn’t reappointed when his term was up. He’s applied for other appointments, but has been passed over at times even when there was no other candidate.
    Still, he is a defender of the First Amendment and citizens’ right to free speech.
    His latest go-round with county officials involves the board’s decision to hold some of its meetings at different locations from the county courthouse.
    It sounds like a good idea — taking government to the people. Some Bedford Town­ship residents, for example, won’t drive to Monroe to see a board meeting in person.
    Frankly, some Frenchtown and Monroe Township residents wouldn’t do that, either. But they might go if meetings were in their own townships. That’s what the board tried to do.
    The problem, as Mr. Jay sees it, is that the board already has a location for its meetings. They already have set their annual schedule — it happened at the organi­zational meeting in Janu­ary. And, according to his interpretation, state law says regular board meetings need to be in the county seat.
    County attorneys, prompt­ed by Mr. Jay’s questioning at a recent board meeting, are researching the issue now. And board Chairman William Sisk says the board isn’t planning to hold any more meetings on the road for the time being anyway.
    Whatever the final deci­sion, there is another way to bring the county board meetings to more county residents.
    The commissioners could seriously consider putting the board meetings on local cable television. The Mon­roe City Council and Bed­ford Township Boards al­ready do this. It seems likely that local cable companies would televise county meet­ings, too, on local access cable channels.
    Of course, putting the meetings on TV presents some problems. It might cost money for equipment. And Chairman Sisk has said he’s afraid that commissioners, county officials or citizens will use the camera as an excuse for grandstanding.
    Still, it’s worth a look. The proceedings and the deci­sions would be accessible to thousands of county resi­dents who might never see their government in action any other way.









    Powered by TECNAVIA

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Farmington,Port Huron,Waterford MICHIGAN, , USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Sorry I am not as good with the lawsas you guys. So it is legal to CC in court buildings but not OC? 28.425o says noting about courts. And they aren't federal buildings? So please lay it out in easy terms! Thanks

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    You may not CC or OC in a court building. The point of this is that in many places, my home area as well, the court building shares space with many other county agencies, as well as city offices, depending on the building. Buildings such as this are also used to have meetings for various county purposes. At many of these meetings, and other non-court related rooms (likewise the halls) you are in theory allowed to open carry and concealed carry. jay's arguement, as I understand it, is ONLY the courtroom and court related facilities while being used for court business are exempt from preemption and allowed to restrict our carry rights.

    Currently most "multi-use" facilities ban guns carried any method from the entire building. As most of us understand the law, this is illegal, and we should be allowed to carry in the portions of the building used for non-court related situations.

    The issue as it stands is both our "OC" related pistol free zones and our CC related possesion laws only state in reference to this disposition that we cannot carry in a "COURT" only. It specifically says city's cannot ban guns for OC or CC related carrying. So the question being asked of municipalities is how can you ban guns from city and other county offices just because they are in a building that houses a courtroom.

    The courtroom and its offices would be a gun free zone, but the other offices would not be in my opinion, and many others opinions. In addition, a city or county "board" or other agency meeting in a room otherwise used for "court" business should not be allowed to ban guns if being used for non-court business.

    For instance, I am on the housing commission in my town, we meet in a cafeteria of one of our buildings, but we are allowed to meet anywhere. If we make use of, as some local agencies such as ours do, the courtroom to hold our meeting, according to the signs on the building, noone can carry a weapon. This is the equivilant of a local city agency banning guns from its meetings, which the law clearly states it cannot.

    i hope that didn't confuse you more, lol.

Posting Permissions

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