• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Help taxwhat with article comments.

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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/article?AID=/20080915/NEWS01/109159984
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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?
 

jfrenchudm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
95
Location
Ortonville, Michigan, USA
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.
 

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
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.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Matt`G

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
23
Location
Livingston County, Michigan, USA
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. :)
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
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
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
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
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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/resources/publications/manuals/security/MICourtSecurityManual.pdf
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
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/resources/publications/manuals/security/MICourtSecurityManual.pdf
Per MSP:

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]Furthermore, effective March 29, 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court:[/font]


  • [font="Arial, Helvetica"]"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."[/font]
http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/monroe/uploadedfiles/2001-01.pdf
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

I will call
[align=left]Chief Judges[/align]
[align=left]cc Court Administrators[/align]
[align=left]From: John D. Ferry, Jr.[/align]
[align=left]Date: March 29, 2001[/align]
[align=left]Re: Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1[/align]
[align=left]Security Policy for Court Facilities[/align]
[align=left]Attached is Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1: Security Policy for Court Facilities[/align]
[align=left]which was entered on March 27, 2001. The order provides that weapons are not permitted in[/align]
[align=left]any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judical employees.[/align]
[align=left]Public comments on the order will be invited and it will be considered at the Supreme Court’s[/align]
[align=left]June 14, 2001, public hearing.[/align]
[align=left]The order calls for each court to submit a written weapons policy to the State Court[/align]
[align=left]Administrative Office. To assist courts in developing such a policy, we have attached a model[/align]
[align=left]administrative order and a notice that can be used.[/align]
[align=left]If you have questions, please feel free to contact Dan Voss (517/373-7498 or vossd@jud.state.[/align]
mi.us) or Bill Bartels (517/373-5975 or bartelsb@jud.state.mi.us
 

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
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)
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

[align=justify]▼ To the point
pag_5_0.gif

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.
[/align]






none.gif


Powered by TECNAVIA
 
Top