Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Man Arrested for Possession of Pistols at Oak Co. Courthouse

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    NOTE: Before posting some BSasking how this applies to OC, read the article and think about what has happened with regards to preemption and then post.

    By ANN ZANIEWSKI
    Of The Oakland Press

    A man tried to bring two pistols into the Oakland County Circuit Courthouse on Thursday morning, but he was stopped by sheriff's deputies at the security checkpoint.

    The man, whose name was not immediately available, is being charged with contempt of court despite having a concealed weapons permit. The court has an administrative order banning non-police officers from bringing weapons into the buildings.

    Oakland County Sheriff's deputies discovered the pistols in a case the man was carrying at 8:45 a.m. during the routine process of passing through the courthouse security checkpoint. The weapons were reportedly loaded.

    The man said he was at the court to accompany someone who was scheduled to appear before a judge. The man said he was a physician from Taylor.

    He was in police custody and brought before a judge, who issued a bond and set a contempt of court hearing for Wednesday. It is unclear if he immediately posted bond.

    Link: Pistols

    In regards to the Michigan Preemption Law of 1990 (MCL 123.1102) and the on going discussions of preemption, I thought this article bared repeating. Does the Administrative Order trump preemption? Remember, he was not in possession of the pistols in a courtroom or chambers.

    Thoughts?


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    One of the commenters stated that there is a MI Supreme Court ruling on the matter. Is anyone familiar with such a opinion? Remember alsothat judges determine what the law means and the judiciary is a clubby place.

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

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    One of the commenters stated that there is a MI Supreme Court ruling on the matter. Is anyone familiar with such a opinion? Remember alsothat judges determine what the law means and the judiciary is a clubby place.

    This is what I have so far:

    http://courts.michigan.gov/SUPREMECO...administrative


    ETA: http://www.oakgov.com/circuit/assets/docs/ao/08-05J.pdf

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    A Fantastic opportunity to get a ruling on this ridiculous rule and the abuse that has be dealt out under it's guise. I hope he fight this tooth and nail.

    Notice thought he at this time has not been charged with any firearm violations, just that crappy contempt of court, the judges equivalent to disorderly conduct LEO's use to intimidate.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I seem to remember seeing on the MSP site that there was a separate law from the regular concealed pistol free zones that covered court rooms and court houses. I'll try and find it.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Here it is. Not a law exactly, but I guess it has the same effect. :?

    http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7...0947--,00.html

    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."

    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member dfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post


    March 27, 2001

    Administrative Order 2001-1

    Security Policies for

    Court Facilities



    It appearing that the orderly administration of justice would be best served by prompt action, the following order is given immediate effect. The Court invites public comment regarding the

    merits of the order. Comments may be submitted in writing or

    electronically to the Supreme Court Clerk by June 1, 2001. P.O.

    Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@jud.state.mi.us. When

    submitting a comment, please refer to File No. 01-15. This matter will be considered by the Court at a public hearing to be held June 14, 2001, in Kalamazoo. Persons interested in addressing this issue at the hearing should notify the Clerk by June 12, 2001. Further information about the hearing will be posted on the Court’s ebsite, www.supremecourt.state.mi.us. When requesting time to speak at the hearing, please refer to File No.01-15.

    The issue of courthouse safety is important not only to the judicial employees of this state, but also to all those who are summoned to Michigan courtrooms or who visit for professional or personal reasons. Accordingly, the Supreme Court today issues the following declaration regarding the presence of weapons in court facilities.

    It is ordered that 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.

    Each court is directed to submit a written policy conforming with this order to the State Court Administrator for approval, as soon as is practicable. In developing a policy, courts are encouraged to

    collaborate with other entities in shared facilities and, where appropriate, to work with local funding units. Such a policy may be part of a general security program or it may be a separate plan.

    Dave
    http://www.survivalfox.com/
    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom". - John F. Kennedy, former U.S. President

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    dfox wrote:

    March 27, 2001

    Administrative Order 2001-1

    Security Policies for

    Court Facilities




    Each court is directed to submit a written policy conforming with this order to the State Court Administrator for approval, as soon as is practicable. In developing a policy, courts are encouraged to
    collaborate with other entities in shared facilities and, where appropriate, to work with local funding units. Such a policy may be part of a general security program or it may be a separate plan.


    It's this part that most do not do. So you can FOIA each court and ask if they followed this rule. Otherwise it's not "Official". The form is long and complicated and they have to jump through hoops to fill them out.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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