• 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.

Man Arrested for Possession of Pistols at Oak Co. Courthouse

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
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?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
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.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

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

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

[size="-1"][font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][font="Arial, Helvetica"]Furthermore, effective March 29, 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court:[/font] [/font][/size]
  • [size="-1"][font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][*] [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] [/font][/size]
 

dfox

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
98
Location
Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
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.

 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 
Top