Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Secretary of State on Private Property

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    We are allowed to carry in State funded places (capital, state government offices, Secretary of state). Now what if one of these places in on private property that does not allow firearms to be carried? Specifically I'm thinking of the Secretary of State office in Jackson Crossing mall. Logically thinking, it is our tax dollars that are paying the lease for that property that is striping us of our rights. I'm not even sure where to start looking on this.

    Also as a side topic, I have drafted a list of buisnesses in Jackson Crossing with phone numbers and addresses for those interested in contacting/writing the managers of said stores to inform them of the lost buisness. If you want the list PM me.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    maahes wrote:
    We are allowed to carry in State funded places (capital, state government offices, Secretary of state). Now what if one of these places in on private property that does not allow firearms to be carried? Specifically I'm thinking of the Secretary of State office in Jackson Crossing mall. Logically thinking, it is our tax dollars that are paying the lease for that property that is striping us of our rights. I'm not even sure where to start looking on this.

    Also as a side topic, I have drafted a list of buisnesses in Jackson Crossing with phone numbers and addresses for those interested in contacting/writing the managers of said stores to inform them of the lost buisness. If you want the list PM me.
    Well, the way it works for Federal buildings is this: If it's rented by and the space is completely controlled by the Fed, then Federal preemption applies (ie: can't carry there).

    I would only assume the same to be true of state-rented property.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    .
    Last edited by T Vance; 09-20-2010 at 09:42 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a conflict of interest, and on that note since our tax dollars pay for it then you have the right to use it, including all of the perks ..

    P.S. this just my opinion and not legal advise as i ammerely a mortal, and not bar certified except in wine tasting

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    I could be totally wrong here, but let me think out loud:

    If I own a vehicle, but lend it to someone to use, then they have what's known as "Care, Custody, and Control" of the vehicle. As the temporary custodian of my vehicle, they can grant or deny things regarding my vehicle... such as who enters or whether or not an officer may search it. I, as the owner, do not have to be notified to make those decisions. Same thing with a house. If I let a friend use my place for the weekend while I'm out of town, then he has the three C's and is the one to make decisions affecting my home during his stay. He could determine whether or not he grants permission for people with guns to enter my home. I, as the homeowner, might let anyone with a pistol enter whereas he, as the temporary custodian, may not.

    Now, in a commercial endeavor, I suppose a contract can be drawn that establishes terms that holds the renter to whatever standards the landlord wants. One of those, I suppose, could be that the renter does not allow guns on the premises. But this being said, then apartment complexes could do the same thing; effectively rendering renters armless.

    I would think, just off the cuff, that unless there is a specific provision in the lease agreement that disallows firearms on the premises, that the mall does NOT have a say in whether or not a store on the property allows them. The renters have the three C's. I suppose an exception to this "rule" would be if the mall posted signs at every common entrance (the ones not under the care, custody, or control of the tenants)... at which point they could effectively forbid the carrying of firearms into common areas and making it difficult to get a gun from a common area into a store.

    But all this being said, I don't think a store can preempt your CPL, can they? Just because they post "No guns allowed" doesn't mean you can't conceal carry it, right? For instance, I went to Bass Pro Shop yesterday and noticed that they had a sign saying that all firearms must be cased. So I took my pistol out of my hip holster and put it in my pocket. Out of sight, out of mind. I'm not sure what the law is here. But either way, even if what I did was illegal, the store would've had to pat me down to know if I was carrying... which I would never let them do anyway.

Posting Permissions

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