Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Confusion with Cascade Township Park Rules

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Hello. I registered to ask for opinions on a particular matter. I live near Cascade Township and utilize on a regular basis one of the township’s parks located near my home to walk my dog. I have a CPL and carry concealed while there.

    In the summer, I prefer to walk my dog either early in the morning or later in the evening when it’s cooler and the park isn’t as populated. Often, I am approached by people, both adults and kids, curious about my dog or just looking to make conversation. I typically don’t mind as most people are just being friendly. However, on a couple of occasions, I’ve been approached by lone adult males which, although most likely well-meaning individuals themselves, made me feel a bit uncomfortable nonetheless. Suffice to say, that if either of them had had ill-intent, their close proximately in standing right next to me would’ve made it difficult for me to get to my weapon in time to fend off an attack. I’m thinking that if I were to OC in the park, perhaps such individuals would be less inclined to approach me.

    Rules of park usage are posted on the township’s website:

    http://www.cascadetwp.com/ReferenceD...kOrdinance.htm

    With respect to firearms, the following is taken from said website (Section 3. (B) applicable):

    Section 3. Hunting, Fishing and Molesting Wildlife

    A. No person within the confines of [the] Park, unless authorized by written permit of the Township Board, shall hunt, pursue with dogs, trap or in any other way molest any wild bird or animal found within the confines of the Park, or therein rob or molest any bird nest or take the eggs of any bird. No persona shall fish in any waters in the Park in any manner. No person, other than a police officer or other person specifically authorized by law to do so, shall discharge a firearm in the Park.

    B. No person except a police officer, Sheriff or other person authorized by state law, shall carry firearms of any description, or air rifle, slingshot, or missile throwing device within the Park, or discharge any firearms, fireworks or explosive substances, or air rifle therein without specific permit from the Township.
    The “other person authorized by state law” seems to cover CPL holders who are presumably carrying concealed. However, the latter part of paragraph B seems to suggest that if I (or anybody, for that matter) wish to open carry in the park, a permit from the township is required (which, IMO, is in violation of the state's preemption law).

    Am I reading that correctly?

    Also, what should I make out of this sign that is posted at the entrance to the park:




    As you can see, rule #4 clearly states that no firearms are allowed in the park, which would seem to apply to both CPL holders and OC practitioners

    Sorry for the long post.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    It appears that the posted sign contradicts the rules posted on the web site. You could carry, then get arrested, then pay a lawyer to fight it (and win), then sue for violation of civil rights (and win), then sue for payment of lawyer fees (and win).

    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.

    Venator has done this with success in some areas.

    Chances are that rule was proposed and passed by someone who was ignorant of the state law that prohibits just such a rule.

    I'd recommend going to the board, unless you truly want to be an activist.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.

    Venator has done this with success in some areas.

    Chances are that rule was proposed and passed by someone who was ignorant of the state law that prohibits just such a rule.

    I'd recommend going to the board, unless you truly want to be an activist.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law. My husband followed up via email to the manager the MCL you posted as well as a link to MCRGO v Ferndale. The sign is still there as of this morning.

    So, while I’m not opposed to writing letters in effort to correct wrongful situations, I prefer not to waste my time beating my head against the wall. I’d simply like to OC in the park and not have to worry about being arrested. I’m wondering if a letter or phone call to the state’s Attorney General office would have any effect.

    Anyone else?

    Edit: Never mind. I see on the state AG website that private citizens have no standing in asking the AG to intervene in such matters.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.

    Venator has done this with success in some areas.

    Chances are that rule was proposed and passed by someone who was ignorant of the state law that prohibits just such a rule.

    I'd recommend going to the board, unless you truly want to be an activist.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law. My husband followed up via email to the manager the MCL you posted as well as a link to MCRGO v Ferndale. The sign is still there as of this morning.

    So, while I’m not opposed to writing letters in effort to correct wrongful situations, I prefer not to waste my time beating my head against the wall. I’d simply like to OC in the park and not have to worry about being arrested. I’m wondering if a letter or phone call to the state’s Attorney General office would have any effect.

    Anyone else?

    Edit: Never mind. I see on the state AG website that private citizens have no standing in asking the AG to intervene in such matters.
    Welcome to OCDO MissRoadWarrior.

    At some point the City may admit the sigh is invalid, but unless they are faced with a law suit, the City may not budge an inch to remove/replace the sign. There have been a few local units of Government here in Michigan that made corrections to their ordinances by someone who simply pointed out the preemption law, but there are others who will not budge.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    SNIP
    In the summer, I prefer to walk my dog either early in the morning or later in the evening when it’s cooler and the park isn’t as populated. Often, I am approached by people, both adults and kids, curious about my dog or just looking to make conversation. I typically don’t mind as most people are just being friendly. However, on a couple of occasions, I’ve been approached by lone adult males which, although most likely well-meaning individuals themselves, made me feel a bit uncomfortable nonetheless. Suffice to say, that if either of them had had ill-intent, their close proximately in standing right next to me would’ve made it difficult for me to get to my weapon in time to fend off an attack. I’m thinking that if I were to OC in the park, perhaps such individuals would be less inclined to approach me.
    SNIP
    Most of the time when I'm out and about I notice how uneasy some women get when I am near them (stores, etc), especially when I'm alone. More than likely it's probably my stature. I'm 6', about 340 lbs., but keep in mind that a 300 lb male with a knife or a gun is not any more dangerous than a 100 lb female with a knife or gun. Even with my stature, I'm not comfortable with anyone in close proximately whether they are male or female. I for one, would prefer a few feet between myself and another party.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law.
    A definite next step to take is to contact the township's attorney, relate exactly what the township manager said, cite the preemption law verbatim, and request the attorney to provide guidance to the township before it incurs a lawsuit from a wrongful detention or arrest. It doesn't hurt to state the facts that you are a resident and that you mightopen carry in the park at any time, therefore you wish for the township to be legally advised in order for them to avoid a problem. Usually, city attorneys tend to prioritize issues from residents versus non-residents and issues which may be imminent rather than distant future.

    Do it in writing, and copy in the township manager and the rest of the board. That is important as it can be used to establish that the township and its attorney were "on notice" (an important legal concept) and would really hurt their defense against a wrongful detention/arrest lawsuit.


    Also, bear in mind that sometimes people in authority, knowingly or unknowingly, misquote or make up what they think the law says in order to discourage activity that they have a personal opinion against. As long as you know the law and you know you are completely legal to OC in the park (per state law), you probably would be able to OC and not have any problems other than perhaps a LEO asking you questions (which you are free to answer or not). I live in Auburn Hills and an AHPD officer once said (off the record to a friend of his, who is my acquaintance) that he would arrest anyone he saw OC'ing. And I also haven't got a straight answer yet from Auburn Hills on some anti-carry ordinances which are problematic due to preemption. But guess what? I OC all the time around Auburn Hills, have had two interactions with AHPD while OC'ing, and both times all the officers involved (five in total) acknowledged OC is legal and I wasn't arrested or given any kind of citation.
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.

    Venator has done this with success in some areas.

    Chances are that rule was proposed and passed by someone who was ignorant of the state law that prohibits just such a rule.

    I'd recommend going to the board, unless you truly want to be an activist.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law. My husband followed up via email to the manager the MCL you posted as well as a link to MCRGO v Ferndale. The sign is still there as of this morning.

    So, while I’m not opposed to writing letters in effort to correct wrongful situations, I prefer not to waste my time beating my head against the wall. I’d simply like to OC in the park and not have to worry about being arrested. I’m wondering if a letter or phone call to the state’s Attorney General office would have any effect.

    Anyone else?

    Edit: Never mind. I see on the state AG website that private citizens have no standing in asking the AG to intervene in such matters.
    SpringerXDacp and DanM have some good responses. Writing the township attorney and CCing the Manager and rest of the board is good. Fact is, if they don't want to change it, they won't change it. Ferndale is still reported to have signs up on their library.

    Your recourse is to apeal to their good nature/judgement (sounds like that didn't work), or just take action if they violate your rights.

    You could write the Township attorney (make sure to send it certified mail), and hope he/she takes action, but if the signs stay up, your choice is to either carry and be prepared to fight for your rights, or not OC.


    You could also host a OC picnic at the park.


    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/18406-1.html

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law.
    A definite next step to take is to contact the township's attorney, relate exactly what the township manager said, cite the preemption law verbatim, and request the attorney to provide guidance to the township before it incurs a lawsuit from a wrongful detention or arrest. It doesn't hurt to state the facts that you are a resident and that you mightopen carry in the park at any time, therefore you wish for the township to be legally advised in order for them to avoid a problem. Usually, city attorneys tend to prioritize issues from residents versus non-residents and issues which may be imminent rather than distant future.

    Do it in writing, and copy in the township manager and the rest of the board. That is important as it can be used to establish that the township and its attorney were "on notice" (an important legal concept) and would really hurt their defense against a wrongful detention/arrest lawsuit.
    This may be the way to go.

    As I stated in my OP, however, I live near Cascade Township (the park is five minutes from my home) So, the situation may be complicated by the fact that, geographically speaking, I am not a resident of the township. As such, I’m guessing I’d have no standing with the board should I decided to bring the matter to their attention, either in person (at a board meeting) or via letter. The same could hold true with respect to contacting the township attorney, but I don‘t know that for sure.

    There are three issues here:

    1. The sign at the entrance to the park states no firearms (which is in violation of preemption).

    2. The rule posted on the Township website states that anyone other than LE (and CPL holders carrying concealed, presumably) wishing to bring a firearm into the park must seek beforehand the township’s permission to do so (also in violation of preemption and which would most likely be denied, anyway).

    3. The sign at the entrance to the park and the rule with respect to firearms as posted on the township’s website are in direct conflict.

    The sign is not a problem when carrying concealed, first and foremost because concealed means concealed. As such, no other park users are going to be the wiser. Secondly, the rule posted on the township’s website covers CPL-holders (carrying concealed, presumably).

    The problem arises when one decides to OC in the park, as I may wish to do. The sign is what other park users will use as justification in placing a call to LE about a PWAG. Not that I'm fearful of a confrontation with LE, I just don't need that hassle. The sign needs to be amended to fall in line with preemption by removing the “no firearms” provision.

    So, as a non-resident with presumably no standing in the matter, the question becomes how best to go about getting the township’s park sign amended considering that the township manager has already effectively stated that his jurisdiction is not bound by preemption?



  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Or, you could write your township board and explain to them that the sign is not only is the sign illegal, but that firearms are allowed in the parks, and point out MCL 123.1102 to them.
    I could do that, I guess, except that my husband (also a CPL holder) went a similar route last summer in calling the Township manager and explaining to him how the “no firearms” sign at the entrance to the park was in violation of the state’s preemption law. The manager was unimpressed, saying that local governments are free to make ordinances more strict than that provided for in state law.
    A definite next step to take is to contact the township's attorney, relate exactly what the township manager said, cite the preemption law verbatim, and request the attorney to provide guidance to the township before it incurs a lawsuit from a wrongful detention or arrest. It doesn't hurt to state the facts that you are a resident and that you mightopen carry in the park at any time, therefore you wish for the township to be legally advised in order for them to avoid a problem. Usually, city attorneys tend to prioritize issues from residents versus non-residents and issues which may be imminent rather than distant future.

    Do it in writing, and copy in the township manager and the rest of the board. That is important as it can be used to establish that the township and its attorney were "on notice" (an important legal concept) and would really hurt their defense against a wrongful detention/arrest lawsuit.
    This may be the way to go.

    As I stated in my OP, however, I live near Cascade Township (the park is five minutes from my home) So, the situation may be complicated by the fact that, geographically speaking, I am not a resident of the township. As such, I’m guessing I’d have no standing with the board should I decided to bring the matter to their attention, either in person (at a board meeting) or via letter. The same could hold true with respect to contacting the township attorney, but I don‘t know that for sure.

    There are three issues here:

    1. The sign at the entrance to the park states no firearms (which is in violation of preemption).

    2. The rule posted on the Township website states that anyone other than LE (and CPL holders carrying concealed, presumably) wishing to bring a firearm into the park must seek beforehand the township’s permission to do so (also in violation of preemption and which would most likely be denied, anyway).

    3. The sign at the entrance to the park and the rule with respect to firearms as posted on the township’s website are in direct conflict.

    The sign is not a problem when carrying concealed, first and foremost because concealed means concealed. As such, no other park users are going to be the wiser. Secondly, the rule posted on the township’s website covers CPL-holders (carrying concealed, presumably).

    The problem arises when one decides to OC in the park, as I may wish to do. The sign is what other park users will use as justification in placing a call to LE about a PWAG. Not that I'm fearful of a confrontation with LE, I just don't need that hassle. The sign needs to be amended to fall in line with preemption by removing the “no firearms” provision.

    So, as a non-resident with presumably no standing in the matter, the question becomes how best to go about getting the township’s park sign amended considering that the township manager has already effectively stated that his jurisdiction is not bound by preemption?

    I have worked with other municipalities that I don't live in with good success. This park is public and you are free to use it regardless of where you live, this is a state issue not just local.

    If you try and don't have any luck and need help with a future letter let me know. We can fight to have them remove the signs, but they can have them up, they just can't legally enforce them. If they do they face legal recourse via Ferndale. Same with the ordinance they can keep it, they just can't enforce it.

    I push very hard for them to change the ordinance as well as remove the signs. It's maleficence and ingenious to have them up, it's a form of gun control, by default.

    If you like PM me the letter you compose and I would be glad to review it.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    I push very hard for them to change the ordinance as well as remove the signs. It's maleficence and ingenious to have them up, it's a form of gun control, by default.
    I agree. If the municipality is aware that the firearm restriction, as so stated on the entrance sign, is in violation of the state’s preemption law, yet leaves it in place anyway, it is de facto gun control -- in two different ways:

    1. Gun owners unaware of the preemption law may, in fact, feel compelled to leave their lawfully-owned, otherwise lawfully-carried (CC or OC) weapon at home when visiting that park.

    2. Gun owners having knowledge of the preemption law may be less motivated to OC there (in legal defiance of the sign) simply to avoid the potential of the soccer moms and dads (the park is filled with such individuals on Saturday mornings throughout the summer) getting in their face about what’s stated on the sign (and perhaps phoning in a PWAG report, as well).

    At any rate, I made a pass through the township website looking for the name/number of its attorney. No luck so far. I suspect they don’t have their own staff attorney. My guess is that have a private firm/attorney on retainer advising them.

    I’ll dig some more tomorrow.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?
    Off Topic:
    In Michigan, it's not a violation of the CPL laws and all they can do is ask you to leave or you could face trespass charges. They may even ask you to put the gun in your vehicle and come back in or they may just ask you to leave and not return, gun or no gun. Businesses have rights just like the people who choose to carry and they have the right not to allow firearms in their stores. IMO, the passenger compartment and the trunk of your car should be off limits to any prohibition of firearms on or in private property belonging to another...but that's just my opinion and not law.

    On Topic:
    Parks are a whole different animal. A State, County and City Parks are covered by preemption. Right now, the Huron-Clinton Metro Parks are a question mark. I think they are covered by preemption but who knows at this point. The Metro Parks are public parks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942

    Post imported post

    Private property trumps preemption.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?
    If it is private property, they can ask you to leave. If you are involved in a SD shooting while on said private property, there is no case law, but do you have a legal right to be there with a gun?

    If it's public property like this park, then preemption applies.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?
    If it is private property, they can ask you to leave. If you are involved in a SD shooting while on said private property, there is no case law, but do you have a legal right to be there with a gun?

    If it's public property like this park, then preemption applies.
    The way I see it, if there is a self defense shooting then at least I will survive to face charges. Or perhaps I will have saved someones life to testify on my behalf in court. To me, that beats the alternative.

    I'd like to think that if a SD shooting occurred, so long as it was justified, that the property owner would not pursue charges against me for concealing in despite of their "no guns allowed" sign.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?
    If it is private property, they can ask you to leave. If you are involved in a SD shooting while on said private property, there is no case law, but do you have a legal right to be there with a gun?

    If it's public property like this park, then preemption applies.
    The way I see it, if there is a self defense shooting then at least I will survive to face charges. Or perhaps I will have saved someones life to testify on my behalf in court. To me, that beats the alternative.

    I'd like to think that if a SD shooting occurred, so long as it was justified, that the property owner would not pursue charges against me for concealing in despite of their "no guns allowed" sign.

    I would not bet my freedom on that.springerdave.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Along these same lines (kinda, sorta, but maybe not really?):

    If a store, park, place of business (whatever) has a sign posted saying "No Firearms", does this preempt CC? I generally still CC when a store has such a sign posted... as I see it, if they don't see it, then they don't know. But for legal purposes... what's the answer?
    If it is private property, they can ask you to leave. If you are involved in a SD shooting while on said private property, there is no case law, but do you have a legal right to be there with a gun?

    If it's public property like this park, then preemption applies.
    The way I see it, if there is a self defense shooting then at least I will survive to face charges. Or perhaps I will have saved someones life to testify on my behalf in court. To me, that beats the alternative.

    I'd like to think that if a SD shooting occurred, so long as it was justified, that the property owner would not pursue charges against me for concealing in despite of their "no guns allowed" sign.
    All good points. The caveat is that you may be liable to civil litigation after the fact.

    Personally, I don't see how they can say that you have no legal right to be there just because someone posted a sign that doesn't carry weight of law. I think the lawyers are just being cautious until there is a test case.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    I understand that there is no case supporting SYG protection for the shooter in such cases, and I also understand that there is no case law supporting the protection of a shooter under the SYG law. However, I don't think it is trespassing unless your asked to leave, and then refuse to do so. Those signs have no weight of law, and trespassing does not apply unless they ask you to leave. They can't convict you of trespassing for just being there, therefore you still have a legal right to be there. It's like someone who lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. They may be violating the proprietor's rule, but it isn't trespassing, until they are asked to leave. I know that this is what they say, but I think it's more to keep people from doing something that could make them the possible test case, thereby soaking up time and money to fight such a law suit.

    I recommend people not do it because doing so could land one in a legal entanglement. However, in the end, I think they would prevail since they do have a legal right to be there unless asked to leave. Also, if they win the potential law suite, don't they then have recourse to go after the plaintiff for legal fees.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    I understand that there is no case supporting SYG protection for the shooter in such cases, and I also understand that there is no case law supporting the protection of a shooter under the SYG law. However, I don't think it is trespassing unless your asked to leave, and then refuse to do so. Those signs have no weight of law, and trespassing does not apply unless they ask you to leave. They can't convict you of trespassing for just being there, therefore you still have a legal right to be there. It's like someone who lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. They may be violating the proprietor's rule, but it isn't trespassing, until they are asked to leave. I know that this is what they say, but I think it's more to keep people from doing something that could make them the possible test case, thereby soaking up time and money to fight such a law suit.

    I recommend people not do it because doing so could land one in a legal entanglement. However, in the end, I think they would prevail since they do have a legal right to be there unless asked to leave. Also, if they win the potential law suite, don't they then have recourse to go after the plaintiff for legal fees.
    I think I've seen a reference to case law around here somewhere that states even an info brochure available from customer service serves to place the public on notice that carrying in a place with a "no guns" policy would result in arrest for trespass. IMO, that's bogus as hell, and hopefully I misunderstood. I'll try to find that.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    I understand that there is no case supporting SYG protection for the shooter in such cases, and I also understand that there is no case law supporting the protection of a shooter under the SYG law. However, I don't think it is trespassing unless your asked to leave, and then refuse to do so. Those signs have no weight of law, and trespassing does not apply unless they ask you to leave. They can't convict you of trespassing for just being there, therefore you still have a legal right to be there. It's like someone who lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. They may be violating the proprietor's rule, but it isn't trespassing, until they are asked to leave. I know that this is what they say, but I think it's more to keep people from doing something that could make them the possible test case, thereby soaking up time and money to fight such a law suit.

    I recommend people not do it because doing so could land one in a legal entanglement. However, in the end, I think they would prevail since they do have a legal right to be there unless asked to leave. Also, if they win the potential law suite, don't they then have recourse to go after the plaintiff for legal fees.
    I think I've seen a reference to case law around here somewhere that states even an info brochure available from customer service serves to place the public on notice that carrying in a place with a "no guns" policy would result in arrest for trespass. IMO, that's bogus as hell, and hopefully I misunderstood. I'll try to find that.
    You have a good memory. I posted that over a year ago and I had heard if from an attorney. The case was not in Michigan it was out east. The mall had a brochure that stated no firearms, but no signs posted. The judge/Jury?? found that the brochure was notice enough and he got nailed for trespass.

    Remember no justice just court decisions.
    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    I understand that there is no case supporting SYG protection for the shooter in such cases, and I also understand that there is no case law supporting the protection of a shooter under the SYG law. However, I don't think it is trespassing unless your asked to leave, and then refuse to do so. Those signs have no weight of law, and trespassing does not apply unless they ask you to leave. They can't convict you of trespassing for just being there, therefore you still have a legal right to be there. It's like someone who lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. They may be violating the proprietor's rule, but it isn't trespassing, until they are asked to leave. I know that this is what they say, but I think it's more to keep people from doing something that could make them the possible test case, thereby soaking up time and money to fight such a law suit.

    I recommend people not do it because doing so could land one in a legal entanglement. However, in the end, I think they would prevail since they do have a legal right to be there unless asked to leave. Also, if they win the potential law suite, don't they then have recourse to go after the plaintiff for legal fees.
    I think I've seen a reference to case law around here somewhere that states even an info brochure available from customer service serves to place the public on notice that carrying in a place with a "no guns" policy would result in arrest for trespass. IMO, that's bogus as hell, and hopefully I misunderstood. I'll try to find that.
    There was an email notice put out by MCRGO, but there was no reference to case law in it. This topic has come up before, but I've never seen a cite for case law.

    I don't buy it. Neither the signs, nor the brochure have weight of law. They won't prosecute (for trespassing) for someone just not seeing, or noticing the signs. If one refuses to leave after being asked to do so, then they are trespassing. I've heard of people being ticketed for trespassing in a public park, it doesn't mean that it is enforceable.

    This is off topic. This thread is about a CascadeTownship Park.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    This is what I figured. My question was whether or not you could be found guilty of anything, and if so, what. I structured the question poorly, but you answered it.

    Thanks much!
    You wouldn't be breaking any firearm laws, BUT read on.

    The real issue is that you could lose your "Stand your ground" (SYG) defense if you have to use your gun in such a place. It's like this, the SYG law states you have to be in a place lawfully and not be committing a crime. An argument could be made that since you were there you were technically trespassing and committing a crime, therefore you would have to retreat to before the law was enacted which was an obligation to retreat, and lose any protection from civil lawsuits.

    Whether this would happen in a righteous shoot I don't know, but I bet you would get sued.

    So you have to weight the risks of self-protection verses a potential lawsuit. That is a personal choice.
    I understand that there is no case supporting SYG protection for the shooter in such cases, and I also understand that there is no case law supporting the protection of a shooter under the SYG law. However, I don't think it is trespassing unless your asked to leave, and then refuse to do so. Those signs have no weight of law, and trespassing does not apply unless they ask you to leave. They can't convict you of trespassing for just being there, therefore you still have a legal right to be there. It's like someone who lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. They may be violating the proprietor's rule, but it isn't trespassing, until they are asked to leave. I know that this is what they say, but I think it's more to keep people from doing something that could make them the possible test case, thereby soaking up time and money to fight such a law suit.

    I recommend people not do it because doing so could land one in a legal entanglement. However, in the end, I think they would prevail since they do have a legal right to be there unless asked to leave. Also, if they win the potential law suite, don't they then have recourse to go after the plaintiff for legal fees.
    I think I've seen a reference to case law around here somewhere that states even an info brochure available from customer service serves to place the public on notice that carrying in a place with a "no guns" policy would result in arrest for trespass. IMO, that's bogus as hell, and hopefully I misunderstood. I'll try to find that.
    You have a good memory. I posted that over a year ago and I had heard if from an attorney. The case was not in Michigan it was out east. The mall had a brochure that stated no firearms, but no signs posted. The judge/Jury?? found that the brochure was notice enough and he got nailed for trespass.

    Remember no justice just court decisions.
    That jogged my memory. I remember the reference made on another forum.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    There was an email notice put out by MCRGO, but there was no reference to case law in it. This topic has come up before, but I've never seen a cite for case law.

    I don't buy it. Neither the signs, nor the brochure have weight of law. They won't prosecute (for trespassing) for someone just not seeing, or noticing the signs. If one refuses to leave after being asked to do so, then they are trespassing. I've heard of people being ticketed for trespassing in a public park, it doesn't mean that it is enforceable.

    This is off topic. This thread is about a CascadeTownship Park.

    You has to understand that you may not be charged with trespassing, but a civil casemight be made in civil court with a suit against you using this to show liability. That is, you were there illegally and now you owe us money. Civil court is another animal altogether.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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