Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Settle a Debate

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    I'm not involved with this particular debate... it's amongst a friend and one of his other friends.

    My friends friend (we'll just call him Dude) has a CPL and is aware that open carry is legal. His family owns a bar in a not-so-great part of town. He frequently works "closing security" there... which basically consists of showing up around 10 pm and hanging out until closing time to make sure there are no issues; then he escorts the bar staff to their cars to make sure they are safe.

    He wants to start carrying a pistol with him at the bar for increased personal security. He apparently does not drink while he's working. I can't think of any lawful reason why he shouldn't be able to. Personally, I don't know if it's something I would do... but whatever. I can see his point that if he's already working security, why not up the ante on protection?

    Providing that he does not drink or violate laws (otherwise known as lawful purpose), are there any legal issues with him doing this? Obviously the pistol would HAVE to be carried openly and he HAS to have a CPL. If he's earning an income doing it, does this somehow violate any CPL laws? And let's say that a shooting DOES occur... what sort of trouble (if any) has he set himself up for by putting himself in the situation of highly increased risk of violence by working security in a bar with a pistol? Does he need any special certifications, approvals, or licenses to basically work as an armed guard?

    Maybe stupid questions... I'm just curious. It's a situation I haven't heard of before. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942

    Post imported post

    I don't see where legal ramifications would be any different than any other defensive situation, but I think there is something to be said for officially working security, and being bonded....not sure on this one.

    However...

    1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution. b) A church or other house of religious worship. c) A court. d) A theatre. e) A sports arena. f) A day care center. g) A hospital. h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act. (2) This section does not apply to any of the following: a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity. b) A peace officer. c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    He's legal in the eyes of the law.

    God forbid he gets sued though if he's not bonded.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    FatboyCykes wrote:
    I don't see where legal ramifications would be any different than any other defensive situation, but I think there is something to be said for officially working security, and being bonded....not sure on this one.

    However...
    That's really the question, I think. Does one need to be bonded to provide security? I mean, realistically, there are thousands of bouncers out there working for bars that are probably not only bonded (or whatever may be necessary), but are probably also paid under the table.

    Basically we're talking about a bouncer with a gun. By itself, a person (with a CPL) openly carrying in a bar does not violate any law. I guess my question is does anything change because he's working security in the bar?

    I don't think it would. But again, I'm not positive.

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

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    He's legal in the eyes of the law.

    God forbid he gets sued though if he's not bonded.
    Then I guess this begs the question: Should everyone who carries a pistol be bonded? If, under the eyes of the law, he is as legal as the rest of us... then why would he face the increased risk of lawsuit for not being bonded?

    Edited to Add: Or is, perhaps, the difference in the fact that he's being PAID to do it? And if this is the case, should anyone who works while carrying a gun (providing the employer allows it) be bonded? Nearly every gun store I've been to, every employee carries a gun. Let's say someone comes in and gets violent... unarmed techniques do not diffuse the situation and the hostility becomes potentially deadly and one of the employees shoots. Would they face any increased risk because it happened while they were being paid?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    He's legal in the eyes of the law.

    God forbid he gets sued though if he's not bonded.
    Then I guess this begs the question:¬* Should everyone who carries a pistol be bonded?¬* If, under the eyes of the law, he is as legal as the rest of us... then why would he face the increased risk of lawsuit for not being bonded?
    He faces increased chances of a lawsuit because he works security.

    Us regular people have more opportunity to avoid a situation entirely, whereas he has more obligation to (legally) stand his ground in security of the location.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    He faces increased chances of a lawsuit because he works security.

    Us regular people have more opportunity to avoid a situation entirely, whereas he has more obligation to (legally) stand his ground in security of the location.
    I'm not sure I agree with either statement. If working security is cause for increased chance of lawsuit, then wouldn't that mean that any bouncer in any bar would need to be bonded?

    And I don't think obligations change for a "regular" person as opposed to one who's working security. If I saw a person being assaulted, even as a non-security person, I would still intervene to assist. If I saw someone in the commission of a crime, felony or misdemeanor, I would still attempt to prevent it from occurring. There is no legal obligation for me, as a private citizen, to avoid these things. On the contrary, I feel it is my civic duty to do so... in the event that that police or other security are not on the scene to handle things.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    He faces increased chances of a lawsuit because he works security.
    Us regular people have more opportunity to avoid a situation entirely, whereas he has more obligation to (legally) stand his ground in security of the location. I'm not sure I agree with either statement.¬* If working security is cause for increased chance of lawsuit, then wouldn't that mean that any bouncer in any bar would need to be bonded?
    NEED? No. There's no legal requirement to have it. But if I were security, I'd get bonded.

    And I don't think obligations change for a "regular" person as opposed to one who's working security.¬* If I saw a person being assaulted, even as a non-security person, I would still intervene to assist.
    The difference is: You aren't likely to lose your job if you don't.

    If I saw someone in the commission of a crime, felony or misdemeanor, I would still attempt to prevent it from occurring. There is no legal obligation for me, as a private citizen, to avoid these things.¬* On the contrary, I feel it is my civic duty to do so... in the event that that police or other security are not on the scene to handle things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Per 28.425o:

    (b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    We're not talking about a contract employee. We're talking about a mom and pop establishment where he already works security. He's not REQUIRED to carry a gun, but the owners would ALLOW it if he WANTS to.

    I want to limit the scope entirely to this scenario.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    So, 'Dude' Wants to carry a pistol, not to defend the bar, but to defend him self? While the likeliness of having to defend yourself may or may not increase while working security. I see no reason to be bonded for fear of a civil suit. I'm not sure if there is a difference from defending life, or property in regards to a security guard bouncer whichever the case may be.

    There is certainly no legal reason he cannot carry in the bar, openly with his CPL. But if it's strong concern, consulting an Atty would help. Perhaps even the local PD could be of some assistance.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Since he's employed by the bar, why can't he carry concealed?

    28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; ‚Äúpremises‚ÄĚ defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.

    Sec. 5o.

    (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

    (d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business.


  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Since he's employed by the bar, why can't he carry concealed?

    28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; ‚Äúpremises‚ÄĚ defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.

    Sec. 5o.

    (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

    (d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business.
    I concur, he should be able to carry concealed. And he is not security, he just works for his family at the bar. He is just a nice guy that walks people to their car for safety reasons. So no need to be bonded. He would have all the protection of the stand your ground law as anyone else.

    I did this years ago when I worked in a bar. I walked the girls to their cars at night.
    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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Romulus/Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    I have been working the same format in a "not so good" neighborhood bar. Several problems in past weeks have resulted in LEO precense. They all know I carry and most of the time open carry. However when in the actual bar working, I do keep it concealed for retention(power drinker) reason's. 6 weeks, downriver, south of Detroit. local bar. Its to the point now, I really dont want anyone to know if I am or not carrying. I have taken several recent steps to ensure a very concealed carry posture. Although all the regular's guess, I am carrying. The only advise I can really offer is become truly freindly with local LEO's when you have to call them. Hope this helps...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Just make the bouncers at the bar wear camofluage (not your typical camo though, the backgrounds could be graffiti or what looks like a broken window)and hold AR-15's. This should keep the riff raff away

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Lets gets some half inch piping, a 1/16 HP electric motor, and fish tank pump, and all the ethanol/methanol you can get your hands on. Make a fully rotating, "Firing" M134 Minigun. Few hydraulic actuators and your good to go.

    I believe your all right in that an employee or owner can carry concealed in said bar with a CPL. But does your friend 'Dude' want to CC or OC? Best I can ascertain he's at liberty to choose whichever. Perhaps CC in the Bar, and OC while outside, that's what i would do. But, it's up to the individual.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    I don't know if he's on the payroll or not. My guess is he's getting paid under the table... if he's being paid at all. If there's not money changing hands (or if he's under the table), then he is considered an "employee"?

  18. #18
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    I don't know if he's on the payroll or not. My guess is he's getting paid under the table... if he's being paid at all. If there's not money changing hands (or if he's under the table), then he is considered an "employee"?

    I don't think dude even needs to be an employee to carry as long as he has the owners explicit permission.

    I trust I will be quickly corrected if I am an idiot

    United we STAND!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    (d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    BreakingTheMold wrote:
    (d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business.


    Which is my question: If he's not on payroll (either under the table or working for free just to help out), then is he not considered an employee? If so, then he NEEDS a CPL and he NEEDS to open carry.

  21. #21
    Regular Member ramblinfeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    houghton lake, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Which is my question: If he's not on payroll (either under the table or working for free just to help out), then is he not considered an employee? If so, then he NEEDS a CPL and he NEEDS to open carry.
    He CAN CC inside the bar with the permission of the owner, REGARDLES if his family own's the bar or not. If you have a CPL you can CC in a bar if you have the owner's permission. Even if the "primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises"...

    1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution. b) A church or other house of religious worship. c) A court. d) A theatre. e) A sports arena. f) A day care center. g) A hospital. h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act. (2) This section does not apply to any of the following: a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity. b) A peace officer. c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
    " My hat don't hang on the same nail too long, My ears can't stand to hear the same old song, I don't leave the highway long enough to bog down in the mud, i've got ramblin feaver in my blood " ..... Merle Haggard

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Obviously the pistol would HAVE to be carried openly and he HAS to have a CPL.
    Slightly off-topic, but why does one have to have a CPL in order to OC?

    If there is a thread about this already, please provide the link.

    Thanks.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Another issue not brought up....

    What if he uses it to stop a mugging while escorting employee to car?
    Bar is closed probably punched out and off the clock.
    Wouldn't this fall under a plain old citizen self defense, that just happened
    to take place at a bar?

    Is the money found on the ground reported as 'tips', or do you take your
    chances and pocket it? Love those drunks who keep cash in pocket with keys.


  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    RubberArm wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Obviously the pistol would HAVE to be carried openly and he HAS to have a CPL.
    Slightly off-topic, but why does one have to have a CPL in order to OC?

    If there is a thread about this already, please provide the link.

    Thanks.
    He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.


    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.
    So...

    WITH a CPL, one DOES NOT have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

    WITHOUT a CPL, one DOES have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

    OK. I do not see how having a CPL changes one's "right" to OC.



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
  •