• 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.

Compromise in Order to Accomplish?

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
I have a bigger problem w/ the sign issue... just leads to a possible decision we don't like. You're focusing on giving the sign more power over the CPL, and I'm focusing on giving the CPL more power over the sign. I think that's the difference between our perspectives.

I'm not asking for lawmakers to consider redefining what a sign means, but to consider redefining what a CPL means. The signs "power" (for lack of a better word), for all intents and purposes, will remain unchanged. Only the CPL's power will change... as in the power to avoid prosecution for trespassing (or any other prosecutions that may come from needing to legally use your weapon in defense of yourself and others) for choosing to conceal.

Also, since people don't want to get CPL or can't afford, what do they do under Veritas' proposal. Too many hopes for the legislature to uphold granting more privileges and, if we give in on any point, it opens the door for further regulation. This doesn't just apply to CPL holders. I'm calling for the opening of firearm carrying in all areas that currently require a CPL. Schools, bars, movie theaters, etc. But only if weapons are OPEN CARRIED in such places. Currently, you NEED a CPL to open carry in these places. I'm saying we should scrap that... I'm saying that a CPL should have nothing to do with the practice of open carrying; that it should deal with CONCEAL carry ONLY. In addition to making it legal to open carry in these places without a CPL, I propose that the CPL lift the restrictions that currently prohibit us from concealing in said same.

So these folks who can't afford CPL's would now be Constitutionally-protected in open carrying their pistol in Meijer (or other liquor stores), movie theaters, etc. without comitting a felony. And, in the event that these private property owners put up a sign that can charge you with trespassing for open carrying, that a CPL holder should be able to circumvent that by conceal-carrying in said same without committing felony CCW.

I propose allowing the property owners the right to post signs preventing open carriers from entering without being charged with trespassing (as things currently stand... I am merely proposing that it remains unchanged). NOTE: I am not suggesting these signs make it illegal to carry a firearm, but rather. they make it illegal for YOU TO ENTER with a firearm. There are no firearms violations, but you would be trespassing. I support protecting private property rights in this manner.

However, I support that those with CPL's should be able to disregard these signs in public places (I'm talking about places open to the public, but that are privately owned, which is different from private residences), as we can already. But I seek to add the element of protection for CPL holders only (as part of our earned privilige) of not facing charges of trespassing (or any other offense), if we are to draw our weapon in defense of ourselves or others.

This is pretty much it.
 

SpringerXDacp

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

Veritas wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
This is not entirely correct. LE is (on or off-duty) expected to respect the rights of a businesses that are posted, unless they are in the course of their duties.
Police officers, even when off duty, can carry weapons in many places that you or I cannot; albeit concealed. An off duty police officer can conceal a gun in a bar, movie theater, stadium, school, etc, etc.

A weapon that remains concealed gives a property owner no cause to believe you are violating their "no firearms" provision. If they don't know, they can't enforce it upon you. Add to this, the fact, that carrying a concealed firearm despite a "no firearms" sign on private property does not mean you are breaking any law. You are trespassing, at best, and that's only if you saw the sign and entered, or were asked to leave and refused.

An off duty police officer can be asked to leave an establishment just as easily as any one of us. And yet they still have the privilege of carrying (concealed or otherwise) many places that we don't.

I stand by my assertion.
Veritas, I did not say you were wrong nor am I disagreeing with you. I simply mentioned you were not entirely correct. Yes, I am fully aware of the legalities of No Firearms signs with respect to CPL holders here in Michigan while frequenting a posted business. I completely understand the frustration involved with CPZ's, especially, for CPL holders. IOW, don't shoot the messenger, mmmkay?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

I think you need to research property rights, and then come back to your idea. I could discuss this until I'm blue in the face, but without this understanding, you will not see the folly of your endeavor. I understand what you are trying to do but it is really an impossibility. There is absolutely no way that property rights will be lessened to the degree you wish... it even is not as weak as you aver in regards to the LEO on the premises.

Like I said, the argument for the removal of all no carry zones (CPL or not) is very strong, and other restrictions on carrying firearms are also logically questionable, if not violative of 2A rights.

But you are asking to solve another problem which I believe does not exist. If you find any information to the contrary by way of recent court cases, I'm listening. Show me a number of cases where signage, firearms, and trespassing have come into play in any business, and I may support your argument. Until then, I think you are potentially creating a huge problem.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

390JOE wrote:
with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever.
I agree. And if this were the case (which I hope it becomes), then what good, really, would a CPL be?

Right now, we realistically "need" CPL's to carry. Unless you're walking everywhere you go (to work, to school, to the store, etc), or you are disarming yourself and storing your weapon for transport every time you get in a vehicle, you pretty much need to have a CPLt o carry. If you plan on grocery shopping in most stores (that sell liquor), you need to have a CPL to carry.

These are all situation in which you should be able to carry, without prior permission from the State, in accordance with 2A rights. If this became the case (and I again, I support it becoming so), then why would many people go through the hassle of getting a CPL? Most probably wouldn't... not unless they really just had an aversion to open carrying. And I suppose there are many people out there, for whatever reason, that prefer to conceal carry rather than open carry. For these folks, going through the hassle of getting a CPL may be justified. But I believe that MOST people get a CPL because they THINK they need it to carry, or they simply realize that it's just EASIER to carry with one. I am certainly one of those people... I have a CPL only because it's EASIER to carry... not because I think I need it, or because I have an aversion to my pistol being visible.

All this aside, even if lawful (open) carry became legal everywhere, those who live in repressive communities or have dealings with anti 2A businesses are still not out of the woods. Someones local theater might put up a "no firearms" sign. A rural Walmart, the only store in town, might do the same. Maybe your friendly, neighborhood, bank says "No Guns". This is where a CPL would come in handy. Now folks have the ability to lawfully conceal their firearms and enter these businesses. If they're not being searched at the door (such as they might at a concert venue or some bars), the property owners don't know you're armed, and therefore have no cause to pursue trespassing charges against you; or to make you choose between protecting yourself or conducting busnesses that may be necessary in your life. Score one point for the CPL for allowing you to be armed, despite "house rules" that forbid you to enter with a gun.

These would be situations in which private property rights are being upheld (no firearm "exists" if they never know you have it), but that your CPL privilige has allowed you to remain protected. Same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

Now, you're in one of these repressive community stores when a gunman comes in opening fire. You are concealing a pistol, and in defense of yourself and others, you draw it and return fire. You're the hero of the day... except for one problem: You have trespassed by bringing a firearm onto the premises, even though the owner's sign said "NO". It may be a slap on the wrist, but you still face charges.

A CPL should protect you from this; same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Veritas wrote:
390JOE wrote:
with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever.
I agree. And if this were the case (which I hope it becomes), then what good, really, would a CPL be?

Right now, we realistically "need" CPL's to carry. Unless you're walking everywhere you go (to work, to school, to the store, etc), or you are disarming yourself and storing your weapon for transport every time you get in a vehicle, you pretty much need to have a CPLt o carry. If you plan on grocery shopping in most stores (that sell liquor), you need to have a CPL to carry.

These are all situation in which you should be able to carry, without prior permission from the State, in accordance with 2A rights. If this became the case (and I again, I support it becoming so), then why would many people go through the hassle of getting a CPL? Most probably wouldn't... not unless they really just had an aversion to open carrying. And I suppose there are many people out there, for whatever reason, that prefer to conceal carry rather than open carry. For these folks, going through the hassle of getting a CPL may be justified. But I believe that MOST people get a CPL because they THINK they need it to carry, or they simply realize that it's just EASIER to carry with one. I am certainly one of those people... I have a CPL only because it's EASIER to carry... not because I think I need it, or because I have an aversion to my pistol being visible.

All this aside, even if lawful (open) carry became legal everywhere, those who live in repressive communities or have dealings with anti 2A businesses are still not out of the woods. Someones local theater might put up a "no firearms" sign. A rural Walmart, the only store in town, might do the same. Maybe your friendly, neighborhood, bank says "No Guns". This is where a CPL would come in handy. Now folks have the ability to lawfully conceal their firearms and enter these businesses. If they're not being searched at the door (such as they might at a concert venue or some bars), the property owners don't know you're armed, and therefore have no cause to pursue trespassing charges against you; or to make you choose between protecting yourself or conducting busnesses that may be necessary in your life. Score one point for the CPL for allowing you to be armed, despite "house rules" that forbid you to enter with a gun.

These would be situations in which private property rights are being upheld (no firearm "exists" if they never know you have it), but that your CPL privilige has allowed you to remain protected. Same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

Now, you're in one of these repressive community stores when a gunman comes in opening fire. You are concealing a pistol, and in defense of yourself and others, you draw it and return fire. You're the hero of the day... except for one problem: You have trespassed by bringing a firearm onto the premises, even though the owner's sign said "NO". It may be a slap on the wrist, but you still face charges.

A CPL should protect you from this; same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.
A sign has no power in and of itself, whether you have a CPL or not, so the point is moot.

Nothing will inherently protect you from charges... they can charge anything. Like I said, I agree on the no carry zones and, if looked at logically, they will be defeated. But to ask that the signage issue be explored has the potential for huge problems with no possible benefit. The the only place signage MAY come into play is an "entertainment facility", and there are ways around that. A place is only prohibited by law or by the owner specifically informing you that it is prohibited. You can change the law, but the owner will always have the right to ask you to leave. That is all. They can not successfully prosecute someone for ignoring these signs... if they can, please cite and I will reconsider. You are asking for an assurance which can not be provided.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Veritas wrote:
390JOE wrote:
with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever.
I agree. And if this were the case (which I hope it becomes), then what good, really, would a CPL be?

Right now, we realistically "need" CPL's to carry. Unless you're walking everywhere you go (to work, to school, to the store, etc), or you are disarming yourself and storing your weapon for transport every time you get in a vehicle, you pretty much need to have a CPLt o carry. If you plan on grocery shopping in most stores (that sell liquor), you need to have a CPL to carry.

These are all situation in which you should be able to carry, without prior permission from the State, in accordance with 2A rights. If this became the case (and I again, I support it becoming so), then why would many people go through the hassle of getting a CPL? Most probably wouldn't... not unless they really just had an aversion to open carrying. And I suppose there are many people out there, for whatever reason, that prefer to conceal carry rather than open carry. For these folks, going through the hassle of getting a CPL may be justified. But I believe that MOST people get a CPL because they THINK they need it to carry, or they simply realize that it's just EASIER to carry with one. I am certainly one of those people... I have a CPL only because it's EASIER to carry... not because I think I need it, or because I have an aversion to my pistol being visible.

All this aside, even if lawful (open) carry became legal everywhere, those who live in repressive communities or have dealings with anti 2A businesses are still not out of the woods. Someones local theater might put up a "no firearms" sign. A rural Walmart, the only store in town, might do the same. Maybe your friendly, neighborhood, bank says "No Guns". This is where a CPL would come in handy. Now folks have the ability to lawfully conceal their firearms and enter these businesses. If they're not being searched at the door (such as they might at a concert venue or some bars), the property owners don't know you're armed, and therefore have no cause to pursue trespassing charges against you; or to make you choose between protecting yourself or conducting busnesses that may be necessary in your life. Score one point for the CPL for allowing you to be armed, despite "house rules" that forbid you to enter with a gun.

These would be situations in which private property rights are being upheld (no firearm "exists" if they never know you have it), but that your CPL privilige has allowed you to remain protected. Same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

Now, you're in one of these repressive community stores when a gunman comes in opening fire. You are concealing a pistol, and in defense of yourself and others, you draw it and return fire. You're the hero of the day... except for one problem: You have trespassed by bringing a firearm onto the premises, even though the owner's sign said "NO". It may be a slap on the wrist, but you still face charges.

A CPL should protect you from this; same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.
If you protect yourself ina business with signage posted stating "No Firearms", you are still in a place you can legally be until you are told that you are not and, after you leave, you return or you refuse to leave. Now, if they told you before and yet you carried, then you would have a point(perhaps). Or you refused to leave and then shot the owner as he took his pistol out to force you out of the store, you would have a problem. Please find caselaw to support a situation such as you propose... because of a sign, a person who would otherwise be immune from prosecution is now convicted of crime for his actions. (Don't forget common law protections, which more than likely would not prohibit charges but would protect from successful prosecution)
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
Veritas,

What I think you are proposing is for guns owners to stay in the closet until we get all our gun rights back. No, I am proposing that, only in places where personal property rights preempt 2A rights, that we secede to accept concealing IF the property owner does not permit open carry. This is in contrast to boycotting businesses that don't permit OC.

I am in no way proposing that we force ourselves to conceal in areas where 2A preempts all.


I'm fine with any business that wants to ban firearms, but we have had more luck getting large corporations to welcome lawful carry than there are those that oppose it. And if they do oppose it we can try and change that policy. This is my argument... that I think we should attack the law and not private policies. If a business doesn't want firearms on their premises, so be it... let's conceal them. If they never see our firearm, they are none the wiser. But if they happen to see our firearm because we need to use it in protection of ourselves or others, then I'm calling for the law to protect us.

I think the OC movement has done far more good than bad in regards to firearm rights. I'm not disputing this. But as it becomes larger, businesses may decide to avoid the whole issue by putting up a $2 sign; rather than deal threats of boycotts and harassment from people (i.e. flooding their email inboxes) who refuse to accept the fact that their property rights preempt our 2A rights.

I'm not advocating compromising in places where preemption doesn't apply. Want to walk down the street open carrying? Go ahead. Want to go to a city park open carrying? Go ahead. Want to mow your lawn open carrying? Go ahead. But if you want to shop at Store XYZ open carrying, and they tell you NO, then we must accept that as their right. A good compromise, one that allows us to still be armed but without violating the stores ideals, is to simply accept concealment.

I believe that if we can establish ourselves as willing to drop the issue of "OC every time, all the time", that we can buy ourselves support from more folks. I believe that if we show that we're willing to respect other people's rights, without trying to force them under duress of economic sanctions into changing their policy, that we will make more friends.

To me, the idea of flooding someones inbox or telling them you will campaign against them because they invoked a right is counterproductive. I believe we should respect their rights, just as we are asking them to respect ours... and to take our other issues up with lawmakers. Issues that ammend some of the dichontomies in the current law, as well as provide an additional layer of protection for those of us who might still choose to conceal (rather than boycott) a business who says they don't want firearms on their property.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
A sign has no power in and of itself, whether you have a CPL or not, so the point is moot. Just so nobody minces words about the definition of "power" here, I will concede that a sign LITERALLY has no power... but that those who post it have the power to ENFORCE it. Now that that's out of the way...

I disagree that a sign has no power. A stop sign has power... roll through one with an officer watching and you will see. A "No Trespassing" sign has power... cross over an unfenced boundary with this sign posted and you will see.

A "No Weapons" sign has power. If you enter the zone with a weapon, you are trespassing. The sign does not (because it cannot) make the carrying of a firearm illegal. It does, however, prohibit YOU, while carrying a firearm, from entering. This said, it's easy to say "Well, I didn't see the sign." And in many cases, this might work... especially when the notice is one little blurb at the bottom of a long list of rules that is located in an indiscriminate location that is not highly visible. But visible rules posted an entrance of a building serves as a contract. By entering, you agree to them. If you disagree with them, you can choose not to enter. If one of these rules is "no firearms", then you agree to not carry firearms... you voluntarily waive that right by entering the premises.

Bulk warehouses (Costco, Sams Club, etc) can stipulate that a condition of membership is not to bring firearms on the premises. If you violate this condition, there may be repurcussions. Your membership can be revoked, nonrefundable.

Signs/notices do have power. But they only have power insomuch that you are aware of their existence. If a "No Trespassing" sign is hidden by brush and there are no fences or discernable bounderies, then you can be asked to leave without being charged. Refusal to leave is grounds to be charged. Entering while aware is grounds to be charged. It all comes down to notice. When were you advised that your behavior/actions were not permitted?

Nothing will inherently protect you from charges... they can charge anything. Like I said, I agree on the no carry zones and, if looked at logically, they will be defeated. But to ask that the signage issue be explored has the potential for huge problems with no possible benefit.

The the only place signage MAY come into play is an "entertainment facility", and there are ways around that. Thank you... another example of how a sign matters. If a movie theater prominantly displays, "This theater has a seating capacity of 3,500 persons. Firearms prohibited.", are you going to conceal or open carry there?

If you conceal carry, and are caught, you've just committed a felony. If you open carry, and are caught, you have just trespassed. In either case, you can argue that you didn't see the sign. And in many cases, it might work in your favor. But if it comes down to facing a felony charge, I think most of us would err on the side of caution and simply choose not to conceal. We MAY try to get away with open carrying, knowing that 99.99% of the time, we're going to be asked to leave (which is really our SECOND warning) before they come right out and charge us with trespassing.

A "No Firearms" sign is a condition of entry. If you don't meet that condition, then the sign, for all intents and purposes, says "No Trespassing". If someone violates a "No Tresspassing" sign on my property, I can choose to confront them and ask them to leave. 99.99% of the time, that's what's going to happen. But I still retain the right to press charges on them for trespassing WITHOUT ever engaging them. I could simply call the police, tell them someone is on my land without permission, and have them taken away. The same can happen if you carry an open firearm past a "No Firearms" sign. They are under NO legal obligation to talk to you first. They can call the police, tell them a man with a gun has violated their no firearms policy, and have you taken away.

A place is only prohibited by law or by the owner specifically informing you that it is prohibited. If you see the sign, then you have specificially informed. If you sign the contract, then you have been specifically informed.

You can change the law, but the owner will always have the right to ask you to leave. That is all. I understand this. As I said before, you can be asked to leave for any reason... even if they don't like your shoes.

What I'm saying is that if you are carrying a concealed weapon, and for whatever reason, that weapon becomes visible (maybe you have to use it in protection of yourself or others; or maybe it prints slightly on your shirt) that our CPL should protect us from being charged with trespassing by virtue of written notice alone. If the weapon becomes visible, and you are verbally asked to leave, so be it. That's their right. But if your weapon becomes visible, for whatever reason (lawful purposes only, obviously), then I believe that our CPL should protect us from being charged with minor offenses (like trespassing).

They can not successfully prosecute someone for ignoring these signs... if they can, please cite and I will reconsider. I can't prove it, but I can tell you with absolute certaintity that two friends of mine, in high school, were found guillty of trespassing when they ignored signs that said "Employees Only".

A "No Firearms" sign may as well read "Unarmed Patrons Only". It may as well read "If You Carry a Firearm Onto These Premises, You Are Not Welcome and Will Be Considered Tresspassing"

Trespassing is to be somewhere without permission. If you are carrying a gun in a "No Firearms" zone, you are doing so without permission.

All of this is fundemental, and it's frustrating to have to explain it. I figured these were pretty common understandings. Getting back to the point of the thread, I am not saying these signs should be interpreted to mean anything more than they state. I am not saying that they should be given some mysterious power. I am not saying that the verbiage should be legally redefined.

The reality is that a concealed weapon, so long as it STAYS CONCEALED shouldn't ever be an issue anyway. Right now, if you knowingly ignore a "No Firearms" sign, then you have trespassed. However, nobody is going to know as long as you keep your weapon concealed. But if someone comes in shooting the place up, and you draw and fire, you CAN be charged with trespassing by ignoring the sign.

The most frustrating part is that this "sign issue" is not even a major point of what I'm proposing. You have made a big stinking mess out of a very minor detail. This detail was more of a "Oh, and by the way..." rather than "Let's overhaul the whole system because of this ONE issue". I'm merely saying that while we're under the hood replacing the entire engine, let's check the air in the tires as well.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
If you protect yourself ina business with signage posted stating "No Firearms", you are still in a place you can legally be WRONG. The sign tells you that you cannot be there with a firearm, so if you ignore that sign, and then use your firearm, you were there illegally. You have trespassed, at the very least.

... until you are told that you are not... The sign tells you, in writing, that you are not.

Let's try this another way: Let's say I'm deaf. If a store manager can't speak sign language, and I can't hear him or read lips, how is he going to tell me that I can't have firearms on his premises? He's probably going to point me to the sign... and that is sufficient legal advice to tell me to leave or face trespassing charges.

Notice does not have to come in special form. As long as it's viable notice, it counts. If I'm blind and can't read the sign, verbal notice will suffice (although I'm not sure a blind man should be carrying a gun). If I'm deaf and can't hear the instructions, then written notice will suffice.


Now, if they told you before and yet you carried, then you would have a point(perhaps). A sign does tell you before. It's a condition of entry. By entering, you agree to the terms and conditions posted at the door. That is advanced notice. Refusal to heed is grounds to be charged with trespassing.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

All of this said, I am done talking about the issues of signs. Again, it is such a minor point... it's not worth detracting from the overall issue.

I only mentioned them because signage, when COMBINED with legal CPL restrictions, can create a bona-fide pistol free zone. To lift conceal restrictions would take care of this problem; but it does not completely remove the issue of liability from the concealer if the gun is used to defend themselves.

I don't want this discussion to become about what a sign means when you're open carrying... it's not at all the point of the discussion. I'm merely seeking to cover a small, POTENTIAL loophole/liability that our CPL doesn't protect us from when it comes to these signs.
 

RubberArm

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
51
Location
Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
imported post

According to MCRGO's Daniel Bambery,

A private person can set their own rules for people on their property. If a private property owner (not a government of public agency) forbids the possession of weapons on their property, violation of that rule is punished under the trespass statute. A person must be asked (told) to leave before any legal consequences can attach.
emphasis added


Must be asked/told to leave.

If Mr. Bambery is correct, then a sign is not enough to invoke trespassing.

Further, if an establishment has a sign expressing the owner(s) and/or their agent(s) desire to disallow firearms, then it behooves us to honor their wishes. Whether that is by not bringing firearms into the establishment or by not entering the establishment.

In addition, trying to get legislation passed that would essentially remove the owner's rights to a greater degree than they are already (i.e. LEO's, judges, etc.) would be wrong and immoral IMO. The ends do not justify the means.

That is akin to saying, "well, we can't beat 'em with the Constitution, then let's join 'em with legislation."

Edited to add the entire contents of Mr. Bambery's article in case anyone was interested:

Monday, July 20, 2009

Open Carry of a Pistol
by Daniel Bambery

Open carry of a pistol is best described as what it isn't. It is not concealed. Some courts have described open carry as visible or open to observation. Carrying a pistol in a holster outside clothing uncovered by coat or shirt is clearly open carry. Certain people are forbidden to even own firearms, but that is an issue for another day.

I
There is no blanket prohibition on the carrying of a pistol by a person who can legally own a pistol. Therefore we have to look at what types of carrying of a pistol are forbidden. It is a crime to...

1. carry a concealed pistol except in your own dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by you without a concealed pistol license (CPL).
2. carry a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, whether or not concealed, without a CPL.
3. carry a pistol in certain places without permission or CPL, unless you are a LEO (a depository financial institution, a church or other house of religious worship, a court, a theatre, a sports arena, a day care center, a hospital, an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act).
4. carry a pistol with unlawful intent.
5. carry a pistol while bow hunting without a CPL.
6. carry a pistol while less than 18 years old unless hunting or at a shooting range.
7. carry a pistol while intoxicated.
8. carry a pistol in any area frequented by wild animals without a hunting license or CPL.
9. carry a firearm while working as a volunteer conservation officer.

II
If a person has a CPL s/he is allowed to carry everywhere in Michigan without violating the criminal law. A person with a CPL does not forfeit their right to 'open carry' where appropriate. However there are certain places a person with a CPL cannot carry without violating the restrictions of the CPL and committing a civil infraction. (A second offense is a misdemeanor.) There are limited exceptions such as law enforcement officers (LEO's) and retired judges. These are the "Pistol Free Zones":

1. A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school.
2. A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.
3. A sports arena or stadium.
4. A bar or tavern that gets 50% of its income from the sale liquor by the glass unless an owner or employee of the business.
5. Any property or facility owned or operated by a place of worship, without permission.
6. An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more.
7. A hospital.
8. A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
9. A casino.

III
Michigan State University, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University were all established by the Michigan Constitution and given some legislative powers. They have all forbidden the possession of firearms on their campuses. MSU allows CPL holders to carry in the open areas of the campus. Violations of these rules are punishable as violations of university rules and can result in heavy sanctions for students and employees and barring from the campus for others.

IV
All courts in Michigan are required by the Michigan Supreme Court to have a "Court Security Plan". Most courts forbid the carrying of weapons by anyone not a LEO. Violations of these prohibitions are neither crimes nor civil violations but are punishable as contempt of court.

V
A private person can set their own rules for people on their property. If a private property owner (not a government of public agency) forbids the possession of weapons on their property, violation of that rule is punished under the trespass statute. A person must be asked (told) to leave before any legal consequences can attach. Occasionally a state regulated business is required by the state to forbid the possession of firearms. Casinos must not allow anyone, even their own security personnel, other than LEO's and armored car guards to carry a firearm on their premises. A person attempting open carry at a casino would be ejected. It is the interplay between these rules that is often confusing. For example, a person without a CPL cannot open carry in a sports arena; and, commits a crime if he/she does so. While a person with a CPL is also forbidden to carry in a sports arena but only commits a civil infraction if s/he does so.
 
Top