Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: MSP opinion of County buildings & preemtive law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Does the Michigan preemptive law prevent county/city from prohibiting firearms within county buildings if the person carrying the firearm is in full compliance with Michigan and federal law?

    To my understanding the Preemptive law, does not allow lesser 'governments' to create oridances or laws that modify state and/or federal law.

    Thank you.

    Mr. xxxxxxxx,

    A local unit of government can restrict firearms in their government buildings for security purposes. They cannot create criminal violations for those restrictions.


    F/Lt. Matt Bolger
    Michigan State Police
    Executive Division
    714 S. Harrison Rd
    East Lansing, MI 48823
    (517) 336-6266




    (I probably could have worded my question a bit better... I guess I should have saved it as a document and re-proofed it a different day)

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

    Post imported post

    I'm about 99% certain that this person is incorrect. He needs to cite to statute on that one.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    I agree, unless there is perhaps a state or federal law that allows them to prohibit legal posession?


    I sent him a response earlier this morning.




    Thank you Matt, for taking the time to provide a response.

    I have discussed this issue further with several associates and believe that your analysis may be incorrect.

    FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)
    Act 319 of 1990

    123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms. Sec. 2.
    A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.



    I again thank you for your dealings with my question. I await your response.


    Thank you

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    Does the Michigan preemptive law prevent county/city from prohibiting firearms within county buildings if the person carrying the firearm is in full compliance with Michigan and federal law?

    To my understanding the Preemptive law, does not allow lesser 'governments' to create oridances or laws that modify state and/or federal law.

    Thank you.

    Mr. xxxxxxxx,

    A local unit of government can restrict firearms in their government buildings for security purposes. They cannot create criminal violations for those restrictions.


    F/Lt. Matt Bolger
    Michigan State Police
    Executive Division
    714 S. Harrison Rd
    East Lansing, MI 48823
    (517) 336-6266




    (I probably could have worded my question a bit better... I guess I should have saved it as a document and re-proofed it a different day)
    He's wrong.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Spoke to a local city Sgt today at the PD.

    I asked him about the county buildings and Michigan preemption law, showing him a copy of it while conversating.

    He stated that if a county or city wants to prohibit you from carrying in their buildings, they can. I asked him to define posession. He stated the reference to posession is "being on your property, such as your land or vehicle" and this law could not stop local governments from prohibiting people with firearms in their county buildings.

    I then said, "Being that open carry is legal in Michigan, if I were to open carry how then is posession defined?"

    He said this law does not pertain to the carrying of a firearm and that I was interperating it wrong.

    He was being polite and discussing it with me in a professional and friendly way. I didn't quite no how to respond at this time, and told him it was a little research project I was doing. I ended the coversation there.

    EDIT:
    Oh yeah, and when I asked him to cite the municipal code that allowed local governments to make these regulations, he said "I believe that is up to you to find."

    Guess I shouldn't have told him it was a research project.
    LOL



  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    It appears that they believe that if they prohibit firearms but don't make a violation a criminal act, then they are OK... WOW... this is insane. Sounds like they are just parsing words. Perhaps we need to think about how we can get a clearly stated opinion on this from the AG or even Sgt. Deasy w/ MSP. This needs to be cleared up!
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    It appears that they believe that if they prohibit firearms but don't make a violation a criminal act, then they are OK... WOW... this is insane. Sounds like they are just parsing words. Perhaps we need to think about how we can get a clearly stated opinion on this from the AG or even Sgt. Deasy w/ MSP. This needs to be cleared up!
    This is exactly what I was thinking!

    EDIT: Just noticed your wording compared to his. His says they cannot CREATE violations, not that it wasn't already an existing violation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    It appears that they believe that if they prohibit firearms but don't make a violation a criminal act, then they are OK... WOW... this is insane. Sounds like they are just parsing words. Perhaps we need to think about how we can get a clearly stated opinion on this from the AG or even Sgt. Deasy w/ MSP. This needs to be cleared up!
    X 2

  9. #9
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    talking to tom now.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    talking to tom now.
    Forgive my naiveness, but whose Tom?


  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Ok, first off Sgt. Thomas Deasy is no longer with that division. He is no working Internal Affairs.

    He knows Matt Bolger and is in disagreement with him on this issue.

    He feels that what Bolger may have meant is that they can tell you or post a sign if they like but there is nothing they can do about it.

    So basically if you are toldthat you can'tbring your gun in or if you see a sign and do it anyway, they can't do anything about it.

    I asked for him to have a chat with Bolger and see if he would send a more clear e-mail to theoriginal poster of this thread.


    Deasy also said that this is exactly what MCRGO v Ferndale was about.

    (Guns on city property including inside buildings)

    http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news...amp;zoneid=100

  12. #12
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    talking to tom now.
    Forgive my naiveness, but whose Tom?
    Sgt. Thomas Deasy

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Ok, first off Sgt. Thomas Deasy is no longer with that division. He is no working Internal Affairs.

    He knows Matt Bolger and is in disagreement with him on this issue.

    He feels that what Bolger may have meant is that they can tell you or post a sign if they like but there is nothing they can do about it.

    So basically if you are toldthat you can'tbring your gun in or if you see a sign and do it anyway, they can't do anything about it.

    I asked for him to have a chat with Bolger and see if he would send a more clear e-mail to theoriginal poster of this thread.

    Very nice. Thank you.

    So basically if you are toldthat you can'tbring your gun in or if you see a sign and do it anyway, they can't do anything about it.
    LOL - After receiving the response I got from the Sgt. at the local PD, not sure I'd want to test that theory. (I'd love to be a patriot, but I can't afford any trouble. Finances are... non-existant)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    I called the Sgt @ my local PD and told him about the MCRGO v. Ferndale.

    I offered to send the information to him via E-mail. He complied.

    I sent him the link you provided and also this one:
    long url

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    I just got a reply from Matt... sigh.


    Mr. xxxxxxxxx,

    If you have a concern with the actions of a local unit of government, you should contact the governing board of that body. MSP does not have any supervisory authority over other forms of government.

    F/Lt. Matt Bolger
    Michigan State Police
    Executive Division
    714 S. Harrison Rd
    East Lansing, MI 48823
    (517) 336-6266
    Sorry for the 3x post. All things happening at different times =/

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner

    w
    hat part of or regulate in any other manner don't they understand!


  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    So it appears that by F/Lt. Bolger taking over for Sgt. Deasy, we have lost the ability to get a clear interpretation of state law from the MSP. Although not necessarily "terrible", I think that all OCers/CCers should be concerned.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    The only county building I can remember ever going to is Oakland County's.

    They have no weapon rules and metal detectors at the entrance, which I believe they can do because a court room is in that building. Perhaps other county buildings can do the same because they have courts on the premises?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    The only county building I can remember ever going to is Oakland County's.

    They have no weapon rules and metal detectors at the entrance, which I believe they can do because a court room is in that building. Perhaps other county buildings can do the same because they have courts on the premises?
    The rules may be in the ordinances. However I'm not sure if federal law states court room or court house. I would assume house to be the building in which the court rooms reside. Again, not sure what the exact law is, nor wether my assumption is correct.

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    So basically if you are toldthat you can'tbring your gun in or if you see a sign and do it anyway, they can't do anything about it.
    [line]dougwg wrote here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/31399-4.html
    "If you know there's a sign and you know that firearms are not welcome and you still enter then you ARE trespassing. Because you are being notified that you are not welcome."
    [line]This is confusing.

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

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    The only county building I can remember ever going to is Oakland County's.

    They have no weapon rules and metal detectors at the entrance, which I believe they can do because a court room is in that building. Perhaps other county buildings can do the same because they have courts on the premises?
    They also have a no voice recorder/camera "rule". I think both of these "rules" should only carry the weight of policy, not law. In regards to the firearms part, Michigan law states "court room", not "court room building". Since preemtion was passed, I think the "policy" is against the law, just like all the other local units of gov't rules on firearms possession. Didn't someone walk in there in the recent past with a couple handguns in his bag, and get arrested? A doctor, or something, IIRC. Brian, I heard that from you. I haven't heard anything more on it.
    "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
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954

    Post imported post

    I've been in the Ingham County Sheriff's office in Mason, and I don't recall any "No Weapons" signs. Then again, I wasn't going to the jail either. That I know is a no-no.

    The Lansing PD (downtown) has a no weapons sign and metal detectors, and I believe they use the excuse that the building also has court rooms in it.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  23. #23
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    In my firearms law book it states; 750.234d (1) Exept as provided in subsection(2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

    (c) a court

    (2) This section does not apply to the following:

    (c) A person licensed by this state or any other 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.

    Are we not owners of public buildings?
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    hamaneggs wrote:
    Are we not owners of public buildings?
    If that's true, I have a lot of property for sale.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    The main thing that makes it not legally permissible to carry in a court is a Michigan Supreme Court ruling. I don't remember what it is off hand, but hopefully someone else does.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

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
  •