MSP opinion of County buildings & preemtive law

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

imported post

hamaneggs wrote:

Are we not owners of public buildings?

Click to expand...

If that's true, I have a lot of property for sale.

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.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

...but that's a ruling from a panel of judges, not legislation. Is legislation from the bench legal?

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

...but that's a ruling from a panel of judges, not legislation. Is legislation from the bench legal?

Click to expand...

So far it is. And it will continue to be so, until challenged.....in court. Aw crap, we're gonna lose.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I read not too long ago that a judge in Hillsdale county was allowing people to carry in his court.

imported post

hamaneggs wrote:

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I read not too long ago that a judge in Hillsdale county was allowing people to carry in his court.

Click to expand...

Into the court house, not the court room. The "edict" was issued by the state supreme court, and AFAIK, he can't ignore it. There was a correction about his policy in several news papers.

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

...but that's a ruling from a panel of judges, not legislation. Is legislation from the bench legal?

Click to expand...

It is not the product of a court ruling per se...the reasoning behind the court rule banning weapons stems from the separation of powers as expressed in the Michigan constitution. The courts, as a separate and equal power to both the legislative and executive branches of Michigan government, does not need adhere to policies that are promulgated by the legislature.

Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1 states that weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy. Each court is required to submit a written policy conforming with this order to the State Court Administrator for approval. Courts are encouraged to collaborate with other entities in shared facilities and, where appropriate, to work with local funding units in developing the policy, which may be a separate plan or part of a general security program. Violation of the Administrative orders may result in a contempt of court charge; it is not a "criminal act" in and of itself.

The model "court rule" can be found here:
Word document: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao/lao15-model.doc
Word Perfect Document: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao/LAO8-model.wpd
Rich Text Format: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao/LAO8-model.rtf

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

...but that's a ruling from a panel of judges, not legislation. Is legislation from the bench legal?

Click to expand...

No it is not, the judges have no legal controlling authority(to coin a phrase by Al Bore) over the issue, so there for I do not have to abide by it. Tho does any one have the money to fight the issue?

imported post

I just left the Oakland County government complex where I was submitting my CPL Renewal. The part that really burns me up is when they send you to the Records Division of the Sheriff's department to get finger printed. That building is completely separate and in fact across the street from the Court building.

Yet when you enter you see 2 large signs. The first simply says "No Loaded Firearms beyond this point".. and right next to it is an equally large sign that says (paraphrasing) "Attention CPL holders. Do NOT bring Loaded Firearms into this building".

Interesting that they don't mind I guess if you unload your gun, then come in. However I don't think they have the legal ground to prevent loaded weapons in their public building. Is anyone working on this with Sheriff Bouchard?

imported post

atlantis wrote:

I just left the Oakland County government complex where I was submitting my CPL Renewal. The part that really burns me up is when they send you to the Records Division of the Sheriff's department to get finger printed. That building is completely separate and in fact across the street from the Court building.

Yet when you enter you see 2 large signs. The first simply says "No Loaded Firearms beyond this point".. and right next to it is an equally large sign that says (paraphrasing) "Attention CPL holders. Do NOT bring Loaded Firearms into this building".

Interesting that they don't mind I guess if you unload your gun, then come in. However I don't think they have the legal ground to prevent loaded weapons in their public building. Is anyone working on this with Sheriff Bouchard?

Click to expand...

The sign is unenforceable as long as there is no courts in that building.

imported post

Isn't the OC records dept in the same building as the jail?

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

Isn't the OC records dept in the same building as the jail?

Click to expand...

Jails are not gun free per se. The secured area of course is, but just because the jail is in the same building doesn't mean preemption doesn't apply. Clinton County jail is in the sheriff's department (same building), but the lobby is not gun free.

imported post

Venator wrote:

CoonDog wrote:

Isn't the OC records dept in the same building as the jail?

Click to expand...

Jails are not gun free per se. The secured area of course is, but just because the jail is in the same building doesn't mean preemption doesn't apply. Clinton County jail is in the sheriff's department (same building), but the lobby is not gun free.

Click to expand...

Power and Smoke throw in a Mirror now and then !Good sign maker helps ?Read ,question Know !!!

imported post

I thought that the OC sheriff wannabee guv was a proponent of gun rights.

I guess just not in his backyard.:?

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

I thought that the OC sheriff wannabee guv was a proponent of gun rights.

I guess just not in his backyard.:?

Click to expand...

My guess would be, like a lot of "so-called" pro-gun proponents, he only favors concealed carry, and not open carry, since no permit is required to OC.

But that's only a guess on my part.