Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: [UPDATE] Midland County Department of Human Services Firearm Policy

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

    Post imported post

    Thank you for sharing your concern about the Midland County DHS office posting a “no guns allowed” sign at its entrance.

    You claim that 1990 PA 319 prohibits such restrictions. The law you cite does prohibit local units of government from enacting restrictions on gun possession that exceed state law. It appears, however, you have mistakenly considered the Midland County DHS office to be a local unit of government.

    According to a definition found in section (1)(a) of the statute, a local unit of government “means a city, village, township, or county.” DHS is not a city, village, township, or county. DHS is an agency of state government.

    Further, and perhaps most relevant to the actions of the Midland County DHS office, 1905 PA 80 authorizes the Department of Human Services to prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of its public buildings and property “and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof. . .” [MCL 19.141]

    The actions of the Midland County DHS office to prohibit the possession of a firearm in that office, therefore, appears to befully compliant with state law.

    Wehope this addresses your concerns.

  2. #2
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    Dumb question. Deleted.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Here are the pertinent statutes. Looks like only trespassing and destruction of property or unlawful use on the property..hunting, fishing, etc are in the statute. I don't see anywhere the banning of firearms. I would buck this up the ladder.






    CARE, ORDER, AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY (EXCERPT)
    Act 80 of 1905
    19.141 Care, preservation, and protection of state buildings and property; rules and regulations; conduct of persons on property; enforcement; violation.

    Sec. 1.

    The department of management and budget, the state board of education, the department of social services, the board of control of the Michigan technological university, the department of mental health, the department of corrections, the department of education, the board of regents of the university of Michigan, the department of agriculture, and the board of managers of state fairs may prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of buildings and property dedicated and appropriated to the public use, over which they have jurisdiction or power of control and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof, which is necessary for the maintenance of good order and the protection of the state property; may enforce the rules and regulations, and empower 1 or more persons with the authority prescribed in this act, and may cause a person found guilty of a violation of this act to be punished in the manner prescribed in this act.


    History: 1905, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- Am. 1907, Act 302, Imd. Eff. June 27, 1907 ;-- CL 1915, 1965 ;-- Am. 1927, Act 262, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 447 ;-- CL 1948, 19.141 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 614, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979
    Admin Rule: R 18.201 et seq.; R 291.201 et seq.; and R 330.1001 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.



    CARE, ORDER, AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY
    Act 80 of 1905

    AN ACT to authorize and empower certain state departments, and the board of control, board of trustees or governing board of certain state institutions, or the governing body of a municipal corporation, to make, prescribe and enforce rules and regulations for the care, order and preservation of buildings or property dedicated and appropriated to the public use and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof; to prescribe penalties for a violation thereof and to repeal all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act.


    History: 1905, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 237, Imd. Eff. June 15, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 614, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979



    CARE, ORDER, AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY (EXCERPT)
    Act 80 of 1905
    19.143 Authority of superintendent, watchperson, or guard as to arrest and custody of offender; complaint; warrantless arrest for trespass upon state correctional facility; limitation.

    Sec. 3.

    (1) A person appointed or chosen by a board or department set forth in section 1 to act as a superintendent, watchperson, or guard has the general authority of a deputy sheriff, relative to the arrest and custody of an offender against a rule prescribed by the appointing board or department, and may arrest without warrant a person found violating a rule which is prescribed by that board or department relative to trespasses upon property, good order, the preservation of property, or the mutilation or destruction or injury to property. Such an appointee shall make a complaint against an offender of this act, or a rule of the appointing board or department, before that court in which a prosecution for a misdemeanor may be initiated.

    (2) The warrantless arrest of a person for a trespass upon a state correctional facility by a person described in subsection (1) is limited to those persons authorized under section 23a of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being section 764.23a of the Michigan Compiled Laws. As used in this subsection, “state correctional facility” means a facility or institution that houses a prisoner population under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections. State correctional facility does not include a community corrections center or a community residential home.

    History: 1905, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- CL 1915, 1967 ;-- CL 1929, 449 —CL 1948, 19.143 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 237, Imd. Eff. June 15, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 614, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 231, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997
    Admin Rule: R 330.1001 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.



    CARE, ORDER, AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY (EXCERPT)
    Act 80 of 1905
    19.144 Complaint against person for wilful violation of law or rule.

    Sec. 4.

    A member of each board set forth in section 1, an authorized person within a department prescribed in section 1 and any other person, having jurisdiction or power of control over property specified in section 1 may make a complaint, before that court in which a prosecution for a misdemeanor may be initiated, against a person who he or she believes has wilfully violated a law or rule pertaining to the property or building over which the respective board or department has jurisdiction or power of control.


    History: 1905, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- CL 1915, 1968 ;-- CL 1929, 450 ;-- CL 1948, 19.144 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 237, Imd. Eff. June 15, 1978 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 614, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979
    Admin Rule: R 330.1001 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.



    CARE, ORDER, AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY (EXCERPT)
    Act 80 of 1905
    19.145 Rules and regulations; entering in record book; posting; duty of prosecuting attorney.

    Sec. 5. I WOULD ASK TO SEE THIS, below.

    Each board or department prescribed in section 1 shall have all rules and regulations which are made or prescribed, entered in convenient form, in a record book kept in the respective office of the board or department, for that purpose and posted in not less than 3 conspicuous places on the premises subject to regulation. The prosecuting attorney of the county in which the offense is committed shall prosecute offenders against this act or a rule or regulation made or prescribed by a board or department, under this act.


    History: 1905, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- CL 1915, 1969 ;-- CL 1929, 451 ;-- CL 1948, 19.145 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 614, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 1979




    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    And since the STATE has NOT made them a PFZ then they cannot just arbitrarily do so.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

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

    Post imported post

    Thanks Venator for the quick reply. I too was digging through those statutes.

    There is a pretty good chance they don't have their "rules" in 3 conspicuous locations. I assume that acquiring this list of rules/regulations would be the first step to determine if they have any prohibiting of firearms? If in fact they do, does that mean state law allows them to set their own rules against firearms even though it states... (below)

    (1) A person appointed or chosen by a board or department set forth in section 1 to act as a superintendent, watchperson, or guard has the general authority of a deputy sheriff, relative to the arrest and custody of an offender against a rule prescribed by the appointing board or department, and may arrest without warrant a person found violating a rule which is prescribed by that board or department relative to trespasses upon property, good order, the preservation of property, or the mutilation or destruction or injury to property. Such an appointee shall make a complaint against an offender of this act, or a rule of the appointing board or department, before that court in which a prosecution for a misdemeanor may be initiated.
    Thanks again.


  6. #6
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    Incase you ever head of this way, here's WA State law on the subject.






    RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;


    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  7. #7
    Guest

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    You claim that 1990 PA 319 prohibits such restrictions. The law you cite does prohibit local units of government from enacting restrictions on gun possession that exceed state law. It appears, however, you have mistakenly considered the Midland County DHS office to be a local unit of government.

    According to a definition found in section (1)(a) of the statute, a local unit of government “means a city, village, township, or county.” DHS is not a city, village, township, or county. DHS is an agency of state government.
    I call BS.
    Midland County DHS is NOT Michigan Department Of Human Services.
    Idiots making $#it up.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Regardless they are not private property, or on the list of restrictions. Therefor they cannot make law, or restrictions, or regulate in any manner. The restrictions they impose are the same as the posted sign in a party store. No law broken by ignoring the sign. If they are not local unit of Govt., and they fall under the state then they are a public building. I don't see the problem.

    Am I missing something?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Am I missing something?
    I'm not 100% on this, but i think you are. The below, state law, allows special privileges to the "department of social services".

    19.141 Care, preservation, and protection of state buildings and property; rules and regulations; conduct of persons on property; enforcement; violation.

    Sec. 1.

    The department of management and budget, the state board of education, the department of social services, the board of control of the Michigan technological university, the department of mental health, the department of corrections, the department of education, the board of regents of the university of Michigan, the department of agriculture, and the board of managers of state fairs may prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of buildings and property dedicated and appropriated to the public use, over which they have jurisdiction or power of control and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof, which is necessary for the maintenance of good order and the protection of the state property; may enforce the rules and regulations, and empower 1 or more persons with the authority prescribed in this act, and may cause a person found guilty of a violation of this act to be punished in the manner prescribed in this act.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    So is DHS the same as Social Services? If they have the same authority as the sheriff does this make them a local unit of govt?, & last but not least, they may not be local so that means they fall under state law, State law says that I am licensed to carry in a manner prescribed by law. This is how people got around the Mi State college law. It's legal to open carry on campus, and they fall under that Act 80 of 1905.

  11. #11
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I took this information from an AG opinion:
    The Concealed Pistol Licensing Act (Act), 1927 PA 372, as amended, MCL 28.421 et seq, regulates the possession and carrying of concealed pistols. The Act prohibits persons from carrying a concealed pistol unless they have been licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 5c(2), MCL 28.425c(2), provides that licensees may carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state," subject to certain exceptions found in section 5o and "except as otherwise provided by law."

    The AG opinion (#7123, found here: http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op10198.htm ) seemingly argues that such a regulation is "legal" and that the "except as otherwise prohibited by law" statement in the CPL Law has adequately covered the legal basis for such a prohibition.

    The Ag opinion I listed, penned by none other than Mr. Cox, was subsequently negated by the legislature when they passed 2004 PA 129 and 13. These PAs specifically removed the ability of the DNR to regulate CPL holders, but it did not affect any other State of Michigan agency.

    In my very limited legal understanding, I think that without any change to current law, carrying in violation of the DHS departmental orders most likly would be determined to be illegal. One way, in my non-lawyer opinion, for this to be changed is by an act of the legislature ( as was done to the lands under control of the DNR)

    Caution: soapbox
    Before I go any further, allow me to share my thoughts... thoughts which have been troubling me for a month or so now. I could be "off" with what I'm going to say; if I am then look at this as just more nonsense spouted by a person who mistkenly thinks this site has at times gone down in quality.

    I almost didn't respond to this because lately some members seem to get a little riled when someone posts regarding a law or other piece of objective information. Posting is taken by some here as "agreement" with the information, then people start talking about the second amendment, that the gov't can't do this, that our rights don't originate in the Constitution...they are "pre-constitutional", name calling starts, a few comments about politics, religion, and someone's parentage or upbringing are thrown in for good measure; the discussion devolves into people basically either "singing to the choir" or casting negative aspirations on others.. I'm not necessarily opposed to people responding this way per se and I am in no way thinking of any members in particular, but just observe that essential information is getting lost in the posturing and bickering. (Note some recent threads that devolved into post after post of misconstrued intent and responses which just brought the conversation to an increasingly less mature level of interaction) Speaking only for me, this blather just lessens the probability that I and some other like minded people will even look at the Mich. section of the OCDO website, let alone post something.
    End Soap Box

    Remember... this is what the the AG has said about a similar situation, this is not me opining that I think it is a "good" regulation promulgated by DHS . I do not think it is "right" nor do I believe their argument is foolproof. I also am not a lawyer, and I don't need anyone construing this as legal advice. Hopefully, I have presented what I could see as their justification of just such a prohibition. Suffice it to say that they DO think that they can prohibit firearms, for whatever reason. We need to get legislation in place to rectify this.
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    So basically when (if) we are forced into National socialized health care every doctors, dentist, free clinic, after hours offices, and pharmacy's will be off limits. All under the department of human health services remember under National heath care, everything related to health will be considered human services.

    What do you think Dr. Todd?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    19.141 Care, preservation, and protection of state buildings and property; rules and regulations; conduct of persons on property; enforcement; violation.

    Sec. 1.

    The ... department of social services ... may prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of buildings and property dedicated and appropriated to the public use, over which they have jurisdiction or power of control and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof, which is necessary for the maintenance of good order and the protection of the state property;...

    This passage appears to me to pertain to the maintenance of the facility/property itself, not to impose restrictions on public use. Where in there does it say may restrict the carry or possession of firearms?

    Add: if the Midland County DHS is a County department, then I can't see how they can adopt such a policy. If it's a state department, imo, it's legal if written into state law.


  14. #14
    Regular Member Jblack44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    19.141 Care, preservation, and protection of state buildings and property; rules and regulations; conduct of persons on property; enforcement; violation.

    Sec. 1.

    The ... department of social services ... may prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of buildings and property dedicated and appropriated to the public use, over which they have jurisdiction or power of control and the conduct of those coming upon the property thereof, which is necessary for the maintenance of good order and the protection of the state property;...

    This passage appears to me to pertain to the maintenance of the facility/property itself, not to impose restrictions on public use. Where in there does it say may restrict the carry or possession of firearms?

    Yeah I would think as long as your not shooting holes into the building, your good!
    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for." Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch

  15. #15
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    It seems to me they are reaching.....
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    I too think they may be over-stepping. The statue they refer to is posted near the top of this thread and doesn't sound like they are talking about anything other than maintenance.

    First thing to find out is are they state or county. The county gets funding from the state, but are they state employees or county employees working there.
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    I have read, re-read and re-read again, this law. The way I interperet their multiple descriptions is; they have the legal right to "control the conduct of those coming onto the property" for generally any reason they can make up. As they put it, "maintenance of good order".

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    It is a county agency.

    That's why it's call the Midland County Department of Human Services and not the Michigan Department of Social Services.

    ETA: They can cite any law they want to. It does not apply to them. They can even cite the bottle return law if they want. It has the same applicability. NONE!

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

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    It is a county agency.

    That's why it's call the Midland County Department of Human Services and not the Michigan Department of Social Services.
    Could it not be simply a geographic division of a state program? For example, Joeblow county golf club repair, isn't a county operation.

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    It is a county agency.

    That's why it's call the Midland County Department of Human Services and not the Michigan Department of Social Services.
    Could it not be simply a geographic division of a state program? For example, Joeblow county golf club repair, isn't a county operation.
    Nope. State offices have state signs.

    In their response, they even refer to the office as the "Midland County DHS."

    Ever see an Oakland County Secretary of State office?

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    It is a county agency.

    That's why it's call the Midland County Department of Human Services and not the Michigan Department of Social Services.
    Could it not be simply a geographic division of a state program? For example, Joeblow county golf club repair, isn't a county operation.
    Ask if all the employees are county or state. That can be done with a phone call.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    They do have a big sign out front that says Michigan, and I don't recall it saying anything county on it.

    I'm making the call right now.

  23. #23
    Guest

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    I'm making the call right now.
    Me too. No answer... keeps ringing. Calling Oakland County.

    Google leads to state web site.

    I guess they're state then.

    My bad.

    Still no answer. Call back later.

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

    Post imported post

    They are employed by the state. However, a 2nd answer from another office would be good.

    I asked "Are the employees of the DHS employed by the county or the state?".


    I guess it's time to write one of those letters "People who intend to commit crimes already are not abidding the law. Your PFZ sign only serves to restrict law abidding citizens who could .. etc etc you all know this story"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Thank you for your response and for citing statutes.

    It may arguably remain legal for the "conduct of those entering the property to be controlled for the maintenance of good order" (considering the statute appears to be written primarily for the upkeep of the physical property to prevent damages), it does not remain logical.

    A person with criminal intent, obviously does not have a conscience to obey rules or law. By creating this regulation, the Midland County DHS is only prohibiting those people who DO follow the law. This being said, when or if a criminal intends to commit serious bodily harm or death to the people within the building, the Gun Free Zone has eliminated any possibility of prevention or defense. Police take minutes to arrive, and deadly assaults from criminals take seconds. Your Gun Free Zone is in turn, only serving to further endanger the innocent people in the building by disarming those trained and willing to take defensive action against hostile thugs.

    I would strongly urge the Midland County DHS, and all others, to consider this world proven FACT and retract the gun free zone restriction.

    Thank you for your time and consideration
    The deed has been done.

Posting Permissions

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