-
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.
-
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.
Michigan AG: Open carry allowed on Michigan campuses, classrooms, and dorms
- Thread starter vt007ken
- Start date
hunter45
Regular Member
imported post
NightmareSHANIQUA wrote:
I just received this message from the admin of the GMU SCCC Facebook group. Now I'll have to get in touch with this Andrew guy.
NightmareSHANIQUA wrote:
I just received this message from the admin of the GMU SCCC Facebook group. Now I'll have to get in touch with this Andrew guy.
imported post
hunter45 wrote:
I've met him quite a few times now at various events (gun shows, VCDL meetings, NRA functions, and a few years ago at a Gun Rights event at GMU)
hunter45 wrote:
"this Andrew guy" is a member on this forum under the username "TEX1N"
I've met him quite a few times now at various events (gun shows, VCDL meetings, NRA functions, and a few years ago at a Gun Rights event at GMU)
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
vt007ken wrote:
Opinion No. 7097 [/b]January 11, 2002… A person licensed by this state… to carry a concealed weapon[/i]….By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, including a private investigator, is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.
“…My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are a licensed CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter…” Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"[/b]
“Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones.” Sincerely,
Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, (517) 336-6441[/b]
vt007ken wrote:
Opinion No. 7097 [/b]January 11, 2002… A person licensed by this state… to carry a concealed weapon[/i]….By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, including a private investigator, is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.
“…My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are a licensed CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter…” Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"[/b]
“Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones.” Sincerely,
Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, (517) 336-6441[/b]
imported post
essayons wrote:
Virginia Administrative Code is NOT law.
It certainly is. It is called, not surprisingly, administrative law. The Virginia code is statutory law. The decisions of the courts of Virginia are case law. Do not confuse the VAC with a college's internal codes/policies. The same sort of relationship exists in nearly every state and at the federal level.
Statutes - U.S. Code - Code of Virginia
Regulations - Code of Federal Regulations - Virginia Administrative Code
Court Decisions - U.S. Reports - Virginia Reports
essayons wrote:
Virginia Administrative Code is NOT law.
It certainly is. It is called, not surprisingly, administrative law. The Virginia code is statutory law. The decisions of the courts of Virginia are case law. Do not confuse the VAC with a college's internal codes/policies. The same sort of relationship exists in nearly every state and at the federal level.
Statutes - U.S. Code - Code of Virginia
Regulations - Code of Federal Regulations - Virginia Administrative Code
Court Decisions - U.S. Reports - Virginia Reports
imported post
[align=left]So we have (1) general firearms free zones (GFFZ) and (2) concealed pistol free zones (CPFZ)[/align]
[align=left]GFFZ include banks, churches, courts, theaters, sports arenas, day care centers, hospitals, and bars (I think)[/align]
[align=left]CPFZinclude college dormitories & classrooms, schools, day care centers, sports arenas, taverns, house of worship, entertainment facilites > 2500, hospitals and casinos[/align]
[align=left]I don't guarantee that either list is correct and/or complete. Theoretically then-[/align]
[align=left]CPL-holders (and non-residents with a home state CPL) may carry openly anywhere, including in GFFZ and CPFZ. They may also carry concealed anywhere, including a GFFZ, that is not a CPFZ (e.g. a 500 seat theater)[/align]
[align=left]Non-residents who hold a CPL from ANY state may carry only openly anywhere (including in GFFZ and CPFZ).[/align]
[align=left]Anybody can carry openly anywhere (including a CPFZ that is not also a GFFZ, e.g. a casino).[/align]
[align=left]This is not to say it may not be a very good idea. Courts have made their own rules as have some universities. And of course there are federal restrictions, etc....[/align]
[align=left]So we have (1) general firearms free zones (GFFZ) and (2) concealed pistol free zones (CPFZ)[/align]
[align=left]GFFZ include banks, churches, courts, theaters, sports arenas, day care centers, hospitals, and bars (I think)[/align]
[align=left]CPFZinclude college dormitories & classrooms, schools, day care centers, sports arenas, taverns, house of worship, entertainment facilites > 2500, hospitals and casinos[/align]
[align=left]I don't guarantee that either list is correct and/or complete. Theoretically then-[/align]
[align=left]CPL-holders (and non-residents with a home state CPL) may carry openly anywhere, including in GFFZ and CPFZ. They may also carry concealed anywhere, including a GFFZ, that is not a CPFZ (e.g. a 500 seat theater)[/align]
[align=left]Non-residents who hold a CPL from ANY state may carry only openly anywhere (including in GFFZ and CPFZ).[/align]
[align=left]Anybody can carry openly anywhere (including a CPFZ that is not also a GFFZ, e.g. a casino).[/align]
[align=left]This is not to say it may not be a very good idea. Courts have made their own rules as have some universities. And of course there are federal restrictions, etc....[/align]
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
apjonas wrote:
Your list isn't even close to being correct, and therefore, doesn't make any sense. (I'm not sure if you were trying to apply this to VA or not, even though your last post reference directly.)
In VA you can legally carry, open or concealed with a permit, in banks churches (with good and sufficient reason), theaters, sports arenas, day-care centers, hospitals, and bars (OC only in bars), entertainment facilities, and casinos (although there are none).
First of all, the VA Administrative Code (VAC) is NOT "law" in the normal sense that most people think of "laws." In order for something to be illegal under the VAC, it must first be enacted as code under the VA Code, with the specific power given to a state agency to regulate the specific illegal or restricted acts under the VA Code. The VA Code also overrides the VAC
The VAC also contains a lot of internal regulations for various state agencies. This is where the whole guns on campus debate/issue comes in. (This is where it starts to get tricky.) First of all, it is NOT illegal to carry an otherwise legal firearm onto a VA college or university. However, colleges have the authority to regulate the conduct of their students/employees and to expel/fire any students/employee that violate that code of conduct, the same as any private business in VA. But because public universities are public property, then they cannot exclude the public from using the public areas of a public college.
And here is where it starts to get even more confusing. Under § 15.2-915 (in the VA Code), state localities are prohibited from making any firearms laws that are more restrictive than the VA statewide laws, also known as preemption. And thus the debate begins. If public colleges cannot restrict public access, and they can't make firearms illegal on college property, then can they restrict the public from legally carrying firearms onto campus property? (There is really no debate that under the current law they can restrict students/faculty through administrative sanctions.)
Before I started attending GMU, they had a complete ban on anyone carrying firearms onto campus. (Their ban was so broad that it even included non-GMU police officers! Which I doubt was legal...but that never stopped them.) After more light was shed on the issue (i.e. VT, GMU SCCC, etc.), and after a very weird and ambiguous opinion from the VA Attorney General (Op. 05-078), GMU changed their policy and was actually able to get their restriction into the VAC, but it only restricts the public from bringing firearms into buildings (they still have a full restriction for students/faculty on any campus grounds).
Basically, GMU knew that their old restriction was not enforceable and wanted to try to get something that was semi enforceable. Their theory is that by having the restriction in the VAC, then they have a prima facie case against you for trespass if you carry a firearm into a building. (If you read all of the minutes and memos from the Board of Visitors meetings leading up to the enactment of the VAC, then you will get a better understanding of their thinking.) Therefore, their argument becomes that if you bring a firearm into a building on campus, then you become a prohibited person, and they can have you arrested for trespass (NOT for a firearms charge). By having the restriction in the VAC, you are presumed to know that it exists, just as you are presumed to know what the laws are, therefore, they don't have to inform you that you are trespassing, as they would with a general campus restriction.
Many people (myself included) believe that the restriction in the VAC is illegal under § 15.2-915, and should not prohibit the general public from carrying legal firearms onto campus. However, it's going to take either someone getting arrested for trespass while carrying a firearm, or a lawsuit to sort this out. GMU knows that they are on shaky ground legally, but they don't care.
Anyway, that's the issue. It's NOT illegal, but it is prohibited. But the prohibition is probably illegal! :banghead:
apjonas wrote:
Your list isn't even close to being correct, and therefore, doesn't make any sense. (I'm not sure if you were trying to apply this to VA or not, even though your last post reference directly.)
In VA you can legally carry, open or concealed with a permit, in banks churches (with good and sufficient reason), theaters, sports arenas, day-care centers, hospitals, and bars (OC only in bars), entertainment facilities, and casinos (although there are none).
First of all, the VA Administrative Code (VAC) is NOT "law" in the normal sense that most people think of "laws." In order for something to be illegal under the VAC, it must first be enacted as code under the VA Code, with the specific power given to a state agency to regulate the specific illegal or restricted acts under the VA Code. The VA Code also overrides the VAC
The VAC also contains a lot of internal regulations for various state agencies. This is where the whole guns on campus debate/issue comes in. (This is where it starts to get tricky.) First of all, it is NOT illegal to carry an otherwise legal firearm onto a VA college or university. However, colleges have the authority to regulate the conduct of their students/employees and to expel/fire any students/employee that violate that code of conduct, the same as any private business in VA. But because public universities are public property, then they cannot exclude the public from using the public areas of a public college.
And here is where it starts to get even more confusing. Under § 15.2-915 (in the VA Code), state localities are prohibited from making any firearms laws that are more restrictive than the VA statewide laws, also known as preemption. And thus the debate begins. If public colleges cannot restrict public access, and they can't make firearms illegal on college property, then can they restrict the public from legally carrying firearms onto campus property? (There is really no debate that under the current law they can restrict students/faculty through administrative sanctions.)
Before I started attending GMU, they had a complete ban on anyone carrying firearms onto campus. (Their ban was so broad that it even included non-GMU police officers! Which I doubt was legal...but that never stopped them.) After more light was shed on the issue (i.e. VT, GMU SCCC, etc.), and after a very weird and ambiguous opinion from the VA Attorney General (Op. 05-078), GMU changed their policy and was actually able to get their restriction into the VAC, but it only restricts the public from bringing firearms into buildings (they still have a full restriction for students/faculty on any campus grounds).
Basically, GMU knew that their old restriction was not enforceable and wanted to try to get something that was semi enforceable. Their theory is that by having the restriction in the VAC, then they have a prima facie case against you for trespass if you carry a firearm into a building. (If you read all of the minutes and memos from the Board of Visitors meetings leading up to the enactment of the VAC, then you will get a better understanding of their thinking.) Therefore, their argument becomes that if you bring a firearm into a building on campus, then you become a prohibited person, and they can have you arrested for trespass (NOT for a firearms charge). By having the restriction in the VAC, you are presumed to know that it exists, just as you are presumed to know what the laws are, therefore, they don't have to inform you that you are trespassing, as they would with a general campus restriction.
Many people (myself included) believe that the restriction in the VAC is illegal under § 15.2-915, and should not prohibit the general public from carrying legal firearms onto campus. However, it's going to take either someone getting arrested for trespass while carrying a firearm, or a lawsuit to sort this out. GMU knows that they are on shaky ground legally, but they don't care.
Anyway, that's the issue. It's NOT illegal, but it is prohibited. But the prohibition is probably illegal! :banghead:
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
BTW, here is the link to § 15.2-915:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915
And here is the link to the AG's opinion that I referenced:
http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/05-078.pdf
BTW, here is the link to § 15.2-915:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915
And here is the link to the AG's opinion that I referenced:
http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/05-078.pdf
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
TEX1N wrote:
TEX1N wrote:
TEX1N, the Thread is about OCon Michigan Campus' and then derailed to a GMU thread. But, I do disagree with some ofApjonas' statements--I'm not going to argue with him about it.
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
vt007ken wrote:
It's not law per se, it's regulation. Incidentally, I *HAVE* looked into it before and found that absent a specific punishment attached a specific code violation, there are two different levels of Misdemeanor and fine (both of which are fairly low on the chart).
That said, you can OC or CC on GMU & VCU campus. They may not like it but cannot do anything about it. Their buildings are a different story however.
vt007ken wrote:
It's not law per se, it's regulation. Incidentally, I *HAVE* looked into it before and found that absent a specific punishment attached a specific code violation, there are two different levels of Misdemeanor and fine (both of which are fairly low on the chart).
That said, you can OC or CC on GMU & VCU campus. They may not like it but cannot do anything about it. Their buildings are a different story however.
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
You are correct. The post discussing GFFZ and CPFZ is about Michigan. The incidental post about the Virginia Administrative Code was simply a response to a prior statement on it. I don't know how Virginia got dragged into this. It's usually something like "Well I don't know nuthin' about Michigan but here in Virginny....." Now if you would like to respond (argument not necessary) to my observations about Michigan, please do so. My post was based upon memory and what others have said. The underlying point is that Michigan has two distinct types of no-pistol zones (although one is really a no firearms zone). The applicability depends upon who you are and what type, if any, of CPL you possess.
imported post
As you have surmised, the discussion was about Michigan not Virginia. As to the post on the VAC, I don't think we're that far apart. This is really a semantic issue, so if you want to define "law" for your purposes as statutes, fine.
As far as your analysis below, you allow that a university may bar the public from "non-public" areas. I would think that the majority of campus would be "non-public" in the sense that it exists to serve the university and its affiliates (faculty, staff, students...). Therefore, by your reasoning, most of the campus could be a firearms free zone. Is a university a "locality"? I dunno but since it is a state-level institution, I doubt it.
And of course administrative regulations must find authority somewhere in the statutes. Just like statutes must find authority in the constitution. That is the hierarchy. But that doesn't mean that a statute must be specifically passes for a particular regulation.
You may be right regarding why GMU did what it did. It could also be that it was too much hassle to enforce the entire campus and so scaling back to just the buildings seemed attractive. Then again most buildings are probably "non-public."
TEX1N wrote:
First of all, the VA Administrative Code (VAC) is NOT "law" in the normal sense that most people think of "laws." In order for something to be illegal under the VAC, it must first be enacted as code under the VA Code, with the specific power given to a state agency to regulate the specific illegal or restricted acts under the VA Code. The VA Code also overrides the VAC
The VAC also contains a lot of internal regulations for various state agencies. This is where the whole guns on campus debate/issue comes in. (This is where it starts to get tricky.) First of all, it is NOT illegal to carry an otherwise legal firearm onto a VA college or university. However, colleges have the authority to regulate the conduct of their students/employees and to expel/fire any students/employee that violate that code of conduct, the same as any private business in VA. But because public universities are public property, then they cannot exclude the public from using the public areas of a public college.
And here is where it starts to get even more confusing. Under § 15.2-915 (in the VA Code), state localities are prohibited from making any firearms laws that are more restrictive than the VA statewide laws, also known as preemption. And thus the debate begins. If public colleges cannot restrict public access, and they can't make firearms illegal on college property, then can they restrict the public from legally carrying firearms onto campus property? (There is really no debate that under the current law they can restrict students/faculty through administrative sanctions.)
Before I started attending GMU, they had a complete ban on anyone carrying firearms onto campus. (Their ban was so broad that it even included non-GMU police officers! Which I doubt was legal...but that never stopped them.) After more light was shed on the issue (i.e. VT, GMU SCCC, etc.), and after a very weird and ambiguous opinion from the VA Attorney General (Op. 05-078), GMU changed their policy and was actually able to get their restriction into the VAC, but it only restricts the public from bringing firearms into buildings (they still have a full restriction for students/faculty on any campus grounds).
Basically, GMU knew that their old restriction was not enforceable and wanted to try to get something that was semi enforceable. Their theory is that by having the restriction in the VAC, then they have a prima facie case against you for trespass if you carry a firearm into a building. (If you read all of the minutes and memos from the Board of Visitors meetings leading up to the enactment of the VAC, then you will get a better understanding of their thinking.) Therefore, their argument becomes that if you bring a firearm into a building on campus, then you become a prohibited person, and they can have you arrested for trespass (NOT for a firearms charge). By having the restriction in the VAC, you are presumed to know that it exists, just as you are presumed to know what the laws are, therefore, they don't have to inform you that you are trespassing, as they would with a general campus restriction.
Many people (myself included) believe that the restriction in the VAC is illegal under § 15.2-915, and should not prohibit the general public from carrying legal firearms onto campus. However, it's going to take either someone getting arrested for trespass while carrying a firearm, or a lawsuit to sort this out. GMU knows that they are on shaky ground legally, but they don't care.
Anyway, that's the issue. It's NOT illegal, but it is prohibited. But the prohibition is probably illegal! :banghead:
As you have surmised, the discussion was about Michigan not Virginia. As to the post on the VAC, I don't think we're that far apart. This is really a semantic issue, so if you want to define "law" for your purposes as statutes, fine.
As far as your analysis below, you allow that a university may bar the public from "non-public" areas. I would think that the majority of campus would be "non-public" in the sense that it exists to serve the university and its affiliates (faculty, staff, students...). Therefore, by your reasoning, most of the campus could be a firearms free zone. Is a university a "locality"? I dunno but since it is a state-level institution, I doubt it.
And of course administrative regulations must find authority somewhere in the statutes. Just like statutes must find authority in the constitution. That is the hierarchy. But that doesn't mean that a statute must be specifically passes for a particular regulation.
You may be right regarding why GMU did what it did. It could also be that it was too much hassle to enforce the entire campus and so scaling back to just the buildings seemed attractive. Then again most buildings are probably "non-public."
TEX1N wrote:
First of all, the VA Administrative Code (VAC) is NOT "law" in the normal sense that most people think of "laws." In order for something to be illegal under the VAC, it must first be enacted as code under the VA Code, with the specific power given to a state agency to regulate the specific illegal or restricted acts under the VA Code. The VA Code also overrides the VAC
The VAC also contains a lot of internal regulations for various state agencies. This is where the whole guns on campus debate/issue comes in. (This is where it starts to get tricky.) First of all, it is NOT illegal to carry an otherwise legal firearm onto a VA college or university. However, colleges have the authority to regulate the conduct of their students/employees and to expel/fire any students/employee that violate that code of conduct, the same as any private business in VA. But because public universities are public property, then they cannot exclude the public from using the public areas of a public college.
And here is where it starts to get even more confusing. Under § 15.2-915 (in the VA Code), state localities are prohibited from making any firearms laws that are more restrictive than the VA statewide laws, also known as preemption. And thus the debate begins. If public colleges cannot restrict public access, and they can't make firearms illegal on college property, then can they restrict the public from legally carrying firearms onto campus property? (There is really no debate that under the current law they can restrict students/faculty through administrative sanctions.)
Before I started attending GMU, they had a complete ban on anyone carrying firearms onto campus. (Their ban was so broad that it even included non-GMU police officers! Which I doubt was legal...but that never stopped them.) After more light was shed on the issue (i.e. VT, GMU SCCC, etc.), and after a very weird and ambiguous opinion from the VA Attorney General (Op. 05-078), GMU changed their policy and was actually able to get their restriction into the VAC, but it only restricts the public from bringing firearms into buildings (they still have a full restriction for students/faculty on any campus grounds).
Basically, GMU knew that their old restriction was not enforceable and wanted to try to get something that was semi enforceable. Their theory is that by having the restriction in the VAC, then they have a prima facie case against you for trespass if you carry a firearm into a building. (If you read all of the minutes and memos from the Board of Visitors meetings leading up to the enactment of the VAC, then you will get a better understanding of their thinking.) Therefore, their argument becomes that if you bring a firearm into a building on campus, then you become a prohibited person, and they can have you arrested for trespass (NOT for a firearms charge). By having the restriction in the VAC, you are presumed to know that it exists, just as you are presumed to know what the laws are, therefore, they don't have to inform you that you are trespassing, as they would with a general campus restriction.
Many people (myself included) believe that the restriction in the VAC is illegal under § 15.2-915, and should not prohibit the general public from carrying legal firearms onto campus. However, it's going to take either someone getting arrested for trespass while carrying a firearm, or a lawsuit to sort this out. GMU knows that they are on shaky ground legally, but they don't care.
Anyway, that's the issue. It's NOT illegal, but it is prohibited. But the prohibition is probably illegal! :banghead:
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
apjonas wrote:
Actually, I did so yesterday but chose to cancel after completing my response. A response seemed obvious to your post due to the double spacing to allow debate. If I can get my two index fingers warmed up I may attempt to do so (response) again.
apjonas wrote:
Actually, I did so yesterday but chose to cancel after completing my response. A response seemed obvious to your post due to the double spacing to allow debate. If I can get my two index fingers warmed up I may attempt to do so (response) again.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
apjonas wrote:
apjonas wrote:
M
McX
Guest
imported post
Great news! Higher education, and higher protection do indeed go hand in hand! I'll bet some of those students in Milwaukee (campus areas) that got robbed wish their state educational system was as enlightened!
Great news! Higher education, and higher protection do indeed go hand in hand! I'll bet some of those students in Milwaukee (campus areas) that got robbed wish their state educational system was as enlightened!
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
The VCU restriction is not law, as people have said.
Furthermore, any non-faculty/student on VCU property
IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
So anyone who is in a public access area of VCU can carry without
even being asked to leave.
There is even an AG opinion that says that it might not apply to
students and staff who are on campus for activities not directly related
to their jobs or classes. (i.e. attending a party or game)
The VCU restriction is not law, as people have said.
Furthermore, any non-faculty/student on VCU property
IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
So anyone who is in a public access area of VCU can carry without
even being asked to leave.
There is even an AG opinion that says that it might not apply to
students and staff who are on campus for activities not directly related
to their jobs or classes. (i.e. attending a party or game)
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
Published regulations are law.
simmonsjoe wrote:
Huh?
Published regulations are law.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
It is Administrative Code. It does not deal with crimes, and does not affect all persons. I was unclear. The VCU restriction is not criminal law.