Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: can I carry at these two places?

  1. #1
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    the genessee valley mall (over 2500 people?)

    how about the Deja vu strip club (liqour free)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    kyleplusitunes wrote:
    the genessee valley mall (over 2500 people?)

    how about the Deja vu strip club (liqour free)
    What does the mall policy state?

    What does the club policy state?

    You must remember... both of these places are private property. They retain the right to restrict firearms on there property unless otherwise stated in corporate policy.

  3. #3
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I'm asking in regards to the law, not policy

  4. #4
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    No cite applies to either. As stated, they are governed by private property rights.

  5. #5
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    well the mall isnt an enertainment facility,and wouldnt be subject to the laws regarding the 2500+ thing.

    so its entirely on they're policy,note that most malls arent OC friendly,i havent heard of one,but hey go in and shop,if they dont like it the worse they can do is ask you to leave.

    deja vu....as far as i know is also only going to matter on policy,unless theres a law specifically referring to strip clubs.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  6. #6
    Regular Member kyleplusitunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lennon Michigan, ,
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    104 thanks

  7. #7
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Actually Taubman Malls are carry friendly... but the others mostly are not.
    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."

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    hold on guys. the 2500 thing refers specifically to [seating capacity], just because there may be 2500 people there is irrelevant.

    I opencarry at great lakes crossing all the time. I spoke to head of security, and he told me that they know IUm there, and they respect my rights, as long as no one complains, there wont be an issue, if so, then they would ask me to conceal if I have a CPL, or put it in my car. They said they will deal with it on a case by case basis, so they can continue to allow OC. This means that if I get called out today, I am welcome to OC tomorrow.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    Genesee Valley Mall has a no firearms policy. It is legal to carry there until you've been asked to leave and don't.It's posted on the wall with their rules of conduct near at least one entrance. When I saw it, I refused to set foot inside ever again. Just an observation with an opinion.


    Better??


    Criminy folks. It's a conversation, bound to be ripe with personality and opinion.







    "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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    hold on guys. the 2500 thing refers specifically to [seating capacity], just because there may be 2500 people there is irrelevant.

    I opencarry at great lakes crossing all the time. I spoke to head of security, and he told me that they know IUm there, and they respect my rights, as long as no one complains, there wont be an issue, if so, then they would ask me to conceal if I have a CPL, or put it in my car. They said they will deal with it on a case by case basis, so they can continue to allow OC. This means that if I get called out today, I am welcome to OC tomorrow.
    Maybe we can utilize their willingness to work with OC for good. Perhaps we can do a lunch and learn for the security team so they can address a patrons fears in a logical manner.If this proves successful it can be a benchmark to point to when talking with different organizations.
    United we STAND!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    Genesee Valley Mall has a no firearms policy. It's posted on the wall with their rules of conduct near at least one entrance. When I saw it, I refused to set foot inside ever again.
    Just because there is a sign it is irrelevant. Michigan unlike Texas does not have any no carry sign legislation. The only thing out there pertains to only entertainment facilities and is based on seating capasity only. As for private property rights at the worst they can ask you to leave but if you concealed there nobody would know in the first place. Normally open carry isnt even noticed.

    Mike

  12. #12
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    Genesee Valley Mall has a no firearms policy. It's posted on the wall with their rules of conduct near at least one entrance. When I saw it, I refused to set foot inside ever again.
    Just because there is a sign it is irrelevant. Michigan unlike Texas does not have any no carry sign legislation. The only thing out there pertains to only entertainment facilities and is based on seating capasity only. As for private property rights at the worst they can ask you to leave but if you concealed there nobody would know in the first place. Normally open carry isnt even noticed.

    Mike
    I understand the legal issues perfectly. I also understand that if they believe my legal possession of a firearm on their property is bad, my spending money on their property is not going to happen. They don't want my guns, they don't want my money. Too bad for them, no great loss to me.
    Principle, Mike, principle.
    "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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Guys what Mike was doing was just clarifying the legal aspect... while some of you are clarifying the moral aspect...

    They don't have anything to do with one another really. Sometimes I have to go in places where OC is not permitted but CC is ... While I would rather not spend my money there sometimes it is unavoidable.. I have learned to pick my battles.




    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."

  14. #14
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    I understand the legal issues perfectly. I also understand that if they believe my legal possession of a firearm on their property is bad, my spending money on their property is not going to happen. They don't want my guns, they don't want my money. Too bad for them, no great loss to me.
    Principle, Mike, principle.
    However for others reading this the legal issues may not be as well understood so they bear repeating.
    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."

  15. #15
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273

    Post imported post

    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period! Regardless of CC or OC. How you proceed is up to you.

  16. #16
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Outdoorsman wrote:
    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period! Regardless of CC or OC. How you proceed is up to you.
    Could you please cite a law that would be violated if a person did OC/CC in either location?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Outdoorsman wrote:
    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period!* Regardless of CC or OC.* How you proceed is up to you.
    Could you please cite a law that would be violated if a person did OC/CC in either location?
    Trespassing

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.

  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Outdoorsman wrote:
    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period! Regardless of CC or OC. How you proceed is up to you.
    Could you please cite a law that would be violated if a person did OC/CC in either location?
    Trespassing

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
    Where's the violation?

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
    Sec. 552.
    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.

  19. #19
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Outdoorsman wrote:
    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period! Regardless of CC or OC. How you proceed is up to you.
    Could you please cite a law that would be violated if a person did OC/CC in either location?
    If you were to be forced to defend yourself in such a place:

    By tresspassing you are in the act of committing a crime, therefore...

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
    United we STAND!

  20. #20
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Where's the violation?

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
    Sec. 552.
    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
    The sign is the owner forbidding your entrance while armed.

    This can be debated, and it is a given that charges merely for tresspassing are unlikely unless you refuse a verbal command due to no legislation specific to obediance of such signs.

    I would caution to put this to the Kim Worthy test though. Especially if you were forced to defend yourself.
    United we STAND!

  21. #21
    Guest

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Outdoorsman wrote:
    Yep, their rule is no firearms, period! Regardless of CC or OC. How you proceed is up to you.
    Could you please cite a law that would be violated if a person did OC/CC in either location?
    If you were to be forced to defend yourself in such a place:

    By tresspassing you are in the act of committing a crime, therefore...

    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
    From the trespass cite please quote the crime being committed that precludes the use of deadly force.

  22. #22
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    From the trespass cite please quote the crime being committed that precludes the use of deadly force.
    Please see the last post on page 1.
    United we STAND!

  23. #23
    Guest

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Where's the violation?

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
    Sec. 552.
    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
    The sign is the owner forbidding your entrance while armed.

    This can be debated, and it is a given that charges merely for tresspassing are unlikely unless you refuse a verbal command due to no legislation specific to obediance of such signs.

    I would caution to put this to the Kim Worthy test though. Especially if you were forced to defend yourself.
    Is there specific signage requirements in the trespass laws? Could you cite that?

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Where's the violation?

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
    Sec. 552.
    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
    The sign is the owner forbidding your entrance while armed.

    This can be debated, and it is a given that charges merely for tresspassing are unlikely unless you refuse a verbal command due to no legislation specific to obediance of such signs.

    I would caution to put this to the Kim Worthy test though. Especially if you were forced to defend yourself.
    Is there specific signage requirements in the trespass laws? Could you cite that?
    No, there's not. There's also no case law supporting or denying that a sign serves as lawful notice. However, this does not matter. A lawyer would simply need to prove that you should have reasonably known (or did know, as you do, this forum proves that) that you could not be in the location while armed.

    It's a case-by-case thing. You willing to take the chance?

  25. #25
    Guest

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Where's the violation?

    750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
    Sec. 552.
    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
    The sign is the owner forbidding your entrance while armed.

    This can be debated, and it is a given that charges merely for tresspassing are unlikely unless you refuse a verbal command due to no legislation specific to obediance of such signs.

    I would caution to put this to the Kim Worthy test though. Especially if you were forced to defend yourself.
    Is there specific signage requirements in the trespass laws? Could you cite that?
    No, there's not. There's also no case law supporting or denying that a sign serves as lawful notice. However, this does not matter. A lawyer would simply need to prove that you should have reasonably known (or did know, as you do, this forum proves that) that you could not be in the location while armed.

    It's a case-by-case thing. You willing to take the chance?
    Yes, as I've been advised by competent counsel that to do so is not in and of itself a crime UNTIL you are ORDERED to leave. And he is not only prepared to defend me, he is absolutely confident of acquittal.

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
  •