OC in a school - suggestions

I am aware that oc in pfz is allowed with a cpl.  I have 2 elementary age sons whom I drop off at school in the mornings & when the weather is nice, we'll be walking instead of driving.  Any suggestions from people who oc at schools?  Have a pre-carry discussion with County Sheriff, Local Chief, then school principal?  Last thing I want is a mwg call & having my kids see that; plus, I'm a local business owner so that wouldn't be great for business. 

I don't feel the schools here are dangerous.  It's just the extra handling to remove/store/reconceal is ridiculous + when walking, I would simply continue on to my shop so there wouldn't be anywhere to store a pistol.

Click to expand...

Another tip, buy a voice recorder.

You WILL use it if you OC at a school. I hate to say it, but at a school especially, there's going to be tons of MWAG calls to 911, regardless of if you tell them ahead of time or not.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

Click to expand...

Trainer wrote:

I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

Click to expand...

It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.

Click to expand...

Trainer wrote:

I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

Click to expand...

It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.

Click to expand...

Venator wrote:

Trainer wrote:

I didn't realize that public schools where I had legitimate business (dropping kids off, functions, games, etc) were considered private property per se & could restrict firearms above state law. I highly doubt they will allow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.



edit: I knew pre-emption doesn't apply to universities/colleges, but thought public schools (k-12) were covered.

Click to expand...

It not that it isn't public property, it is (unless a private school) it's a question of what entity controls the property. The local unit of government doesn't control the property like it does atownship hall, or library or park. SoI think it's a grey area until something can be cited that show it's a local unit of government thereby falling under the preemption statute.

Click to expand...

My mind set is this:

Public schools are ran by the school board, which consist of elected officials. If I vote for who should get what position on the schools board, then it is in essence, a branch of a local unit of government, since those sitting on the school board get payed partially from the schools lump of money, but also from local money as well.

Just sayin......

Click to expand...

I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

But someone today pointed this law out to me, so It can go either way.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another 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.

Click to expand...

stainless1911 wrote:

I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

But someone today pointed this law out to me, so It can go either way.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another 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.

Click to expand...

I remember a few years back Jim Simmons saying something about a judge in a case he worked taking a similar stance. It's sad when the judges decide that they don't care what the law says, and are just going to do whatever pleases their own agenda. MCL 28.425o (it's "o", not "0") in no way prohibits or even addresses OC, but this judge just up and decides that he can pass legislation.

Kangaroo judge.

Click to expand...

stainless1911 wrote:

I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.

Click to expand...

mpearce wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I was involved with a case today where the judge said that OC on a school property was illegal under 28.4250, with or without a CPL. And the attorney general opinion was not law.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't believe the judge ever addressed the open carry issue as he clearly said something like "while I find that you were carrying on your hip, I also find that you covered your firearm with your shirt."The judgewas focusing totally on the concealed carry violation.

Click to expand...

Stainless,

Melissa seems to credibly contradict, or at least significantly correct,your assertion about what the judge said. Is she correct?

Click to expand...