OC in a school - suggestions

imported post

DanM wrote:

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...

Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

SNIP
Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to in your case. According to Mrs Pearce, your charge was for a violation of Section 5o where it was determined that you were CC in a GFZ. Therefore, Section 234d does not come into play. Section 5o, specifically indicates that those who are licensed under the Act (CPL) are prohibited to CC on the premises of schools, churches, etc, with an exemption to parking lots.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

SNIP
Melissa is correct in that this was the basis of the judges decision. I beleive I made this clear on another thread, however, since we neglected to point out:

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

I think that since this list does not mension schools, a good argument could have been made that I wasnt carrying on school property, but on a church playground. I spoke with the owners who said unmistakably that this church property, but that the school was a church ministry.

Not trying to hijack the thread. sorry OP.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to in your case. According to Mrs Pearce, your charge was for a violation of Section 5o where it was determined that you were CC in a GFZ. Therefore, Section 234d does not come into play. Section 5o, specifically indicates that those who are licensed under the Act (CPL) are prohibited to CC on the premises of schools, churches, etc, with an exemption to parking lots.

Click to expand...

And, I can see where the judge got that determination.

(1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.

Click to expand...

Although it does appear to contradict the following:

...
(3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1)
....

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if the statute is taken as a whole, then it could be construed to mean that one can CC in a school parking lot only if they are dropping off or picking up a student. Section (a) specifies "a vehicle", so I don't think the judge is making that far a reach to mean the "parking lot".

Granted, I think the judge is still taking liberty. Section (3) is about a specific as it can get, and does include subsection 1(a). However, it appears it did leave a door open. Maybe it should be addressed by the legislature.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

(1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.

Click to expand...

Although it does appear to contradict the following:

...
(3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1)
....

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if the statute is taken as a whole, then it could be construed to mean that one can CC in a school parking lot only if they are dropping off or picking up a student. Section (a) specifies "a vehicle", so I don't think the judge is making that far a reach to mean the "parking lot".

Granted, I think the judge is still taking liberty. Section (3) is about a specific as it can get, and does include subsection 1(a). However, it appears it did leave a door open. Maybe it should be addressed by the legislature.

Click to expand...

I guess my first question would be, in regards to the parking lot exemption, is: Does the rules of statutory construction allow Subsection (3) to supercede Subsection (1)?

imported post

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, several times actually, oral testimonytrumped and theMagistrate ruled thedefendant as CC in a GFZ. Though total bullsh!t, for now, it is what it is.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, several times actually, oral testimony trumped and the Magistrate ruled the defendant as CC in a GFZ.  Though total bullsh!t, for now, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Oral testimony wasnt mentioned once in this thread not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure how someone could say it was concealed when he was OC unless it wasn't exposed as it should be. I'm wondering if the person was told the difference between the two. Either his holser was out or it was covered and concealed in some way. There should be no in between.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, several times actually, oral testimonytrumped and theMagistrate ruled thedefendant as CC in a GFZ. Though total bullsh!t, for now, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Oral testimony wasnt mentioned once in this thread not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure how someone could say it was concealed when he was OC unless it wasn't exposed as it should be. I'm wondering if the person was told the difference between the two. Either his holser was out or it was covered and concealed in some way. There should be no in between.

Click to expand...

If you read the first post on this page by Stainless you will see how the thread went from suggestions to OC at schools to Stainless' case. Ghost and I were simply responding/discussing mattersthat were/are relevant to theissue at hand.

As I already mentioned, I too, feel the charge was total BS, but that doesn't change anything for now. It's unfortunate the Magistrate only took into account the testimony of those who said he was CC.

And, I agree, that if a person claims that someone is CC'ing a pistol (read MWAG call), it's obvious to a reasonable person that the subject must not be CC'ing if the caller claims towitness a MWAG.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, several times actually, oral testimonytrumped and theMagistrate ruled thedefendant as CC in a GFZ. Though total bullsh!t, for now, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Oral testimony wasnt mentioned once in this thread not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure how someone could say it was concealed when he was OC unless it wasn't exposed as it should be. I'm wondering if the person was told the difference between the two. Either his holser was out or it was covered and concealed in some way. There should be no in between.

Click to expand...

There was a witness who adamantly claimed that his weapon was concealed at some time, and the judge believed her. It is not a case about OC, but CC on school grounds.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

I think you guys are way over complicating the issue. Show me the line in the law where it says it applies to people open carrying. There is nothing more there be honest.

Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, several times actually, oral testimony trumped and the Magistrate ruled the defendant as CC in a GFZ.  Though total bullsh!t, for now, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

Oral testimony wasnt mentioned once in this thread not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure how someone could say it was concealed when he was OC unless it wasn't exposed as it should be. I'm wondering if the person was told the difference between the two. Either his holser was out or it was covered and concealed in some way. There should be no in between.

Click to expand...

There was a witness who adamantly claimed that his weapon was concealed at some time, and the judge believed her. It is not a case about OC, but CC on school grounds.

Click to expand...

Just curious because the info about this case is slowwwwly trickling out. Was he wearing a IWB holster OC'ing? We've already seen ThWay run in to the IWB issue.

imported post

I was OC with a blackhawk serpa holster on my right hip. I was wearing a flannel which I always tuck behind the holster foreasy access and open carry promotion.

Some have said it best this way. this case was bull $#!+.

This is a case where a witness was good at presenting her position. She is IMO strongly and adamantly opposed to anyone carrying a gun at a school, be it OC CC legal, or illegal, and she was on a mission to do the public a service of some sort by helping the police punish someone who might dare to bring a (omg) GUN on a school playground anywhere near the (omg) children.

She was panicked, she said she thought I was following her, she said she thought I was going to confront her. She said she was hiding in her car with her son making very sure I diddnt know she was watching me. She made it clear that she would not take her eyes off of me.

From where I was in relation to the nearest vehicle in the lot, she would have been on thr right rear side of my car at least 100 feet away from my car, and at least 75 feet farther to the pklayground. She would have been ducked down hiding in her car showing her son how to be a good liberal.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

I was OC with a blackhawk serpa holster on my right hip. I was wearing a flannel which I always tuck behind the holster foreasy access and open carry promotion.

Some have said it best this way. this case was bull $#!+.

This is a case where a witness was good at presenting her position. She is IMO strongly and adamantly opposed to anyone carrying a gun at a school, be it OC CC legal, or illegal, and she was on a mission to do the public a service of some sort by helping the police punish someone who might dare to bring a (omg) GUN on a school playground anywhere near the (omg) children.

She was panicked, she said she thought I was following her, she said she thought I was going to confront her. She said she was hiding in her car with her son making very sure I diddnt know she was watching me. She made it clear that she would not take her eyes off of me.

From where I was in relation to the nearest vehicle in the lot, she would have been on thr right rear side of my car at least 100 feet away from my car, and at least 75 feet farther to the pklayground. She would have been ducked down hiding in her car showing her son how to be a good liberal.

Click to expand...

I feel this thread is misleading because somewhere there was somebody who says he was CC'ing. I don't know the details of his case and have been barely able to figure out the basics of it here. All I know is when I OC there is no confusion between OC & CC. In the winter I remove my jacket. I'm a lefty so I tuck my left side clothing in to the inside part of my holster so there can be no covering. The problem I've seen many time is people wear clothing that can cover the holster or wear IWB holsters which we have a proven case in which it was considered concealed because it's a IWB. If the person is OC'ing 100% there should be no confusion and the only way there would be is if someone is out to get you and lies and purgers themselves on the stand. This has nothing to do with OC in a PFZ it's the fact that people visibly stated he was CC'ing.

In many cases I take a picture of myself before leaving the house full length picture an one focused on my rig. I also carry recorders and am working on video. I do believe there are anti-firearm people out there who would lie to try an stop people from carrying in general and I don't trust all police to be honest either.

If it was concealed I'd like to see her explanation of how it was concealed and how she saw it if it was concealed. Imagine if you had video of yourself that day. You'd be able to charge her for perjury. Did you know you can video yourself for as cheap as $20? On top of that it also helps to have many witnesses.

imported post

The fact is, the CPL states this on the back...

"This license allows the licensee to carry a pistol on or about his personANYWHERE IN THE STATE, except the licensee SHALL NOT CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL at a school, on school property, day care center, child placing agency, sports arena, stadium, bar or tavern licensed to serve liquor, church, synagouge, mosque, temple or other place of worship, entertainment facility seating more than 2500 people, hospital, dormitory or classroom of a college or university or casino or as otherwise prohibited by law."

It states thelicense allows the licensee to carry ANYWHERE in the state, but you can't carry CONCEALED into the places listed above. So as long as you carry it OPENLY with a CPL you CAN carry a pistol into most of the Pistol Free Zones, because it does not say "Shall not carry a pistol"; It specifically states "concealed". There is no law states you cannot open carry into those places without a CPL.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

I was OC with a blackhawk serpa holster on my right hip. I was wearing a flannel which I always tuck behind the holster foreasy access and open carry promotion.

Some have said it best this way. this case was bull $#!+.

This is a case where a witness was good at presenting her position. She is IMO strongly and adamantly opposed to anyone carrying a gun at a school, be it OC CC legal, or illegal, and she was on a mission to do the public a service of some sort by helping the police punish someone who might dare to bring a (omg) GUN on a school playground anywhere near the (omg) children.

She was panicked, she said she thought I was following her, she said she thought I was going to confront her. She said she was hiding in her car with her son making very sure I diddnt know she was watching me. She made it clear that she would not take her eyes off of me.

From where I was in relation to the nearest vehicle in the lot, she would have been on thr right rear side of my car at least 100 feet away from my car, and at least 75 feet farther to the pklayground. She would have been ducked down hiding in her car showing her son how to be a good liberal.

Click to expand...

That's about what I'm getting from all of this. It is the reasoning that the USSC gave for not allowing a firearm exception to Terry. Too bad the witness was so well versed. Maybe next time she's out there someone with a CPL should show up OC'ing without a shirt so there is no way it can be covered.

This is one of those reasons why I always thought extreme caution and care should be exercised when doing stuff like this. Someone just started a thread on transport, and was told that locking up the cased gun is not legally required, but it is recommended. It's all about protecting oneself legally. That doesn't mean "Not doing something that would get someone arrested.", it means "not doing something that a prosecutor/cop/judge/vindictive anti-gunner can use to make ones life miserable. The type of people who do these things are so vindictive that they will stoop so low as to breaking the law to impose their agenda on someone else. They will lie to do it, and feel like they are completely justified in the action.

In this case, there was little the defendant could do as there was a complainant who was willing to lie in court to force someone to her will. Cowardly in and of itself, but that's what we deal with. She probably feels like she did society a great service by lying/perjuring herself in court to help prosecute an innocent mane who did nothing to anybody, and posed no threat to anyone.

imported post

Simple video of yourself OC'ing will put it to rest and only use it after a lib perjures themselves on the stand so they're the one getting the charges.

imported post

I have, since this case, gota digital voice recorder, someone gave it to me. And I will be looking into a video recorder of some sort.

How can I get video for 20$??

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

I have, since this case, got a digital voice recorder, someone gave it to me. And I will be looking into a video recorder of some sort.

How can I get video for 20$??

Click to expand...

Ebay.com all kinds of crap out there, pen cam's etc.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I have, since this case, gota digital voice recorder, someone gave it to me. And I will be looking into a video recorder of some sort.

How can I get video for 20$??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All I know is when I OC there is no confusion between OC & CC. In the winter I remove my jacket. I'm a lefty so I tuck my left side clothing in to the inside part of my holster so there can be no covering. The problem I've seen many time is people wear clothing that can cover the holster or wear IWB holsters which we have a proven case in which it was considered concealed because it's a IWB.

Click to expand...

For these reasons I also recommend just getting a drop-leg holster if you don't have a CPL. I have never had a problem with mine. Unless you're dressed like Morpheus, your coat* will not cover it, ever.

*or shirt

imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I have, since this case, gota digital voice recorder, someone gave it to me. And I will be looking into a video recorder of some sort.

How can I get video for 20$??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All I know is when I OC there is no confusion between OC & CC. In the winter I remove my jacket. I'm a lefty so I tuck my left side clothing in to the inside part of my holster so there can be no covering. The problem I've seen many time is people wear clothing that can cover the holster or wear IWB holsters which we have a proven case in which it was considered concealed because it's a IWB.

Click to expand...

For these reasons I also recommend just getting a drop-leg holster if you don't have a CPL. I have never had a problem with mine. Unless you're dressed like Morpheus, your coat* will not cover it, ever.

*or shirt

Click to expand...

Or you could use a roll of duct tape and wrap your shirt with it around the torso to keep it from covering your firearm. Duct tape fixes everything!

imported post

T Vance wrote:

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I have, since this case, got a digital voice recorder, someone gave it to me. And I will be looking into a video recorder of some sort.

How can I get video for 20$??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

All I know is when I OC there is no confusion between OC & CC. In the winter I remove my jacket. I'm a lefty so I tuck my left side clothing in to the inside part of my holster so there can be no covering. The problem I've seen many time is people wear clothing that can cover the holster or wear IWB holsters which we have a proven case in which it was considered concealed because it's a IWB.

Click to expand...

For these reasons I also recommend just getting a drop-leg holster if you don't have a CPL. I have never had a problem with mine. Unless you're dressed like Morpheus, your coat* will not cover it, ever.

*or shirt

Click to expand...

See there's a perk for getting a CPL. You can buy a Morpheus jacket and fill it with AK's, HK MP5's, etc... just not while you're at a school or PFZ.

Click to expand...