Where can one OC in PFZ and how?

imported post

mpearce 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(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.

(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.

(c) A sports arena or stadium.

(d) A bar or tavern licensed under Michigan liquor control code, ..., where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the business...

(e)Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that propery or facility.

(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.

(g) A hospital.

(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college or university.

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

Click to expand...

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28apcrjy55u345km55yhm1ffjl%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-237a

750.237a Individuals engaging in proscribed conduct; violation; penalties; definitions.
Sec. 237a.
(1) An individual who engages in conduct proscribed under section 224, 224a, 224b, 224c, 224e, 226, 227, 227a, 227f, 234a, 234b, or 234c, or who engages in conduct proscribed under section 223(2) for a second or subsequent time, in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a felony punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the section violated.
(b) Community service for not more than 150 hours.
(c) A fine of not more than 3 times the maximum fine authorized for the section violated.
(2) An individual who engages in conduct proscribed under section 223(1), 224d, 226a, 227c, 227d, 231c, 232a(1) or (4), 233, 234, 234e, 234f, 235, 236, or 237, or who engages in conduct proscribed under section 223(2) for the first time, in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the section violated or 93 days, whichever is greater.
(b) Community service for not more than 100 hours.
(c) A fine of not more than $2,000.00 or the maximum fine authorized for the section violated, whichever is greater.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to conduct proscribed under a section enumerated in those subsections to the extent that the proscribed conduct is otherwise exempted or authorized under this chapter.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who possesses a weapon in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.
(b) Community service for not more than 100 hours.
(c) A fine of not more than $2,000.00.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An individual employed by or contracted by a school if the possession of that weapon is to provide security services for the school.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) An individual who possesses a weapon provided by a school or a school's instructor on school property for purposes of providing or receiving instruction in the use of that weapon.
(e) An individual who possesses a firearm on school property if that possession is with the permission of the school's principal or an agent of the school designated by the school's principal or the school board.
(f) An individual who is 18 years of age or older who is not a student at the school and who possesses a firearm on school property while transporting a student to or from the school if any of the following apply:
(i) The individual is carrying an antique firearm, completely unloaded, in a wrapper or container in the trunk of a vehicle while en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area or function involving the exhibition, demonstration or sale of antique firearms.
(ii) The individual is carrying a firearm unloaded in a wrapper or container in the trunk of the person's vehicle, while in possession of a valid Michigan hunting license or proof of valid membership in an organization having shooting range facilities, and while en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(iii) The person is carrying a firearm unloaded in a wrapper or container in the trunk of the person's vehicle from the place of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business, or in moving goods from one place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) The person is carrying an unloaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle that does not have a trunk, if the person is otherwise complying with the requirements of subparagraph (ii) or (iii) and the wrapper or container is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) “Antique firearm” means either of the following:
(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or a replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898.
(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(b) “School” means a public, private, denominational, or parochial school offering developmental kindergarten, kindergarten, or any grade from 1 through 12.
(c) “School property” means a building, playing field, or property used for school purposes to impart instruction to children or used for functions and events sponsored by a school, except a building used primarily for adult education or college extension courses.
(d) “Weapon free school zone” means school property and a vehicle used by a school to transport students to or from school property.
[line]
It appears to me that premises is exclusive of parking lots in one law you cited and parking lots are not defined as school property as specified in the law referenced in your cite.

It looks pretty cut and dry. No ambiguity here. Parking lots are exempt from premises. A weapons free zone is only school property and school property is not defined as being the parking lot.

It appears that the legislature went to extraordinary steps to exclude parking lots from the prohibited zone.

So one the face of it, these two cites contradict the discussion/opinion of the district court judge.

imported post

Agreed on his question of interpretation and your cites. However, as I stated above; the parking lot was dismissed by the judge pursuant to the testimony that he was outside the vehicle walking on the property while CCing. That's why I'm having a hard time understanding why all the questions about the parking lot issue. If you can explain where the relevance is I would appreciate it.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Agreed on his question of interpretation and your cites. However, as I stated above; the parking lot was dismissed by the judge pursuant to the testimony that he was outside the vehicle walking on the property while CCing. That's why I'm having a hard time understanding why all the questions about the parking lot issue. If you can explain where the relevance is I would appreciate it.

Click to expand...

That case isn't even being discussed here.

mpearce referred to it simply because the judge in that case had a discussion outside the parameters of the case itself and was commenting on the parking lot seperately.

There's a thread already going about the case itself, elsewhere in this sub-forum. There is no need to even start discussing it here. Let's confine the deception to that thread.

imported post

Ok, I can see the relevance of the discussion. My mistake, I thought it was in reference to the other thread.

imported post

I took this thread to be a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein ............. not a discussion about any certain person or particular court case. Although it somehow got skewed in that direction.

I was asking about a point of law... not any particular case. Hence:

Does the parking lot exemption also apply for school parking lots or do school parking lots also have the additional stipulation of requiring anyone CC'ing (because inside a vehicle it is already CC'ing) to be expressly either picking up or dropping off a student of that school? Or... does a judge have the option of applying either the exemption or the stipulation according to that judges particular whim that day since both are contained within the law?

Now.. if I am wrong as to the focus of the OP's intent with this thread and it is a discussion about the recent court case discussed elsewhere in the forum I'll apologize and bow out.

imported post

You see what I mean though about the legislature going the extra steps to keep school parking lots separate from premises and school property. They actually went so far as to include buses as "school property".

Now if I drove my car onto the playground, with a loaded pistol inside, and got out and OCed. I would think that would be a violation because playgrounds are specifically defined as school property.

imported post

Yes, I understand your point and agree they went the extra measures within the law. Thanks for clarifying.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

I took this thread to be a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein ............. not a discussion about any certain person or particular court case. Although it somehow got skewed in that direction.

I was asking about a point of law... not any particular case. Hence:

Does the parking lot exemption also apply for school parking lots or do school parking lots also have the additional stipulation of requiring anyone CC'ing (because inside a vehicle it is already CC'ing) to be expressly either picking up or dropping off a student of that school? Or... does a judge have the option of applying either the exemption or the stipulation according to that judges particular whim that day since both are contained within the law?

Now.. if I am wrong as to the focus of the OP's intent with this thread and it is a discussion about the recent court case discussed elsewhere in the forum I'll apologize and bow out.

Click to expand...

It is a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein. Part and parcel of the intricacies is how the judge's are interpreting and applying the laws. This is not a place a discussion to rehash the one case, I was merely pointing out the reasoning of this particular judge. If he is thinking this way, I am sure there are others throughout the state.

Based on this particular's judge's statements, I believe he would find someone driving into a school's parking lot to oc elsewhere on the school property as a violation. This is my personal opinion and not a fact based on what I heard and observed that day, taking into account non-verbal clues.

To define gray area so we are all in agreement: Any part of the law/statute where there are at least two different opinions/understandings of the law.

imported post

mpearce wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

I took this thread to be a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein ............. not a discussion about any certain person or particular court case. Although it somehow got skewed in that direction.

I was asking about a point of law... not any particular case. Hence:

Does the parking lot exemption also apply for school parking lots or do school parking lots also have the additional stipulation of requiring anyone CC'ing (because inside a vehicle it is already CC'ing) to be expressly either picking up or dropping off a student of that school? Or... does a judge have the option of applying either the exemption or the stipulation according to that judges particular whim that day since both are contained within the law?

Now.. if I am wrong as to the focus of the OP's intent with this thread and it is a discussion about the recent court case discussed elsewhere in the forum I'll apologize and bow out.

Click to expand...

It is a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein. Part and parcel of the intricacies is how the judge's are interpreting and applying the laws. This is not a place a discussion to rehash the one case, I was merely pointing out the reasoning of this particular judge. If he is thinking this way, I am sure there are others throughout the state.

Based on this particular's judge's statements, I believe he would find someone driving into a school's parking lot to oc elsewhere on the school property as a violation. This is my personal opinion and not a fact based on what I heard and observed that day, taking into account non-verbal clues.

To define gray area so we are all in agreement: Any part of the law/statute where there are at least two different opinions/understandings of the law.

Click to expand...

It doesn't look all that gray. The two laws governing this action are black and white.

One says that I can only drive onto school property with a loaded pistol in my vehicle if I'm a parent dropping off a student. That law specifically references the definition of school property in a cited law. In that referenced law a parking lot is not included in the definition of school property.

Looks pretty black and white to me.

Obviously though, the judge needs some remedial reading education.

imported post

mpearce wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

I took this thread to be a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein ............. not a discussion about any certain person or particular court case. Although it somehow got skewed in that direction.

I was asking about a point of law... not any particular case. Hence:

Does the parking lot exemption also apply for school parking lots or do school parking lots also have the additional stipulation of requiring anyone CC'ing (because inside a vehicle it is already CC'ing) to be expressly either picking up or dropping off a student of that school? Or... does a judge have the option of applying either the exemption or the stipulation according to that judges particular whim that day since both are contained within the law?

Now.. if I am wrong as to the focus of the OP's intent with this thread and it is a discussion about the recent court case discussed elsewhere in the forum I'll apologize and bow out.

Click to expand...

It is a discussion about the actual law and the intricacies therein. Part and parcel of the intricacies is how the judge's are interpreting and applying the laws. This is not a place a discussion to rehash the one case, I was merely pointing out the reasoning of this particular judge. If he is thinking this way, I am sure there are others throughout the state.

Based on this particular's judge's statements, I believe he would find someone driving into a school's parking lot to oc elsewhere on the school property as a violation. This is my personal opinion and not a fact based on what I heard and observed that day, taking into account non-verbal clues.

To define gray area so we are all in agreement: Any part of the law/statute where there are at least two different opinions/understandings of the law.

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong...

This gray area leaves it up to the individual judge's discretion as to how he/she wishes to to interpret those two different sections of the law. One judge could go with the "parking lots exempt" to mean exactly that yet the next could go with the stipulation that it is necessary to stay in the car while picking up/dropping off a student making any other activity illegal.

Jumpin' Jeepers! I don't like that at all.

Edited to add:

Uh oh... could that also mean that a person with a CPL who left his/her gun locked in their car in the parking lot while attending a grandchild's Christmas play could be considered by some judge to be in violation?

imported post

If this were the sole question, wouldnt it cause a mistrial?

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

If this were the sole question, wouldnt it cause a mistrial?

Click to expand...

You've posted your question in the wrong thread.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

If this were the sole question, wouldnt it cause a mistrial?

Click to expand...

No, I know what thread Im in. Im not changing the subject, and Im not going to quit.

imported post

Here is my take on the legislation. It seems to be worded clearly.

as stated several times above, the statute clearly says that parking lots are not considered "premises" as it relates to the subsection.

all parking lots in the subsection are exempt, and anywhere necessary to drive your vehicle to pick up/drop off your child is also exempt. There are some places you can drive at a school that are not technically parking lots. Ie: a drive that goes right up to the door where you drop off your child. There may not be any parking on this drive. Schools also sometimes have their own private roads/drives that are on school property that may lead between school buildings ie: jr high/sr high. Driving on one of these drives while cc would require you to be picking up/dropping off your child if they are not technically considered parking lots.

just my opinion.

i realize the judge may have indicated otherwise, but i think that if parking lots being exempted was the point being argued in a trial, a lawyer should have no trouble arguing the plain wording of the law. IF i understand correctly, the judge in question mentioned his thoughts on the subject, but this particular subject (school parking lot) would not have been a factor in the guilt/innocence of the defendant. If a judge has an opinion on a matter without hearing any opposing argument it seems like that opinion should not carry the same amount of weight as a higher court opinion otherwise would.

am i on track here? or am i all wet?

imported post

imported post

Nice striped kitty!

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

Here is my take on the legislation. It seems to be worded clearly.

as stated several times above, the statute clearly says that parking lots are not considered "premises" as it relates to the subsection.


If a judge has an opinion on a matter without hearing any opposing argument it seems like that opinion should not carry the same amount of weight as a higher court opinion otherwise would.

am i on track here? or am i all wet?

Click to expand...

You are right, that in MCL 28.425o the legislature took pains to write particular parts of it very clear. Perhaps this judge did not read subsection (3) or did not see how it fit into the big picture, idk. That was not the point of the case in which his statements were made. Any good newly graduated attorney should be able to win this point of law at the district level or even on appeal.

Second, a district court or circuit court judge's decisions are not binding on any other jurisdiction in the state than their own. Only appellate decisions (those from the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of the state - federal as well) are binding on all jurisdictions within the state.

imported post

mpearce 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(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(e)Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that propery or facility.

Click to expand...

Ok now for the second gray area in this statute. The highlighted section does not specify when the permission must be obtained. I have seen posts where some think after the fact should work and others post the permission should be before the concealed carry.

Imo, common sense dictates that a wise person would seek this permission out in writing and signed by the presiding official before attempting to concealed carry. I can see where a presiding official may not want to grant permission after the fact, especially when a citation has been issued.

Again, this is to promote thoughtful discussion and nothing specific toward any one situation or case. Forethought and common sense should make us all better representatives of promoting the extension of carry rights for all.

imported post

mpearce wrote:

mpearce 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(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(e)Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that propery or facility.

Click to expand...

Ok now for the second gray area in this statute. The highlighted section does not specify when the permission must be obtained. I have seen posts where some think after the fact should work and others post the permission should be before the concealed carry.

Imo, common sense dictates that a wise person would seek this permission out in writing and signed by the presiding official before attempting to concealed carry. I can see where a presiding official may not want to grant permission after the fact, especially when a citation has been issued.

Again, this is to promote thoughtful discussion and nothing specific toward any one situation or case. Forethought and common sense should make us all better representatives of promoting the extension of carry rights for all.

Click to expand...

The presiding official, IMO, is another gray area. This subject alone, has been brought up countless times across many gun boards where some folks think their pastor, etc, is the presiding official at their place of worship, but this may not be the case. Apparently, some places of worship have a board of regents/governing board that may be above the pastor, etc, in this case determine who is actually the presiding official. Thoughts?

imported post

mpearce wrote:

mpearce 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(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(e)Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that propery or facility.

Click to expand...

Ok now for the second gray area in this statute. The highlighted section does not specify when the permission must be obtained. I have seen posts where some think after the fact should work and others post the permission should be before the concealed carry.

Imo, common sense dictates that a wise person would seek this permission out in writing and signed by the presiding official before attempting to concealed carry. I can see where a presiding official may not want to grant permission after the fact, especially when a citation has been issued.

Again, this is to promote thoughtful discussion and nothing specific toward any one situation or case. Forethought and common sense should make us all better representatives of promoting the extension of carry rights for all.

Click to expand...

Common sense would dictate that a person would obtain permission before, or while participating in the activity. HOWEVER, as far as the letter of the law goes, there is no stipulation as to when the permission should be obtained. Law is black and white. Is it permissible to assume what the authors meant? We all know what assume means. I don't like that idea at all.
The presiding official may or may not want to give permission after the fact, but they have that option until it is written into the law that they can't.