• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Positive OC LEO encounter on school property

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
imported post

Walked my son to his classroom yesterday OCing as usual. After saying goodbye to him, 2 Sterling Heights officers walked out. One was a Lt. the other the schools DARE officer. Walking up from behind the classroom was the asst. chief. They addressed me by first and last name. They asked if they could have a moment of my time. I said sure but would like to know am I free to go at anytime, and they answered yes of course. We then walked out onto the schools playground. They informed me several parents and the principal called and asked them to respond as they were greatly concerned by me carrying on school property. They stated they spoke with their prosecutor who told them it was a "grey" area of the law. I said no its not and clearly stated both 750.234d and 28.425o and how my only legal means to carry to protect myself and my family on school grounds was to have a CPL and to openly carry. The Lt. stated he never had it explained to him that way and was impressed. He said he was going to ask his prosecutor to request an official AG opinion on it. We continued to talk for about 20 minutes about OC and firearm carry tactics in general. They stated if the AG backed up what I stated they would retrain the entire department and also the school officials would be educated on it. The entire time several parents were watching from their vehicles, and staff was watching out the windows. At the end of our conversation they shook my hand and thanked me for my time and sharing of information and told me to have a great day. I walked away still armed, never asked for ID. I was treated above all expectations and commend the department and those individuals for their professionalism. I will be contacting the city to personally inform them of this positive encounter.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

sprinklerguy28 wrote:
The Lt. stated he never had it explained to him that way and was impressed. He said he was going to ask his prosecutor to request an official AG opinion on it. r.
Doesn't this one already cover it?

[align=center]STATE OF MICHIGAN[/align] [align=center]JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL[/align] [align=center][/align] CONCEALED WEAPONS:
FIREARMS:
PRIVATE DETECTIVES:
Private investigator carrying concealed pistol in gun-free zones
A private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is not, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.
Opinion No. 7097

January 11, 2002

Honorable Doug Spade
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI
You have asked whether a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.
Private investigators are licensed under the Private Detective License Act of 1965, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 et seq. That act does not, however, authorize a private investigator to carry a concealed pistol.
In the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act (Act), 1927 PA 372,[sup]1[/sup] MCL 28.421 et seq, the Legislature has addressed the licensing of persons to carry concealed pistols. Section 5b of the Act contains the requirements for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. Under section 12a, various categories of persons, including peace officers, are made exempt from the requirements of section 5b for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. There is, however, no exemption for private investigators in section 12a or in any other section of the Act. Thus, private investigators may carry concealed pistols only if they are licensed to do so under section 5b of the Act. Once licensed to carry a concealed pistol, private investigators are subject to the Act's restrictions in the same manner as any other person licensed to carry a concealed pistol.
In 2000 PA 381, the Legislature significantly amended the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. New section 5b of the Act changed the requirements for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. Under section 5b(7), a county concealed weapon licensing board "shall issue a license to an applicant" who meets the requirements of the Act. Once the board has issued a license, the license holder may, subject to exceptions stated in section 5o, carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state."
In section 5o, however, the Legislature enumerated certain so-called gun-free zones, i.e., premises where a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall not carry a concealed pistol.
Sec. 5o (1) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, . . . shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
a) A school or school
property . . . .
b) A public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.
c) A sports arena or stadium.
d) A dining room, lounge, or bar area of a premises licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998.... This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the premises.
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 property or facility.
f) An entertainment facility [that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more].
g) A hospital.
h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university. [Emphasis added.]
Section 5o of the Act expressly prohibits persons licensed under the Act from carrying concealed pistols in the specified gun-free zones.[sup]2[/sup] Nothing in section 5o or in any other section of the Act exempts private investigators from its prohibitions. A clear and unambiguous statement in a statute must be enforced as written according to its plain meaning. Dean v Dep't of Corrections, 453 Mich 448, 454; 556 NW2d 458 (1996). In such instances, statutory construction is neither required nor permitted; rather, the court must apply the statutory language as written. Piper v Pettibone Corp, 450 Mich 565, 572; 542 NW2d 269 (1995). Therefore, a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, even if that person is a licensed private investigator, must obey section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act and shall not carry a concealed pistol in any of the gun-free zones identified in the Act.
This conclusion is not affected by the provisions of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. That statute prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms on certain types of premises as follows:
Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise 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,....
(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. [Emphasis added.]
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.
When applied to a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol, there is no inherent conflict between the gun-free zone provisions in section 234d of the Penal Code and those in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. The former statute, which prohibits firearms in certain protected zones, does not apply to persons who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon.[sup]3[/sup] The latter statute, which contains no exemptions, prohibits concealed weapon licensees from carrying a concealed pistol in certain protected gun-free zones. The legislative prohibition in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act is not diminished in any way by section 234d of the Penal Code. When statutes govern the same subject matter and are in pari materia, the court must endeavor to construe them harmoniously and to give them reasonable effect. Speaker v State Administrative Bd, 441 Mich 547, 568, 579; 495 NW2d 539 (1993).
It is my opinion, therefore, that a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is not, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General
[sup]1[/sup]The Act was significantly revised by amendatory 2000 PA 381.
[sup]2[/sup]A person with a license to carry a concealed pistol who carries a pistol on premises protected under section 5o(1)(a)-(h) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act is subject to the penalties in section 5o(3)(a)-(c) of the Act. These penalties include fines, license suspension or revocation, and for third time offenders, up to four years imprisonment.
[sup]3[/sup]A similar statutory provision criminalizes the possession of weapons in school zones but expressly exempts certain persons, including persons licensed to carry a concealed weapon. MCL 750.237a.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
sprinklerguy28 wrote:
The Lt. stated he never had it explained to him that way and was impressed. He said he was going to ask his prosecutor to request an official AG opinion on it. r.
Doesn't this one already cover it?...
Yes but, AG opinions are only binding on the party they are issued to.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

What good did the 20 minute conversation do? What did you accomplish? You didn't educate them on anything they didn't already know. I'm not saying not to communicate, but it doesn't take twenty minutes. If it was for the benefit of the audience, then 5 minutes could have been sufficient. Commendable job though.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

My guess would be, the current AG, rather than write a new opinion will likely defer to the previous one.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'm just curious, is there history of a following AG's opinion over ruling or countermanding a previous AG's Opinion, without any change in the law?
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
imported post

When the time comes that an OCer talks himself into a ticket or jail, the we will all shout that person down and say "you should have just shut up!", and I'll agree. When an interaction like this happens, it fosters a better opinion of OCers to the LEO's. We are not all a bunch of "it's my right so FU!" guys. I want to thank sprinklerguy28 for helping to bridge the divide between OCers and LEOs. Thanks, bro.
 

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
imported post

CV67PAT wrote:
What good did the 20 minute conversation do? What did you accomplish? You didn't educate them on anything they didn't already know. I'm not saying not to communicate, but it doesn't take twenty minutes. If it was for the benefit of the audience, then 5 minutes could have been sufficient. Commendable job though.


It built a good relationship with local LEOs. It confirmed to all those watching that I did nothing wrong. I did help educate them on some of the finer points of OCing in a PFZ with a CPl. Should I have to do this? no, but the fact they respected me enough to have a civil conversation in which they made clear I was free to leave at anytime, to me was a opportunity not to be missed. Most of the talking was like old friends discussing holsters, preferences on equipment and the lack of the government in clarifying the laws in regards to gun ownership and possession. I was also told I'd be invited to future trainings in regards to both the department and the schools. Our mission is to educate and desensitize the public and LEOs on OC. How can we do this without conversation? Is it good to talk in every situation? No. This was an opportunity to confirm what many have said would not be tolerated. All 3 also stated regardless of any future opinions from their prosecutor or the AG they would never pursue charging me with anything. They would even call if they were instructed not to allow it any further, however they didn't feel that after I discussed the laws with them. I passed one of those officers on the road today and received a friendly acknowledgement and wave.

So what good came of it? I feel more than one could hope for.
 

jeremiahJohnson

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
375
Location
fenton, Michigan, USA
imported post

scot623 wrote:
When the time comes that an OCer talks himself into a ticket or jail, the we will all shout that person down and say "you should have just shut up!"(It already happened, & We did already shout him down), and I'll agree. When an interaction like this happens, it fosters a better opinion of OCers to the LEO's (You assume this, you have no evidence of what those officers think, after they left). We are not all a bunch of "it's my right so FU!" guys (Yes we are, but No one Has spoken like that to an officer). I want to thank sprinklerguy28 for helping to bridge the divide between OCers and LEOs . Thanks, bro.
Yes I too want to thank Scott for Being polite.:celebrate
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

sprinklerguy28 wrote:
CV67PAT wrote:
What good did the 20 minute conversation do? What did you accomplish? You didn't educate them on anything they didn't already know. I'm not saying not to communicate, but it doesn't take twenty minutes. If it was for the benefit of the audience, then 5 minutes could have been sufficient. Commendable job though.


It built a good relationship with local LEOs. It confirmed to all those watching that I did nothing wrong. I did help educate them on some of the finer points of OCing in a PFZ with a CPl. Should I have to do this? no, but the fact they respected me enough to have a civil conversation in which they made clear I was free to leave at anytime, to me was a opportunity not to be missed. Most of the talking was like old friends discussing holsters, preferences on equipment and the lack of the government in clarifying the laws in regards to gun ownership and possession. I was also told I'd be invited to future trainings in regards to both the department and the schools. Our mission is to educate and desensitize the public and LEOs on OC. How can we do this without conversation? Is it good to talk in every situation? No. This was an opportunity to confirm what many have said would not be tolerated. All 3 also stated regardless of any future opinions from their prosecutor or the AG they would never pursue charging me with anything. They would even call if they were instructed not to allow it any further, however they didn't feel that after I discussed the laws with them. I passed one of those officers on the road today and received a friendly acknowledgement and wave.

So what good came of it? I feel more than one could hope for.
I say ... a job well done Sir!:D

Yes there are times when it is best to not say anything... or very little... but I believe there are times when careful, with wits in full swing and conversational "situational awareness" at full throttle, conversation can result in a positive outcome. Not just for the OC'er and the police involved... but for OC in general when the onlookers discover the "cuff and stuff" circus they expected to see never happened and everyone walked away.
 

SIGfreed

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
100
Location
Montague, Michigan, USA
imported post

Great job IMO. To have that positive of an encounter with LE and on school property to boot is out standing. My grandson's school is the only place I have not OC'ed yet I may have to give it some more thought now.

Great job :celebrate
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

But how do I know I said too much, when I've already said too much? Be polite, but getting chatty can lead to a citation. Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
 
G

Guest

Guest
imported post

sprinklerguy28 wrote:
CV67PAT wrote:
What good did the 20 minute conversation do? What did you accomplish? You didn't educate them on anything they didn't already know. I'm not saying not to communicate, but it doesn't take twenty minutes. If it was for the benefit of the audience, then 5 minutes could have been sufficient. Commendable job though.


It built a good relationship with local LEOs. It confirmed to all those watching that I did nothing wrong. I did help educate them on some of the finer points of OCing in a PFZ with a CPl. Should I have to do this? no, but the fact they respected me enough to have a civil conversation in which they made clear I was free to leave at anytime, to me was a opportunity not to be missed. Most of the talking was like old friends discussing holsters, preferences on equipment and the lack of the government in clarifying the laws in regards to gun ownership and possession. I was also told I'd be invited to future trainings in regards to both the department and the schools. Our mission is to educate and desensitize the public and LEOs on OC. How can we do this without conversation? Is it good to talk in every situation? No. This was an opportunity to confirm what many have said would not be tolerated. All 3 also stated regardless of any future opinions from their prosecutor or the AG they would never pursue charging me with anything. They would even call if they were instructed not to allow it any further, however they didn't feel that after I discussed the laws with them. I passed one of those officers on the road today and received a friendly acknowledgement and wave.

So what good came of it? I feel more than one could hope for.
I've seen your interviews and I know that your much more intelligent and articulate than myself or others here could possibly be with police in such a situation.

I just couldn't comprehend why 20 minutes would be necessary. Having heard though the depth of the conversation, I can now understand why you took the amount of time you did.

Thanks for continuing to provide your skills and time toward the cause/movement.
 
Top