• 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.

MSP Sign

DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Maxwell Gunn said:
stainless1911 said:
Its a private business, they can regulate activity within their store. Why diddn't you just leave?
Which store was this?
Click to expand...

It was Double Action in Madison Heights.
Click to expand...

Never ever ever go back and shop at that gun store. Do not patronize businesses that restrict lawful RKBA. If they try to while you are in the business, leave immediately and spend your money elsewhere. There are plenty of businesses (including gun stores) that don't, so if you would like suggestions just ask.

Good luck!
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
In the case of community colleges, the Community colleges act gives the boards the right to do pretty much whatever they want, at least until someone sues them under the constitution.

So I'd like to know what Michigan law established the MSP. This could provide insight into whether or not they have a right to bar firearms, or indeed bar anyone for any reason, from their premises. This would at least let us know if carriers could face a trespassing charge for carry there, since obviously there are no laws directly saying you can't carry in MSP Post lobbies.

Edit to add: Found this, but it will take a while to sort through- http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(r4...?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-act-59-of-1935
 
Last edited:
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Any viewpoints on what the bolded portion indicates?



28.9 Rules and regulations of department adopted by commissioner.

Sec. 9.

The commissioner shall make and adopt rules and regulations for the direction, control, discipline and conduct of the members of said department, for promotion on the basis of seniority of service, qualifications being equal, of the officers of the department, for the filing and hearing of charges against such officers and he may make any other rules and regulations for the governing and operation of said department as shall appear to him reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. He may require any officer or employe, who may receive and/or disburse public funds in the course of his duties, to file a bond conditioned that he will honestly, correctly, and according to law receive, disburse, pay over and/or account for all public moneys coming into his hands, such bond to be approved as to form, amount and surety by the attorney general.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Michigander said:
Any viewpoints on what the bolded portion indicates?



28.9 Rules and regulations of department adopted by commissioner.

Sec. 9.

The commissioner shall make and adopt rules and regulations for the direction, control, discipline and conduct of the members of said department, for promotion on the basis of seniority of service, qualifications being equal, of the officers of the department, for the filing and hearing of charges against such officers and he may make any other rules and regulations for the governing and operation of said department as shall appear to him reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. He may require any officer or employe, who may receive and/or disburse public funds in the course of his duties, to file a bond conditioned that he will honestly, correctly, and according to law receive, disburse, pay over and/or account for all public moneys coming into his hands, such bond to be approved as to form, amount and surety by the attorney general.
Click to expand...



In 2003, Mike Cox authored opinion # 7123 regarding the power of the Department of Natural Resources to regulate the possession of firearms by those with a CPL. In this opinion, Mr. Cox stated that "A person licensed to carry a concealed pistol is subject to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Department of Natural Resources regulating the possession of firearms"

Since that time, the law giving the power of the DNRE to regulate pistols, MCL 324.504, 324.43510, and 324.43516 were amended; the DNR(E) no longer has the power to regulate the possession of firearms outside of hunting/trapping.

However, there have not been any changes made to other state level departments, such as the MSP, and their ability to regulate the possession of firearms. Therefore, based on Mr Cox's opinion, the MSP may have the power to regulate the possession of firearms in those areas which the commissioner has been determined to have exclusive control.

Opinion 7123
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10198.htm
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Thanks. We have had these issues with Double Action in the past. They are $$$, and a little cocky. There is no point in giving buisiness to especially a gun store that doesn't respect our rights. Its silly to be able to carry at a McD's, and not the gun store lol.

Hope you become a regular around here. :)
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
stainless1911 said:
Thanks. We have had these issues with Double Action in the past. They are $$$, and a little cocky. There is no point in giving buisiness to especially a gun store that doesn't respect our rights. Its silly to be able to carry at a McD's, and not the gun store lol.

Hope you become a regular around here. :)
Click to expand...

I agree... to what he said.
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
In 2003, Mike Cox authored opinion # 7123 regarding the power of the Department of Natural Resources to regulate the possession of firearms by those with a CPL. In this opinion, Mr. Cox stated that "A person licensed to carry a concealed pistol is subject to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Department of Natural Resources regulating the possession of firearms"

Since that time, the law giving the power of the DNRE to regulate pistols, MCL 324.504, 324.43510, and 324.43516 were amended; the DNR(E) no longer has the power to regulate the possession of firearms outside of hunting/trapping.

However, there have not been any changes made to other state level departments, such as the MSP, and their ability to regulate the possession of firearms. Therefore, based on Mr Cox's opinion, the MSP may have the power to regulate the possession of firearms in those areas which the commissioner has been determined to have exclusive control.

Opinion 7123
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10198.htm
Click to expand...

Why is it people keep glossing over the MCRGO v Ferndale decision in which the justices said that the legislature has reserved the right to restrict firearm, parts, and ammunition exclusively to themselves.

The law may not have been worded to restrict the MSP, or colleges from doing so, but the court certainly did.
 
A

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
ghostrider said:
Why is it people keep glossing over the MCRGO v Ferndale decision in which the justices said that the legislature has reserved the right to restrict firearm, parts, and ammunition exclusively to themselves.

The law may not have been worded to restrict the MSP, or colleges from doing so, but the court certainly did.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% this is a very important point!
 
detroit_fan

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Maxwell Gunn said:
It was Double Action in Madison Heights. I was there cause I was taking a cpl class and we were doing the shooting portion there.

It just caught me off guard cause their employees open carry and I know they allow conceal carry there. I didn't think it was a problem. And they do have a sign which I'm sure spells it out, but I neglected to read it which is my own fault and I'll be sure to be more alert in the future.
Click to expand...

Double Action is not friendly to carry rights, and I've found the employees to be very rude. I know after my 1 trip there I will NEVER go back.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
ghostrider said:
Why is it people keep glossing over the MCRGO v Ferndale decision in which the justices said that the legislature has reserved the right to restrict firearm, parts, and ammunition exclusively to themselves.

The law may not have been worded to restrict the MSP, or colleges from doing so, but the court certainly did.
Click to expand...
The Preemption law, as you know, does not mention state-level entities, such as the MSP.
So are you arguing that the MSP CAN restrict possession?
It appears that the MSP is ostensibly given the right to control firearms by the state legislature, both by not being listed as a local unit of government in the Preemption statute, and by legislation giving the commissioner the ability to make "any other rules and regulations for the governing and operation of said department" being listed in the MCL?
It would seem to meet your requirement since both stem from legislation voted upon by the legislature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top