EVENT NOTICE: To Bear or Not to Bear: Guns in Educational Institutions

kubel · Jan 30, 2011

hamaneggs said:
You don't accept public notice on a public forum by MCRGO enough notice?These words will be used against you in a court of law.

Violating a private property rule does not violate the law. If I made a rule that said "no ties", and you came to a public event on my private property wearing a tie, I can't call the cops and have you arrested for illegally wearing a tie. What I can do is ask you to leave, and if you don't, I can call the police and have you arrested for trespassing.

scot623 · Jan 30, 2011

Someone please tell me that even though Steven Dulan works as an Adjunct Professor at Cooley Law School, and Cooley doesn't allow guns on it's property, that he is speaking FOR Guns in Educational Institutions, not against it. If not, I may throw up in my mouth.

Haman J.T. · Jan 30, 2011

scot623 said:
Someone please tell me that even though Steven Dulan works as an Adjunct Professor at Cooley Law School, and Cooley doesn't allow guns on it's property, that he is speaking FOR Guns in Educational Institutions, not against it. If not, I may throw up in my mouth.

He's pro-gun,2A.I don't know where he stands on private property.That would be my question.IMO the public-private I'm against.

scot623 · Jan 30, 2011

hamaneggs said:
He's pro-gun,2A.I don't know where he stands on private property.That would be my question.IMO the public-private I'm against.

Where did I ask about private property? I want to know if he supports guns in Educational Institutions.

Haman J.T. · Jan 31, 2011

scot623 said:
Where did I ask about private property? I want to know if he supports guns in Educational Institutions.

I replied to an email he sent me today about your question.I,ll let you know if he replies.

DanM · Jan 31, 2011

hamaneggs said:
I also understand Steve Dulan(lawyer,Cooley Law School proffessor,provider of notice) making public notice of the private entity's ban(which I do not agree with) is trustworthy.

There it is. That is the difference that could have an impact on trespassing charges sticking to you but not to me. You are admitting that you have some personal knowledge or belief that the private property has some no-carry policy, and the policy applies to you. I am not admitting to any such belief, and further I am stating I hold no belief one way or the other until I get to the property and either I see or do not see clearly readable signs or I am or am not informed by an owner or authorized agent that I can't carry.

Now, let's say we both show up OC'ing and there is in fact a policy against carry, but there is no signage, or we missed seeing some signage. The owners/agents call the police, the police gather our information and inform us to leave, then send their reports to the prosecutor. The prosecutor obtains our postings here. He is going to have a MUCH EASIER task of sticking you with trespassing because he can show that you freely admitted to believing that you couldn't carry there, but you carried there anyway. Not so with me. I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise or am personally informed otherwise by what I believe is an owner or authorized agent. I am admitting to no other personal beliefs, as you are doing in what you are saying, thus I will remain a MUCH HARDER target than you are for attempts to charge or convict me on trespassing.

DanM · Jan 31, 2011

hamaneggs said:
I also understand Steve Dulan(lawyer,Cooley Law School proffessor,provider of notice) making public notice of the private entity's ban(which I do not agree with) is trustworthy.

There it is. That is the difference that could have an impact on trespassing charges sticking to you but not to me. You are admitting that you have some personal knowledge or belief that the private property has some no-carry policy, and the policy applies to you. I am not admitting to any such belief, and further I am stating I hold no belief one way or the other until I get to the property and either I see or do not see clearly readable signs or I am or am not informed by an owner or authorized agent that I can't carry.

Now, let's say we both show up OC'ing and there is in fact a policy against carry, but there is no signage, or we missed seeing some signage. The owners/agents call the police, the police gather our information and inform us to leave, then send their reports to the prosecutor. The prosecutor obtains our postings here. He is going to have a MUCH EASIER task of sticking you with trespassing because he can show that you freely admitted to believing that you couldn't carry there, but you carried there anyway. Not so with me. I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise or am personally informed otherwise by what I believe is an owner or authorized agent. I am admitting to no other personal beliefs, as you are doing in what you are saying, thus I will remain a MUCH HARDER target than you are when it comes to attempts by prosecutors to charge or convict on trespassing.

DanM · Jan 31, 2011

hamaneggs said:
I also understand Steve Dulan(lawyer,Cooley Law School proffessor,provider of notice) making public notice of the private entity's ban(which I do not agree with) is trustworthy.

There it is. That is the difference that could have an impact on trespassing charges sticking to you but not to me. You are admitting that you have some personal knowledge or belief that the private property has some no-carry policy, and the policy applies to you. I am not admitting to any such belief, and further I am stating I hold no belief one way or the other until I get to the property and either I see or do not see clearly readable signs or I am or am not informed by an owner or authorized agent that I can't carry.

Now, let's say we both show up OC'ing and there is in fact a policy against carry, but there is no signage, or we missed seeing some signage. The owners/agents call the police, the police gather our information and inform us to leave, then send their reports to the prosecutor. The prosecutor obtains our postings here. He is going to have a MUCH EASIER task of sticking you with trespassing because he can show that you freely admitted to believing that you couldn't carry there, but you carried there anyway. Not so with me. I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise or am personally informed otherwise by what I believe is an owner or authorized agent. I am admitting to no other personal beliefs, as you are doing in what you are saying, thus I will remain a MUCH HARDER target than you are when it comes to attempts by prosecutors to charge or convict on trespassing.

The only question I'm really interested in knowing the answer to is why you hemmed yourself in more than you needed to, when it comes to this private property in question, when you had absolutely no need to do so?

Haman J.T. · Jan 31, 2011

DanM said:
There it is. That is the difference that could have an impact on trespassing charges sticking to you but not to me. You are admitting that you have some personal knowledge or belief that the private property has some no-carry policy, and the policy applies to you. I am not admitting to any such belief, and further I am stating I hold no belief one way or the other until I get to the property and either I see or do not see clearly readable signs or I am or am not informed by an owner or authorized agent that I can't carry.

Now, let's say we both show up OC'ing and there is in fact a policy against carry, but there is no signage, or we missed seeing some signage. The owners/agents call the police, the police gather our information and inform us to leave, then send their reports to the prosecutor. The prosecutor obtains our postings here. He is going to have a MUCH EASIER task of sticking you with trespassing because he can show that you freely admitted to believing that you couldn't carry there, but you carried there anyway. Not so with me. I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise or am personally informed otherwise by what I believe is an owner or authorized agent. I am admitting to no other personal beliefs, as you are doing in what you are saying, thus I will remain a MUCH HARDER target than you are when it comes to attempts by prosecutors to charge or convict on trespassing.

Why would you believe signs?

DanM · Jan 31, 2011

hamaneggs said:
Why would you believe signs?

I don't "believe signs". I said "I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise . . .".

This means the sign and the symbols and writing on it must (following may be partial and not all-inclusive list of factors):
1)Clearly be seen by me, personally.
2)Clear to my understanding that open carry is prohibited and that I am in the class of people that the prohibition applies to.
3)Clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is a direction from the ownership or authorized agent.

Examples:
A sign the size of a business card, that I do not see, posted 10 feet away from the door I enter: fails #1 and I continue OC'ing, unaware it is not permissible.
A sign saying "Carry of weapons is prohibited, except as authorized by law." Open carry is prohibited, but I'm not in the class of people this sign applies to (those *not* authorized by law to carry). I continue OC'ing.
A sign saying "no gunz" written in large but barely legible letters, in crayon, on a sheet of paper barely held up by a strip of tape on a wall inside the business. May fail #2 and/or #3:
--The owner/agent says, "Oh, I just put that up to say I have no guns for sale here." So, it was a direction from the owner/agent, but does not apply to my OC.
--The owner/agent says, "Oh, my kid brought that from school and tacked it to the wall. He's got an anti-gun teacher. Disregard it." So, it was a prohibition message, but not a direction from the owner/agent.

hamaneggs, I don't mind discussing what I write, but please quote me completely and especially don't paraphrase my words, as that tends to distort what was said in a negative way. I give you the assumption that you didn't mean to do this. Just please quote my exact words, in full and with enough context to be fair to meaning.

DrTodd · Jan 31, 2011

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.

History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

The question should really be framed as: Is Mr Dulan,an Adjunct Professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, serving as "the owner or occupant or the agent" of Cooley? And, if he is an "agent" or "owner", does his posting on MCGRO serve as the notification required under MCL 750.552?

As an ADJUNCT professor, Mr Dulan has been hired to teach specific courses at Cooley... he is not considered an official member of the faculty... his position can be terminated and I would imagine that his ability to state whether firearms are prohibited is tenuous at best. He could have been given this ability by the president of the school (or some other administrator) I would really doubt whether he through his own connection with the school meets the requirements under MCL 750.552.

But, for argument's sake, let's say that the president of Cooley Law School, or the President/Dean Don LeDuc tells Mr Dulan that he is banning firearms at this event. Is the posting on an Internet forum "notice", even for non-members? I would have to say that this is a very weak position, also.

Haman J.T. · Jan 31, 2011

DanM said:
I don't "believe signs". I said "I believe I can OC anywhere legally permissible, except where I personally see clear signage otherwise . . .".

This means the sign and the symbols and writing on it must (following may be partial and not all-inclusive list of factors):
1)Clearly be seen by me, personally.
2)Clear to my understanding that open carry is prohibited and that I am in the class of people that the prohibition applies to.
3)Clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is a direction from the ownership or authorized agent.

Examples:
A sign the size of a business card, that I do not see, posted 10 feet away from the door I enter: fails #1 and I continue OC'ing, unaware it is not permissible.
A sign saying "Carry of weapons is prohibited, except as authorized by law." Open carry is prohibited, but I'm not in the class of people this sign applies to (those *not* authorized by law to carry). I continue OC'ing.
A sign saying "no gunz" written in large but barely legible letters, in crayon, on a sheet of paper barely held up by a strip of tape on a wall inside the business. May fail #2 and/or #3:
--The owner/agent says, "Oh, I just put that up to say I have no guns for sale here." So, it was a direction from the owner/agent, but does not apply to my OC.
--The owner/agent says, "Oh, my kid brought that from school and tacked it to the wall. He's got an anti-gun teacher. Disregard it." So, it was a prohibition message, but not a direction from the owner/agent.

hamaneggs, I don't mind discussing what I write, but please quote me completely and especially don't paraphrase my words, as that tends to distort what was said in a negative way. I give you the assumption that you didn't mean to do this. Just please quote my exact words, in full and with enough context to be fair to meaning.

I wasn't quoting you or paraphrasing you.I asked a simple question knowing you would explain in detail,with simple scenarios ,that could be understood by those who are still learning the laws we're dealing with.Newbies.Thank You!

Haman J.T. · Feb 2, 2011

scot623 said:
Where did I ask about private property? I want to know if he supports guns in Educational Institutions.

I spoke to him today.He supports guns for defense in educational institutions.
But there are 3 kinds of institutions in MI.
1.Public
2. Private-of which Cooley is.
3.Constitutional- UofM,MI State.The preemption law will have to be changed to carry in these.
Private Property rules stand at Cooley of which he said he will speak on why is he,and should he be,unarmed and defenseless in that setting.He will be in agreement with John Lott,who he's met several times prior,and has given him some of his allotted time so he can present more data.
Steve doesn't like the idea of being unarmed in a private college either.

Haman J.T. · Feb 2, 2011

I recall Steve saying the media will be there!His hope is that everyone behave.

scot623 · Feb 2, 2011

"SHOULD be disarmed"? Really? I don't believe there is any place I, as a law abiding citizen "should" be disarmed. There are places I go where I choose to be unarmed. But outside the secure area of a jail or airport, maybe court...I should have the choice.

Haman J.T. · Feb 2, 2011

scot623 said:
"SHOULD be disarmed"? Really? I don't believe there is any place I, as a law abiding citizen "should" be disarmed. There are places I go where I choose to be unarmed. But outside the secure area of a jail or airport, maybe court...I should have the choice.

Simply put,why should we be disarmed anywhere?Including private property.How do you change the private property rule?That will always be there.

DrTodd · Feb 2, 2011

Let's say that someone with ill intent decides to attend with a hidden concealed firearm. Are they going to have metal detectors on all of the entrances? I assume the auditorium seats at least 2500. If not, since it is not a classroom nor a dorm, it seems like someone with a cpl could carry. If they do, it seems no one would know and absent any verifiable notification to the contrary, their presence would be legal. So the chance remains that those with a cpl and cc may be asked to leave, but they may attend with a firearm perhaps no one would know: ie the school wants to pretend that no one is armed. If an OCer attends, his VISABLE firearm may become an issue and he/she may be asked to leave. Sounds like some gun stores that I know of.

Haman J.T. · Feb 2, 2011

DrTodd said:
Let's say that someone with ill intent decides to attend with a hidden concealed firearm. Are they going to have metal detectors on all of the entrances? I assume the auditorium seats at least 2500. If not, since it is not a classroom nor a dorm, it seems like someone with a cpl could carry. If they do, it seems no one would know and absent any verifiable notification to the contrary, their presence would be legal. So the chance remains that those with a cpl and cc may be asked to leave, but they may attend with a firearm perhaps no one would know: ie the school wants to pretend that no one is armed. If an OCer attends, his VISABLE firearm may become an issue and he/she may be asked to leave. Sounds like some gun stores that I know of.

Steve said they made public notification of some type,besides the MCRGO notice.I don't recall where it was made.He thought they might put up signage.It depends on how Cooley decides to handle it.I suppose minus metal detectors, it's possible that anyone could carry there (making it unsafe for the law abiding).Thats the point of the discussion isn't it!

DrTodd · Feb 2, 2011

hamaneggs said:
Steve said they made public notification of some type,besides the MCRGO notice.I don't recall where it was made.He thought they might put up signage.It depends on how Cooley decides to handle it.I suppose minus metal detectors, it's possible that anyone could carry there (making it unsafe for the law abiding).Thats the point of the discussion isn't it!

I know, preaching to the choir...:banghead:

SlowDog · Feb 3, 2011

I am just adding my 2cents worth. I will probably be shot down<usually am> but....there was a woman some 15 years ago who followed the state law (Texas) about not carrying her weapon into a restaurant while dining with her parents...ie Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Both of her parents were killed that day because she followed the LAW. Funny thing is, I found her name on John Lotts site

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/09/lubys-restaurant-shootings-impact-15.html

So I guess this brings up the question. On those days where OC will get you ejected might it be the wiser man to carry a concealed weapon and barring metal detectors or the crashing through and shooting up of somewhere I am at....no one would know I was carrying my 15+1 380 plus spare mag. Just saying.......

EVENT NOTICE: To Bear or Not to Bear: Guns in Educational Institutions

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Regular Member

New member

Michigan Moderator

New member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member