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

repost from MCRG0
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=5710&zoneid=6
Lansing, MI, Feb 4th, from 1-4 p.m.

The Thomas M. Cooley Law Journal and the Cooley chapter of The Federalist Society are pleased to announce a jointly-sponsored symposium entitled "To Bear or Not to Bear: Guns in Educational Institutions."

The event is free and open to the public and will be held in the Auditorium on the 6th floor of Cooley's Temple Building located at: 217 South Capitol Avenue, Lansing, MI 49801 on Friday, February 4th from 1-4 p.m.

The list of presenters includes attorneys, professors, best-selling authors, and nationally-known experts on both sides of the gun control debate:

* Dr. John Lott, Senior Research Scientist, UM, Author of "More Guns, Less Crime," and, "The Bias Against Guns."
* James Manley, Mountain States Legal Foundation
* Dennis Henigan, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
* Josh Horwitz, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
* John Johnson, Campaign to Keep Guns of Campus
* Professor Steven Dulan, Adjunct Professor, Cooley Law School, and member of the Board of Directors of MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation.

The format will be a presentation/debate with time for audience questions. There is ample seating available and interested persons are invited to attend. Professional dress is not required. NOTE: Cooley is a private institution which prohibits firearms on its premises.

Openly Carrying a Firearm in a Post Secondary Education LEGAL under BOTH Michigan Law and Federal Law.

I'm going! I want to see my lawyer and John Lott,who's book I read when it came out, speak truth and facts. If they allow questions I have a couple good ones for the anti's!
I'll be speaking to Steve shortly.I'll ask him the legality of OC,CC there!

aadvark said:

Openly Carrying a Firearm in a Post Secondary Education LEGAL under BOTH Michigan Law and Federal Law.

Click to expand...

Not if it's a private school. They can ban guns. So can many public schools in Michigan. They don't fall under preemption.

Cooley is a private college.

cross post

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Not-To-Bear-Guns-in-Educational-Institutions

From the original post.

AAMitch said:

NOTE: Cooley is a private institution which prohibits firearms on its premises.

Click to expand...

I have taken the day off from work and am planning to attend. I have wanted to hear Mr. Lott speak since reading More Guns Less Crime.

Bronson

Venator said:

aadvark said:

Openly Carrying a Firearm in a Post Secondary Education LEGAL under BOTH Michigan Law and Federal Law.

Click to expand...

Not if it's a private school. They can ban guns. So can many public schools in Michigan. They don't fall under preemption. Cooley is a private college.

Click to expand...

True. So, in adherence to the philosophy of assuming legal conduct is permissible and open carry is normal, open carry until the abnormal happens and the owner or agent of this private property asks you to store the gun elsewhere. Then store the gun elsewhere and wear your empty holster. If they ask you to store your holster elsewhere, comply with that also.

There is societal value in making people "take exception" to your open carry. When a polite, well-behaved open carrier is treated as "potential bad guy" for no good reason, it is sure to have an affect on the conscience of at least some observers as well as the conscience of perhaps some of the people doing the mistreating. Any chance we get to expose people to the irrationality of their own behavior or especially in witnessing others' irrational behavior, there is value in doing so.

Not so much a response to Venator as just putting my thoughts out there to all.

ETA: I see some comments purportedly that this school bans weapons. I treat such things as hearsay and unconfirmed, and I open carry until I am told by an owner or agent of private property not to do so or I clearly see with my own eyes an anti-gun sign with lettering large enough and in a position clearly visible at my entry point that I feel a jury would agree I could read it. That is the point at which I consider myself notified. Up to that point, I lawfully open carry wherever I go.

I spent a good 20 minutes searching over their web site for any indication that they ban firearms, and I couldn't find any. I searched their site for keywords "gun, guns, firearm, firearms, possession"- nothing relevant.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

really? is MCRGO the voice of the school? what if i post public notice on OCDO that open carry IS acceptable?

smellslikemichigan said:

really? is MCRGO the voice of the school? what if i post public notice on OCDO that open carry IS acceptable?

Click to expand...

If you own the private law school sure.The notice came from MCRGO.All MCRGO members got the notice by email before it showed on this forum.

hamaneggs said:

You don't accept public notice on a public forum by MCRGO enough notice?

Click to expand...

Nope. Contrary to perhaps some people, I know that much that is on the internet is in error, unverified, or simply not true. I don't know 99.999%+ of the people who post on the internet from Adam. They may be right, they may be wrong, or it might have been their teenager commandeered their keyboard for a bit.

What I do know is that when I OC into a place and the owner or agent identifies himself and informs me that carry is not allowed, that is the point at which things are no longer simply hearsay or "what someone on the internet says he heard or understood is the policy". It is notice that is known to me personally to be true, and I will comply.

You are free to give as much weight of truth as you want to what you read on the internet. I give it no weight, until I've independently verified or am already in possession of credible corroborating information.

DanM said:

Nope. Contrary to perhaps some people, I know that much that is on the internet is in error, unverified, or simply not true. I don't know 99.999%+ of the people who post on the internet from Adam. They may be right, they may be wrong, or it might have been their teenager commandeered their keyboard for a bit.

What I do know is that when I OC into a place and the owner or agent identifies himself and informs me that carry is not allowed, that is the point at which things are no longer simply hearsay or "what someone on the internet says he heard or understood is the policy". It is notice that is known to me personally to be true, and I will comply.

You are free to give as much weight of truth as you want to what you read on the internet. I give it no weight, until I've independently verified or am already in possession of credible corroborating information.

Click to expand...

I will consider the fact that Steve Dulan(a graduate and proffessor of law at Cooley Law school,and officer of MCRGO) who will be on the panel of discussion,to be credible.He provided the notice via an MCRGO email.Thats only my opinion.

hamaneggs said:

If you own the private law school sure.The notice came from MCRGO.All MCRGO members got the notice by email before it showed on this forum.

Click to expand...

This is not notice to me. It is you (or someone else behind your keyboard at this time) claiming some MCRGO members got something emailed to them from someone else supposedly an agent of the school. Hardly a very good basis for a prosecutor to establish I was "on notice" that carry is absolutely prohibited for me personally. Even if you pasted the entire contents of the email here, that is you (or it could someone else behind your keyboard) pasting something that could have been made up or altered supposedly from an agent of the school to supposedly an MCRGO member. Again, hardly the foundation to establish *I* was properly put on notice that *I*, DanM, am prohibited from carrying.

*I* don't know if *I*, DanM, am prohibited from carrying until I get to a place and see a sign or am instructed by an owner/agent that *I* can not carry. At that time, I then am responsible to comply. All else on the internet is internet hearsay from someone who may or may not be who they say they are, giving out information that may be fabricated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, etc.

hamaneggs said:

I will consider the fact that Steve Dulan(a graduate and proffessor of law at Cooley Law school,and officer of MCRGO) who will be on the panel of discussion,to be credible.He provided the notice via an MCRGO email.Thats only my opinion.

Click to expand...

Again, this is just you mentioning some guy named Dulan who supposedly got an email with some kind of content not disclosed in detail allegedly from someone, who may or may not be an authorized agent of the school. Or this might not be you, but a teenage family member or someone else behind your keyboard having a lot of fun, for all I know.

Pure hearsay, I say!

DanM said:

Again, this is just you mentioning some guy named Dulan who supposedly got an email with some kind of content not disclosed in detail allegedly from someone, who may or may not be an authorized agent of the school. Or this might not be you, but a teenage family member or someone else behind your keyboard having a lot of fun, for all I know.

Pure hearsay, I say!

Click to expand...

So all info on this forum is only hearsay and no fact and you believe none of it.We're all teenagers making things up.Thats fine with me.Are you denying this post and all on it,or are you a teenager on the keyboard?

hamaneggs said:

So all info on this forum is only hearsay and no fact and you believe none of it.We're all teenagers making things up.Thats fine with me.Are you denying this post and all on it,or are you a teenager on the keyboard?

Click to expand...

hamaneggs, there is a difference between legitimate notice that *you* are prohibited from carrying at location X, and the information presented to you either here or on the internet generally about whether or not there is truly a prohibition on *you* carrying at location X.

Internet posters here or most elsewhere are not verified or guaranteed as to their identity nor agency relationship to anyone or any organization. Internet posts here or most elsewhere are not verified as to their accuracy, legitimacy, freedom from falsification, freedom from misunderstanding, etc. You see it many times here in fact, the caveat "I am not a lawyer, consult your attorney on this information." or very similar. This is because it is recognized that, on the internet including here, pretty much anyone may post anything having a range of truth-value from gospel to 100% bovine excrement.

Please do not take my pointing out of this as a personal attack on the information you (assuming it is you behind the keyboard) are presenting. My point is merely that in the arena of legal notice as regards carry at any private property, I give no weight to posts I read here, as I have no way to know, at all, that you are who you say you are, you've talked to who you've said you talked to, you've read what you've said you've read, you haven't consumed a twelve-pack or a blunt before posting, etc. etc. etc.

DanM said:

hamaneggs, there is a difference between legitimate notice that *you* are prohibited from carrying at location X, and the information presented to you either here or on the internet generally about whether or not there is truly a prohibition on *you* carrying at location X.

Internet posters here or most elsewhere are not verified or guaranteed as to their identity nor agency relationship to anyone or any organization. Internet posts here or most elsewhere are not verified as to their accuracy, legitimacy, freedom from falsification, freedom from misunderstanding, etc. You see it many times here in fact, the caveat "I am not a lawyer, consult your attorney on this information." or very similar. This is because it is recognized that, on the internet including here, pretty much anyone may post anything having a range of truth-value from gospel to 100% bovine excrement.

Please do not take my pointing out of this as a personal attack on the information you (assuming it is you behind the keyboard) are presenting. My point is merely that in the arena of legal notice as regards carry at any private property, I give no weight to posts I read here, as I have no way to know, at all, that you are who you say you are, you've talked to who you've said you talked to, you've read what you've said you've read, you haven't consumed a twelve-pack or a blunt before posting, etc. etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Did you follow the link verifying what the post is about? Where did the link take you?
I do understand your philosophy but others might take your words at face value and determine the notice posted, as being false.Not everyone gets it,yet.

did you notice that the link that you provided was to the MCRGO website? it was not to the Cooley website, so i believe danM's point about hearsay is more that valid. not to mention that a prosecutor would have to overcome the hurdle of somehow proving that second hand notice (on a website no less) would be fair notice that firearms are not allowed. IMO the only legally enforceable notice would be verbal from an authority at the school or written, posted at the entrance to the venue.

smellslikemichigan said:

did you notice that the link that you provided was to the MCRGO website? it was not to the Cooley website, so i believe danM's point about hearsay is more that valid. not to mention that a prosecutor would have to overcome the hurdle of somehow proving that second hand notice (on a website no less) would be fair notice that firearms are not allowed. IMO the only legally enforceable notice would be verbal from an authority at the school or written, posted at the entrance to the venue.

Click to expand...

I understand the technicalities(signs,verbal notice etc.).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.I just wouldn't knowingly carry onto private property,where I already know they don't allow carry.But thats just me.I already know I'm not allowed to carry in a post office even if they didn't have a sign,thats not common knowledge.