Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

lockman said:

And what effect does this have on people not members of MOB and without knowledge of MOB decide to carry anyway?

Click to expand...

The TRO specifies who it applies to, and there are a lot of open carriers outside of those boundaries that the TRO is not legally binding upon.

That being said, that would not prevent CADL from calling the police on *anyone* open carrying, the police citing you for trespass, and when you protest that you are not one of the defendants in this TRO, the police tell you to "tell it to the judge".

Therefore, if you are not subject to this TRO and you want to open carry, be prepared to possibly be charged with trespass and take time off of work and spend the money to try and get the charge dismissed in court or yourself acquitted by a jury or accept a plea deal because you have neither the time or the money to put up a legal fight.

I am not a lawyer. Consult your attorney on everything I just said.

The above possibly gives control of legal processes to your opponents.

Or, follow the very good suggestion that has been put out there many times before: keep control of legal processes, and do not give others control of the legal process. You keep control of the legal process by not going to this library, seeing if the TRO is overturned, and, if it isn't, acting as an individual or joining others in a civil suit against this library to get their illegal rules overturned.

I recommend the latter course (keep control of the legal process).

DanM said:

The TRO specifies who it applies to, and there are a lot of open carriers outside of those boundaries that the TRO is not legally binding upon.

That being said, that would not prevent CADL from calling the police on *anyone* open carrying, the police citing you for trespass, and when you protest that you are not one of the defendants in this TRO, the police tell you to "tell it to the judge".

Therefore, if you are not subject to this TRO and you want to open carry, be prepared to possibly be charged with trespass and take time off of work and spend the money to try and get the charge dismissed in court or yourself acquitted by a jury or accept a plea deal because you have neither the time or the money to put up a legal fight.

I am not a lawyer. Consult your attorney on everything I just said.

The above possibly gives control of legal processes to your opponents.

Or, follow the very good suggestion that has been put out there many times before: keep control of legal processes, and do not give others control of the legal process. You keep control of the legal process by not going to this library, seeing if the TRO is overturned, and, if it isn't, acting as an individual or joining others in a civil suit against this library to get their illegal rules overturned.

I recommend the latter course (keep control of the legal process).

Click to expand...

IANAL! IMO!

In the TRO, the Lansing Police refused to respond to trespass for persons Openly Carrying Pistols in Holsters on the basis of violating CADL Weapons Policy.

What they would hit you with is Contempt of Court for violating the TRO. You would then have to prove in court you are not an MOC Member or affiliated in any way.

Actually, I could prove that.

When the smoke clears, is there a way to sue the court who issued the illegal TRO based on deprivation of rights? And the library with the same allegations?

stainless1911 said:

Actually, I could prove that.

When the smoke clears, is there a way to sue the court who issued the illegal TRO based on deprivation of rights? And the library with the same allegations?

Click to expand...

How about we all stay focused on the hugely important case in front of us. Any talk about suing courts and libraries is nothing more than a distraction at this point.

Fair enough, I just wondered if it could be done, considering they are both .gov.

scot623 said:

How about we all stay focused on the hugely important case in front of us. Any talk about suing courts and libraries is nothing more than a distraction at this point.

Click to expand...

I think it's ok for anyone who wants to talk about "what-ifs" to do so, but start another thread on it. This is the CADL vs. MCO TRO thread. It would be nice to stay on topic here, because I go to this thread for updates specific to this situation.

I agree with scot623 on the importance of this upcoming case, so everyone should primarily be thinking, while thinking and talking about "what-ifs" after this, what they can do to support the good guys (that is all of us, open carriers in Michigan) on this "actual real life" case between now and the 24th.

who will be representing MOC in court?

Dean Greenblatt.

Excellent, I was going to call him to see if he was following this.

Very interesting; library authority has two basic arguments:

1. The library is authority created by 2 types of localities which have no gun control powers, and therefore the authority can ban guns as they are not covered by preemption.

2. The library is a school and guns are banned in school.

The counter arguments probably include:

1. A entity of government cannot form a new entity with MORE powers than those possessed by the parent entity - this would be political alchemy.

2. The library is not a school, but even if it were, arguendo, a school, the Michigan code exempts CPL holders from the school gun ban provided they are open crrying.

Now munching popcorn, when does the show start?

Observations

11. At the times these individuals have been ilL the library with guns, patrons have
been alarmed and on February 13, 2011, a patron shouted at the man carrying a
gun to, "get the hell out of the library."

Sounds like disorderly conduct by the shouter..... Make a minor change.....

11. At the times these individuals have been ilL the library with black friends, patrons have
been alarmed and on February 13, 2011, a patron shouted at the man carrying a
gun to, "get the hell out of the library."

12. The Weapon Policy violations are escalating. On February 14, 2011, a young
adult male came into the CADL downtown Lansing library branch with a
concealed weapon. Upon information and belief, this individual is eighteen years
of age and is not statutorily eligible to obtain or carry a concealed handgun.

Is there an age 21 requirement for a non-resident carrying concealed on a home state permit? How did they know he had a concealed handgun?

Can one buy a "concealed handgun"? Is it invisible?

....from entering any ofPlaintiff CADL's buildings or library branches while carrying,
brandishing, or concealing without a proper permit, any form of weapon or firearm in violation of
CADL's Weapons Policy.

So a concealed weapon with a proper permit is ok?

apjonas said:

11.
with black friends,

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?

Mike said:

Now munching popcorn, when does the show start?

Click to expand...

February 24, 2011 at 11:00am, on the 2nd Floor of 303 W. Kalamazoo, Lansing, MI.

We are coordinating transportation to the show, for anyone interested:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87046-CADL-v.-MOC-Transportation-Coordination

Wish that transportation coordination post was a "sticky" (hint, hint)

Mike said:

Very interesting; library authority has two basic arguments:

1. The library is authority created by 2 types of localities which have no gun control powers, and therefore the authority can ban guns as they are not covered by preemption.

2. The library is a school and guns are banned in school.

The counter arguments probably include:

1. A entity of government cannot form a new entity with MORE powers than those possessed by the parent entity - this would be political alchemy.

2. The library is not a school, but even if it were, arguendo, a school, the Michigan code exempts CPL holders from the school gun ban provided they are open crrying.

Now munching popcorn, when does the show start?

Click to expand...

For your #1 above, MCL 124.504 would apply:

MCL 124.504 said:

124.504 Joint exercise of powers.

Sec. 4.

A public agency of this state may exercise jointly with any other public agency of this state, with a public agency of any other state of the United States, with a public agency of Canada, or with any public agency of the United States government any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately.

Click to expand...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-504

PDinDetroit said:

IANAL! You would then have to prove in court you are not an MOC Member or affiliated in any way.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have to prove that you are a member? Rather than the other way around.

Mike:

I Strongly Agree with Your Arguments.

Ingham County, a Local Unit of Government, and Lansing City, a Local Unit of Government, would ONLY be able to Create a Local Unit of Government. To do anything further would be Political Alchemy, BUT this Argument may not hold True depending on what Michigan Codifeid Law says.

However, under Michigan Code 750.237a(5)(c), Michigan Concealed Pistol License Holders are Exempt from The Application of Michigan Code 750.237a(4), as They are also Exempt from The Federal Gun-Free Violence-Free School Zone Safety Act of 1990, Modified in 1995, under Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

A 'Grey-Area' Exsists as against The Application of Point 1.

Point 2, in Contrast, is VALID.

aadvark

*** UPDATE: Michigan Codified Law 397.177 Enumerates District Libraries under ACT 24 of 1989 as Authorties, Created Pursuant to Section 6 of Article IX of The Michigan Constitution of 1963, and as such, Similiar to Universities, have a Carved out Exemption from The Application of Preemption under Michigan Codified Law 123.1102 under ACT 319 of 1990. ***

*** In Essence..., Michigan Codified Law 123.1102 of ACT 319 of 1990 does NOT Apply to Michigan State-Level Authorites, Boards, or Departments. However, Michigan Creates Cities, Counties, and other Local Units of Governments, which ACT 319 of 1990 DOES Apply. However, should those Local Cities, Counties, and other Local Units Pro-Create 'Children'..., such as The District Libraries, or Regional Special Boards, that they are Enabled to Create, Michigan Law 123.1102 seems NOT Apply to thos Created 'Children'. ***

*** SOLUTION: Amend ACT 319 of 1990 to Include: ... [A]gencies, [A]uthorites, oards, ureaus, [C]ommissions, [C]ommitteees, [D]epartments, [D]ivisions, or any other nstrumentalities Created by any Cities, Villages, Townships, or Counties. ***

123.1101 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As Used in this Act:

(a) 'Local Unit of Government' means a City, Village, Township, [OMIT-or] County, [ADD- or any other Agencies, Authorites, Boards, Bureaus, Commissions, Committeees, Departments, Divisions, or any other Instrumentalities Created by any such City, Village, Township, or County of this State.]

[ADD NEW PARAGRAPH- (a.1) 'Local Unit of Government' does NOT Include The State of Michigan or The State Board of Education under Section 3 of Article VIII of The Michigan Constitution of 1963, provided; that Michigan Law 750.237a and Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 922(q) shall Govern Firearms in Relations to Schools.]

this is all part of a bigger plan. to allow the erosion of rights by legal action, to discomfort those evolved, cause them the loss of time and money, loss of reputation. to challenge your organization, and it's committment, and resources. it is going on in the entire country, on many venues- this is the matter that concerns us. to chink away at us, to embarass us, to make us go away. and then they gain, and the worst part look like public heroes for doing so. it's going on in Virginia, it's going on here in Wisconsin, it's going on now in Michigan. all of us are the only line, it's not like the government is going to stand up for us, we are not that priveledged.

you ever see the movie ALiens; remember the part where Ripley said in the meeting with the corp: you let just one of these things down here, and all this (waving paper around) is just b**ls**t! keep that frame of mind, see them for what they realy are- predators of your rights.

Let's remember. CADL watches this forum too. Let's not make their arguments for them...

Verrrrry interesting logic used to establish that the library is a school as defined by Michigan law(s). By that same logic I could claim that, for example, a McDonalds where a school field trip stopped for lunch was in fact a school, and then using the logic of BAFTEIEIO that "once a school, forever a school".

Was also amazed that the library spent so much paper showing how the Legislature included authorities in the definition of local government in so many other places, but that did not do so when creating a library authority that, as I read the statute, is granted authority to levy and collect taxes independently of both state and local government jurisdiction, among many other powers. I am guessing that they do not consider the officers or employees eligible for state/local health insurance coverage, or participation in the state/local pension program, or coverage by virtue of soverign immunity, do they?

And just to twist the minds of the lawyers and attorneys out there, what would be the consequence of someone resigning their membership in MOC, then OCing in the library? Yeah, I know one risks a contempt of court citation but the only way the court could sustain the library's motion to hold one in contempt would be by producing the membership roll of MOC. Would a dated letter of resignation received by MOC before you went to the library woul be a valid defense?

stay safe.

lapeer20m said:

Wouldn't they have to prove that you are a member? Rather than the other way around.

Click to expand...

If a specific person has not been served, then they would have to prove you are a member. I would believe that it would be assumed you are until proven otherwise.