• 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.

Open carry in a Meijer?

Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
TheQ said:
* Me on Jan. 3(?)
* Rob and Scott - night of city council
* Lapeer20m - the next Sunday
* lilfreak - the next day after lapeer
* lilfreak - the day he got hauled out by LPD.

I count at least 5 different people after the shotgun carry ;)
Click to expand...

The last one doesn't count since it was AFTER the TRO was issued.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Shadow Bear said:
In my reading, it seemed that that action was a major contributor to their overall knee jerk reaction. It may not have been THE cause, but it sensitized them to the issue of OC in general, contributing to the TRO. It also gave a lot of bad press, right or wrong. My point is, one person's mis-step can result in significant backlash- so, lets keep answering newbies' questions with grace & dignity.

As far as the TRO, I hope someone asks the library 'why don't you call the police?' I'd love to hear them have to say 'The police won't resond because its not illegal'.:banana:
Click to expand...

I would argue that you are wrong. If MOC hadn't intervened after the Shotgun event a TRO would never have been issued, BECAUSE the LPD would respond and ask the people to leave. IT WAS NOT UNTIL the LPD stopped coming that a TRO was issued.

It was the actions of MOC (and rightly so) trying to get them to comply with state law that the LPD stopped coming and the TRO was asked for. Read my post again.
 
S

Sheldon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
556
Location
Battle Creek, ,
Venator said:
Actually there is no language that contains 51% in the statute. As stated it says primary source....

A primary source could be less than 51%

(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that “This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons”. The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but shall not be required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58,
Click to expand...

You are correct in your post but I believe it was an AG opinion for the 51% rilling and an AG opinion has the same validity as law until challenged.
 
Shadow Bear

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
Venator said:
I would argue that you are wrong. If MOC hadn't intervened after the Shotgun event a TRO would never have been issued, BECAUSE the LPD would respond and ask the people to leave. IT WAS NOT UNTIL the LPD stopped coming that a TRO was issued.

It was the actions of MOC (and rightly so) trying to get them to comply with state law that the LPD stopped coming and the TRO was asked for. Read my post again.
Click to expand...

Not being argumentative- perhaps I'm just a bit dense- just trying to understand....

OK, let me see if I've got the timeline right-

1) Shotgun open carry
2) MOC invervention
3) LPD stops responding
4) Pistol open carry time 3 (or five, depending on who you ask)

Was it 1,2,3,4 or 1,4,2,3? I'm pretty sure the shotgun was first, in any event.

You don't think the intial shotgun incident sensitized the library to ANY OC, long gun or pistol, resulting in a heightened state of 'awareness', which lead to the whole ball of wax?

Was anyone confronted in the library OCing a pistol PRIOR to the shotgun incident? Was anyone OCing a pistol there AT ALL prior to the shotgun incident? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand. Did we have a problem before? If not, it kind of illustrates the point I'm trying to make- All it takes in one person, intentionally or not, being a donkey, to undo a lot of good will that the veterans like yourself have gained. Agreed?

Of course, all along, what I'm trying to say is, 'Please answer our newbie questions nicely' We'll appreciate it, and it'll help us not do anything stupid to cause damage to the cause. Patience, grace & dignity is all we ask. We want to help, and not do harm.

Peace & many thanks,
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Sheldon said:
You are correct in your post but I believe it was an AG opinion for the 51% rilling and an AG opinion has the same validity as law until challenged.
Click to expand...

I know of no such AG ruling, can you cite which one?

An AG opinion is only bidding between the parties involved, that is the person requesting it. It is no where close to law, in fact it can be ignored by judges and has been on occasion. They can be used to help persuade a prosecutor or a judge.
 
Golden Eagle

Golden Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
253
Location
SW Michigan
TheQ said:
* Me on Jan. 3(?)
* Rob and Scott - night of city council
* Lapeer20m - the next Sunday
* lilfreak - the next day after lapeer
* lilfreak - the day he got hauled out by LPD.

I count at least 5 different people after the shotgun carry ;)
Click to expand...
And I thought in the video Rob and Scott were unarmed?
 
S

Sheldon

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
556
Location
Battle Creek, ,
Venator said:
I know of no such AG ruling, can you cite which one?

An AG opinion is only bidding between the parties involved, that is the person requesting it. It is no where close to law, in fact it can be ignored by judges and has been on occasion. They can be used to help persuade a prosecutor or a judge.
Click to expand...

should be on the MGO web site, it was back when when MI first became a shall issue state, and any establishment that served liquor was off limits.
Pizza Hut for example serves beer so it was a CEZ, within the first couple of years the gun owners managed to get that changed, the 51% ruling was established, when the AG put that number as a set point, N MGO sent it out as one of their E mail news blurbs.
This if I remember correctly it was about the same time Library's were putting them selfs on the CEZ list and we received a favorable ruling on that one also
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Sheldon said:
should be on the MGO web site, it was back when when MI first became a shall issue state, and any establishment that served liquor was off limits.
Pizza Hut for example serves beer so it was a CEZ, within the first couple of years the gun owners managed to get that changed, the 51% ruling was established, when the AG put that number as a set point, N MGO sent it out as one of their E mail news blurbs.
This if I remember correctly it was about the same time Library's were putting them selfs on the CEZ list and we received a favorable ruling on that one also
Click to expand...

You stated it, your job to post the AG memo stating 51%, As I mentioned there is no number in the statute. In fact I had meetings with the legislator that proposed the change (2003) for restaurant/alcohol carry, while it was being written. I specifically wanted them to include the 51% like other states, and was told that they intended to leave it open and wouldn't put in a number.

So if you say the AG did something in this regard I would like you to post it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top