• 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.

CADL v MOC court case transcripts

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
Ok, but I was reading the transcripts, and on a couple of occasions 237 and or schools came up, I was waiting for him to bring up the exemption for CPL holders, and wondered why he didn't.
Thats because the answers from Werner consisted of "DUH,WHAT?" and the judge overlooked his lack of knowledge,where Deans facts were disregarded outright! It was beating a dead horse in it's simplest form! I'm sure that day in court could have been skipped altogether except for getting it on the record for the next day in court.The hope of upholding the law was nill once Werner started talking and the judge went along.I'm praying and expecting truth to eventualy win! It always does! CARRY ON MEN!
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
They are all worried about a spontaneous discharge that might hurt someone. Think about it this way, have you ever looked down a tube, a drinking straw, Christmas paper, aluminum foil tube, whatever. How much of the room can you see through that tube? Not much, that's about the same chance you have of being struck by an un-aimed. bullet
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I read the complete transcript & it is clear this is a Kangaroo trial with a judge who doesn't give a damn about what the law says. I hope after a judges review panel goes through her actions in this case, that she is removed from the bench and barred from practicing law in MI FOREVER! See folks this is how fascists work, if we don't like the laws passed by the elected officials of the "little people" we just find a corrupt judge and under-mine the people's law and replace it with our own....he he he he....how dare the serfs expect us to obey their laws!

I don't know about you but I'm mad as hell & I'm not going to take this crap any more!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6XV8yBFoU&feature=related
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
I'll tell you what; after Lance said under testimony that he was afraid patrons may attack me or his OWN STAFF may attack me if I have a firearm on my hip, and after hearing that they have security at the library of all places (seriously, who the hell has security at a library?) you better believe I'll never be going there without my firearm ever again.
 

RenkaiWulf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
78
Location
Burton, MI
what is it going to take to show these people, does an unarmed member of MOC have to get shot in the CADL parking lot by a real criminal before they understand? if a criminal wants to go into the library he would just conceal his weapon regardless of whether said criminal has a CPL.
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
I'll tell you what; after Lance said under testimony that he was afraid patrons may attack me or his OWN STAFF may attack me if I have a firearm on my hip, and after hearing that they have security at the library of all places (seriously, who the hell has security at a library?) you better believe I'll never be going there without my firearm ever again.

yes, he made the case for our need for self defense in his library quit nicely, didn't he?
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
They are all worried about a spontaneous discharge that might hurt someone. Think about it this way, have you ever looked down a tube, a drinking straw, Christmas paper, aluminum foil tube, whatever. How much of the room can you see through that tube? Not much, that's about the same chance you have of being struck by an un-aimed. bullet

Don't know about you...my holstered firearm is usually pointed in mostly a downward direction.
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
yes, he made the case for our need for self defense in his library quit nicely, didn't he?
But his point,insane as it was,is he didn't want us to defend ourselves against the insane,unarmed people and employees, he expects to attack us! I cannot comprehend that kind of thinking! Thats waaayyy out there in LaLa Land! What kind of drugs is he taking?
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Add to that that he expects unarmed security with who knows what kind of training to be a viable solution to the possibly armed threat. Or the imagined situation where the patron or employee got hold of one of our guns.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Perjury has been committed by the Library witness in his testimony and it was suborned by their attorney-- IN MY OPINION!

Again, my opinion, but the "security" presence at the immediate area of any person suspected of being a MOC member with a handgun WAS A FAILED ATTEMPT AT INTIMIDATION and in no way done in an effort to "protect" MOC members from ANYONE.

Me thinks someone needs to discover during depositions the written instructions/notice given the security persons briefings on this situation that will PROVE the Perjury committed!
 

WantsToCarry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Auburn/Lewiston Area Maine
Ok my eyes are cross eyed after reading that much...feels like im back in school..:shocker:

So the biggest issues (That I read..) is if the Library is PART of school property or not. If so, all weapons are prohibited. If not, then weapons are OK. But then it goes to the library being an "Authority" and grants them "powers" to over-ride constitutional laws, and ban firearms (Openly I may add) I don't know of Michigan STATE laws on firearm laws that can or cant be made, but from what I know of my own states ( 2. Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies.
[ 1989, c. 359, (NEW) .]


It says "not limited to" meaning I don't care who you are or think you are, if its open to the public and not a private business, you have no right to say y or n to a weapon, open or concealed.

But then again I could be talking out of my ass..:cool:
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
IF the library were part of a school, the only thing that would do, is force people (who had a CPL) to open carry. Michigan has a preemption law that prohibits local unit of government from regulating anything to do with firearms, except for discharge. The library is trying to get around this by claiming that it is an "authority", which is not on the definitions of the preemption law.
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
So the biggest issues (That I read..) is if the Library is PART of school property or not. If so, all weapons are prohibited.
No, this is incorrect regarding schools. MCL 750.237a(4) doesn't apply to CPL holders, so CPL holders can legally open carry in a school and on school property. Don't feel bad, though, the judge doesn't appear to understand this point, either. :banghead:

Furthermore, 750.237a defines "school property" as the following [emphasis added]:

(c) “School property” means a building, playing field, or property used for school purposes to impart instruction to children or used for functions and events sponsored by a school, except a building used primarily for adult education or college extension courses.
The definition doesn't specify ownership or control, but use, so IMO and IANAL, even though the school district owns the land an building, the library fails to meet the definition of "school property" as defined. The library isn't used for either the blue or red purposes, highlighted above.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28thpyzvzjkibji0bsbkwwpkyr%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-237a
 
Last edited:

WantsToCarry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Auburn/Lewiston Area Maine
No, this is incorrect regarding schools. MCL 750.237a(4) doesn't apply to CPL holders, so CPL holders can legally open carry in a school and on school property. Don't feel bad, though, the judge doesn't appear to understand this point, either. :banghead:

Many pardons, I meant to non CPL holders, that are Open Carrying. Good catch, silly mistake on my part. Didnt realize you could Open Carry with a cpl in a school where this took place.
 
Top