• 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 Public Spaces

tenletters

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Michigan
It is my understanding that while private persons/corporations my legally prohibit firearms open or concealed on their property without recourse, assuming they (in the case of a business enterprise) willing to assume the public repercussions (publicity and the resulting boycott); PUBLIC property CANNOT make a policy barring weapons (except that they can forbid their employees from carrying). This has been demonstrated by the issues with various school districts and the City of Big Rapids with the Public Library issue.
What is not clear to me is in the case of public buildings such as court houses. In Lake County, for example, a metal detector scans every entrant for knives or firearms and, when detected, these are either confiscated or the person is ordered to leave the premises. Following a discussion with the deputy manning the guardpost, he acknowledged that his department was familiar with the open carry debate, but that Circuit Judge Mark Wickens had issued a directive continuing the prohibition which, in his opinion, overrides any other suggested statute.
I'd like comments, suggestions, from KNOWLEDGABLE responders as to specifically the judges opinion and, if he's wrong, the approach to take to change the policy. I'd like citation with opinion if possible as I'd be willing to confront this injustice, if in fact, it is one.
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
It is my understanding that while private persons/corporations my legally prohibit firearms open or concealed on their property without recourse, assuming they (in the case of a business enterprise) willing to assume the public repercussions (publicity and the resulting boycott); PUBLIC property CANNOT make a policy barring weapons (except that they can forbid their employees from carrying). This has been demonstrated by the issues with various school districts and the City of Big Rapids with the Public Library issue.
What is not clear to me is in the case of public buildings such as court houses. In Lake County, for example, a metal detector scans every entrant for knives or firearms and, when detected, these are either confiscated or the person is ordered to leave the premises. Following a discussion with the deputy manning the guardpost, he acknowledged that his department was familiar with the open carry debate, but that Circuit Judge Mark Wickens had issued a directive continuing the prohibition which, in his opinion, overrides any other suggested statute.
I'd like comments, suggestions, from KNOWLEDGABLE responders as to specifically the judges opinion and, if he's wrong, the approach to take to change the policy. I'd like citation with opinion if possible as I'd be willing to confront this injustice, if in fact, it is one.

Michigan Supreme Court Order. Every court has to file a safety plan, and they may include no weapons, including no fire arms. Some include no firearms from LEOs. They are all different. Some include the entire building, and all buildings that do any court business, some only include the actual court room. I believe their is a court house down river that allows all forms of legal carry. Its up to the main judge, and his "safety plan", that is on file.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
The Michigan Supreme Court made a ruling that leaves it up to the chief judge in each court to allow or disallow weapons in the courthouse.

ETA Hillsdale County allows carry everywhere but the actual courtroom.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
In public areas other than courts, the preemption law applies.

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.


There are tax funded .gov places that are trying everything they can, up to and including lying, misinformation, mis representation, and even seeking court orders to subvert the laws, and to avoid falling under one of the definitions listed under the law. CADL, (Capitol Area District Library), and the Waterford School District most recently.

123.1101 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.
(b) “Pistol” means that term as defined in section 222 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.222 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
 
Last edited:

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
And here's the cite.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao.htm#spcf

Security Policies for Court Facilities

Supreme Court Administrative Order 2001-1 states that weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy. Each court is required to submit a written policy conforming with this order to the State Court Administrator for approval. Courts are encouraged to collaborate with other entities in shared facilities and, where appropriate, to work with local funding units in developing the policy, which may be a separate plan or part of a general security program.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao/lao15-model.doc <<Word
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao/LAO15-model.wpd <<WordPerfect

As an aside to your post all public property is not un-regulated in regards to carry.

MCL 123.1101 defines what types of local units of government that may not regulate firearms or ammunition possession as "a city, village, township, or county." Other types of LUG not specifically mentioned, like school districts, may not be bound by pre-emption.

Also, I believe if a state level agency is given the authority by the state to regulate behavior and conduct on premises under their control they may also make rules against carry. The now defunct State Fair Board was given such ability and I believe that the State Health Dept. offices may regulate carry on their premises because the state has given them the ability to regulate conduct on their premises.

Bronson
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
And here's the cite.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao.htm#spcf



As an aside to your post not all public property is not regulated in regards to carry.

MCL 123.1101 defines what types of local units of government that may not regulate firearms or ammunition possession as "a city, village, township, or county." Other types of LUG not specifically mentioned, like school districts, may not be bound by pre-emption.

Also, I believe if a state level agency is given the authority by the state to regulate behavior and conduct on premises under their control they may also make rules against carry. The now defunct State Fair Board was given such ability and I believe that the State Health Dept. offices may regulate carry on their premises because the state has given them the ability to regulate conduct on their premises.

Bronson

Bronson... could you please offer links/cites concerning State level agencies that were given the power to regulate firearms?

Ok... I'm not an attorney nor did I stay at Holiday Inn Express but...........

At first blush (without having had the opportunity to research the actual laws because I gotta go to a council meeting tonite and don't have the time at the moment) it would seem that if the State specifically states what agencies/groups/government units that cannot regulate firearms.... but then also specifically states what agencies/groups/government units that can regulate firearms then ... at least to me... it would appear that the State has set a precedent where the State, and only the State, has the power to dictate which agencies/groups/government units can/cannot regulate firearms.

Which means to me that any governmental agency/entity that wishes to have the power to regulate firearms would have to petition the State to be given that power ... like CADL is trying to have the legislature add "librarys" to State law as a PFZ .... or am I not understanding this correctly?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
If I may:

Please see

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10198.htm

Excerpted from link above:

The Concealed Pistol Licensing Act (Act), 1927 PA 372, as amended, MCL 28.421 et seq, regulates the possession and carrying of concealed pistols. The Act prohibits persons from carrying a concealed pistol unless they have been licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 5c(2), MCL 28.425c(2), provides that licensees may carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state," subject to certain exceptions found in section 5o and "except as otherwise provided by law."

The list of gun-free zones in section 5o is not all-inclusive, however, because section 5c(2) of the Act also prohibits the carrying of a concealed pistol in those locations where such a ban is "otherwise provided by law."

The phrase "provided by law" was construed by the Michigan Supreme Court in Viculin v Dep't of Civil Service, 386 Mich 375; 192 NW2d 449 (1971). In holding that appeal procedures set forth in a Michigan court rule were properly considered a method of review "provided by law" as used in Const 1963, art 6, § 28, the Court explained that the rule fell within the scope of this phrase because "t was adopted pursuant to the power vested" in the Court. 386 Mich at 397, n 20.

This view is consistent with established principles describing what is meant by the word "law." Its meaning was summarized in 52A CJS, Law, p 737, in the following way:

It has been held to be a broad term, variously and frequently defined, its meaning in every instance to be governed by the context.

* * *

t is a general rule of conduct declared by some authority possessing sovereign power over the subject; a rule which every citizen of the state is bound to obey; an established or permanent rule established by the supreme power, or the power having the legislative control of the particular subject . . . . That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. [Footnotes omitted.]

An examination of the Michigan laws dealing with the possession of firearms discloses several additional instances where the prohibition of firearms is "otherwise provided by law." Among these is 2001 PA 225, MCL 259.80f, effective April 1, 2002, which prohibits the possession of a firearm in the "sterile" (i.e., secure) area of a commercial airport. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Administrative Order 2001-3, 464 Mich 1xxv, has, with certain exceptions, prohibited the possession of a weapon in any courtroom or facility used for official business of the court. A person violating the order may be held in contempt of court. The Michigan Department of Agriculture has also promulgated a rule making it unlawful for any person, except authorized peace officers and other persons authorized by law, "to enter upon a fairgrounds and have in his possession any firearm loaded or unloaded." 1979 AC, R 291.208.

Editor's Note: After OAG No 7123 was released, 2004 PA 129 and 130 were enacted into law, effective June 3, 2004. These acts amended MCL 324.504, 324.43510, and 324.43516. Under MCL 324.504(3) as amended, the Department of Natural Resources "shall not promulgate or enforce a rule that prohibits an individual who is licensed or exempt from licensure under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, from carrying a pistol in compliance with that act, whether concealed or otherwise, on property under the control of the department." MCL 324.43510(2) as amended provides: "This act or a rule promulgated or order issued by the department or the commission under this act shall not be construed to prohibit a person from transporting a pistol or carrying a loaded pistol, whether concealed or not" if certain specified circumstances apply. MCL 324.43516 as amended specifies that its provisions are subject to MCL 324.43510. Accordingly, OAG No 7123 has been superseded by subsequent legislation.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
YIKES DrTodd!!!!

I'm going to have to print all that out... go to Holiday Inn Express.... stick that printout under my pillow for the night and hope I wake up understanding it all!!!

But thanks for the info... :D
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I like Judge Napolitano's views on OC in Public Spaces... Starts at about 1:00...

[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Well... you DID ask for a citation for such a belief... :lol:

Thanks DrTodd. I couldn't remember where I'd read it which is why I used the phrasing "I believe."

This makes me wonder if any state level agency, like the MSP, Heath Dept., etc, if given the power by the State to regulate conduct of patrons on their premises can ban firearms possession.

Bronson
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
I like Judge Napolitano's views on OC in Public Spaces... Starts at about 1:00...

[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
Uh oh. You know the Judge says rights trump property rights when the property is a public accommodation type business. SOME people won't like that. ;)
 
Last edited:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
I like Judge Napolitano's views on OC in Public Spaces... Starts at about 1:00...

[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]

If what he is saying is true how can businesses post signs and kick people out that are carrying?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Thanks DrTodd. I couldn't remember where I'd read it which is why I used the phrasing "I believe."

This makes me wonder if any state level agency, like the MSP, Heath Dept., etc, if given the power by the State to regulate conduct of patrons on their premises can ban firearms possession.

Bronson

Apparently, they can. The law was written to allow just such a thing. This, I assume, is why the Mich. Firearm Law booklet they hand all new cpl holders is full of occurrences of state-level agencies doing just that. Even if the bill to strike the PFZs is passed into law, those restrictions will still remain.
 
Top