TheQ
Regular Member
A thread on MGO and MOC no one will want to miss!
1. Interesting -- only the open carry of firearms by the "Defendants" (strange, I only see one name on the case, MOC, and as we discussed MOC is only a organization and not a real person and as such can't carry a paperclip, no less a handgun). Since there is only one Defendant listed on the top of the case, why say "Defendants"? Maybe they need grammar lessons?
2. It seems the DA's of Michigan (at least in Ingham County) won't have to try a case to make Open Carry illegal, CADL will do their dirty work for them. If the judge so declares, LPD and Ingham County Sheriff could start arresting people for Open Carry...and Stuart Dunning (Ingham County DA) would have case law when seeking a conviction.
A few thoughts:
1. This is a fight we must win or possibly kiss open carry goodbye in Michigan.
2. This judge is scary.
3. If we lose, we must appeal (or kiss OC in MI Goodbye). This will not be inexpensive.
4. If they win and we don't appeal, they want money out of MOC (and MGO if they join them?) anyhow (part "D" of their Prayer)!
esq_stu said:CADL has filed a motion for Summary Disposition with the court. They are seeking a judgment even before the June hearing on the issues of preemption and brandishing. They want a ruling before the June hearing stating that:
1) The library is not preempted from regulating firearms; and
2) Open carry is brandishing as a matter of law under (MCL 750.234e (brandishing a firearm in public)).
The remaining issue at the June hearing would then focus mainly on the issue of whether the library is a "weapon free school zone." At the June hearing CADL will need to prove it's libraries are schools.
Needless to say, counsel for MOC and MGO disagree with these positions and we'll be prepared to respond. I will post a copy of the motion and brief as soon as I can get it scanned.
The hearing on CADL's motion is scheduled for Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.
WHEREFORE, Plantiff CADL request that this honorable Court:
....
B. Determine that the open carrying of weapons by Defendants violates MCL 750.234e;
...
D. Grant Plaintiff CADL fees and costs in bringing this action, including reasonable attorney fees; and...
1. Interesting -- only the open carry of firearms by the "Defendants" (strange, I only see one name on the case, MOC, and as we discussed MOC is only a organization and not a real person and as such can't carry a paperclip, no less a handgun). Since there is only one Defendant listed on the top of the case, why say "Defendants"? Maybe they need grammar lessons?
2. It seems the DA's of Michigan (at least in Ingham County) won't have to try a case to make Open Carry illegal, CADL will do their dirty work for them. If the judge so declares, LPD and Ingham County Sheriff could start arresting people for Open Carry...and Stuart Dunning (Ingham County DA) would have case law when seeking a conviction.
A few thoughts:
1. This is a fight we must win or possibly kiss open carry goodbye in Michigan.
2. This judge is scary.
3. If we lose, we must appeal (or kiss OC in MI Goodbye). This will not be inexpensive.
4. If they win and we don't appeal, they want money out of MOC (and MGO if they join them?) anyhow (part "D" of their Prayer)!