• 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.

Judge Says, CADL No Weapons Policy is Legal

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
Really? Are you tearing up those taxpayer funded checks being delivered to you? ;) lol

(sorry, couldn't help myself. You've been doing good lately but that was just to juicy to pass up.)

Isn't SSDI an Insurance, isn't that what the I stands for??? :lol: Don't you have to pay in a certain amount before you are ever eligible to receive the "insurance" benefits? Just curious. :D lol

How about we get this judge voted out so we can just tear up her government pay check?
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
So, using Aquilina's logic, a county, town, or village could create a Parks & Recreation Authority, a Streets and Transportation Authority, a Municipal Infrastructure Authority, etc., and each of those would be free to ban guns from parks, the streets and roadways, and all government property.

Riiiight.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
I hope there has bee a good reception to this in the state legislature, as I think it is the best overall strategy. With solid republican majorities, now would be the time to move on this imo.

I spoke with my State Senator, Mr. Bieda(d)...even he agreed we need uniformity in our firearm laws. Without a bill to read he still said he would support a bill to clarify and strengthen preemption. Has anyone else called their Senator or State Rep yet?
 

Onnie

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Maybee, Michigan
I spoke with my State Senator, Mr. Bieda(d)...even he agreed we need uniformity in our firearm laws. Without a bill to read he still said he would support a bill to clarify and strengthen preemption. Has anyone else called their Senator or State Rep yet?

i wrote both of mine

cant never get either one on the phone
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I spoke with my State Senator, Mr. Bieda(d)...even he agreed we need uniformity in our firearm laws. Without a bill to read he still said he would support a bill to clarify and strengthen preemption. Has anyone else called their Senator or State Rep yet?

That's good news, if we can get bipartisan support for this that's even better. So I guess what we really need is someone to step up to the plate and sponsor some legislation. Hopefully some of the state reps and senators that have a good communication history with MOC will work to do this.
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
I spoke with my State Senator, Mr. Bieda(d)...even he agreed we need uniformity in our firearm laws. Without a bill to read he still said he would support a bill to clarify and strengthen preemption. Has anyone else called their Senator or State Rep yet?
I wrote them, no responce from my State Senator, and my State Rep does not support anything pro 2A in anyway, and also did not respond. So yeah.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
To ALL Whom it May Concern:

Unfortunately..., The Judges' Ruling on THE LETTER of The Law is Correct.

Captial Area District Library Properties do NOT Qualify as a 'Local Unit of Government' under MCL 123.1101, because; ACT 319 of 1990 Defines 'Local Unit of Government' as ONLY a City, Village, Township, or County.

The Michigan Legislature could Fix this by Adding: [..., or any other Agency, Authority, Board, Bureau, Chair, Commission, Committee, Department, District, Division, or any other Instrumentality or Political Subdivision of This State, or any other Instrumentality or Polictical Subdivision or Body Named above when any City, Village, Township, or County Creates The Same Body by a Joint Venture in Expenditure of Public Funds or Taxes between Them, or a School District, Unified School District, The State Board of Education, or any other School that such State Board of Education would otherwise Administer.]

I agree 100%. The definition of "Local Unit of Government" is not inclusive of every sort of Local Unit of Government... which then allows something like this to happen. Although we see the potential that "authorities" could then be made by those entities that are mentioned to go around the intent of the law, the argument could also be made that the legislature did not want to preempt authorities because in other areas regarding preemption in the MCLs, ie the state limiting the power of local governmental control, entities such as "authorities" are mentioned. It is a poorly written law and needs to be changed.

That being the case, I feel rather let down by representatives who supposedly support firearm rights. Other states have had to deal with budget issues as pressing as Michigan's yet their legislators have also been willing to improve their gun laws... or at least discuss them. Our legislature... and by this I mean our supposed reps who seemingly support our position has, up to this point, refused to do this. My opinion is that bills such as the elimination of PFZs or improving the preemption law... and the promise to eventually bring these ideas forward when "more pressing issues" are taken care of, is just a way to placate Michigan's gun owners. It would not surprise me at all if at the end of this legislative session we still have not had substantial improvements in the area of gun-owners rights. I am sure we will hear, though, that they will "certainly" deal with it in the NEXT session, though, and that we need to vote for these legislators to another term to make that happen. Yeah RIGHT! (sarcasm)
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA

Attorney Gary Bender represents the Capital Area District Library. He says an appeal by Michigan Open Carry could seriously backfire.

Gary Bender, Murphy, Benton & Spagnuolo: "They risk that the Michigan Court of Appeals will rule on a state wide basis that authorities in Michigan, including transportation authorities in Michigan, have the right to govern the issue of carrying weapons."

Mr. Bender does not understand that, actually, CADL's shenanigans WILL end up backfiring on them and all anti-gunners.

If the appeals court takes the proper expansive view of preemption, we have further pro-gun case law, and we win.

If the appeals court takes the improper limited view of preemption, our legislature will eventually strengthen preemption, and we win.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Attorney Gary Bender represents the Capital Area District Library. He says an appeal by Michigan Open Carry could seriously backfire.

Gary Bender, Murphy, Benton & Spagnuolo: "They risk that the Michigan Court of Appeals will rule on a state wide basis that authorities in Michigan, including transportation authorities in Michigan, have the right to govern the issue of carrying weapons."


They would say that knowing their "win" was gained on shaky legal grounds. They want to encourage us not to appeal...wouldn't you?
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
CADL is basically saying they need to protect their patrons from someone open carrying a gun but they don't need to protect them from someone carrying the gun concealed. And someone please site where under the cpl law authorities are included under that preemption but not anything else.
 
Top