Bronson
Regular Member
Yes we do, but at least it's free.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xo...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-422
Bronson
-
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.
-
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.
WI Shall-issue passes!
- Thread starter Yooper
- Start date
Yes we do, but at least it's free.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xo...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-422
Bronson
eastmeyers
Regular Member
Okay, okay, sorry, I included that under pistol registration. But good call. No need for a permit to LGOC.
Nice catch Bronson, as always. You are the eyes that see through the bushes.
Last edited:
Bronson
Regular Member
Let's Compare More
Hmmm, so if Joe's Pizza in Kalamazoo (fictitious) posts signs saying no entry with a firearm and you ignore the sign and enter with a firearm, you cannot be charged with trespass? If true, so much for private property rights.
I make mistakes all the time and to be fair the name of WI was sullied first, I just responded.
I'm not sure what I am not "well informed" about. If I made a misstatement of fact, please point it out. I did not attempt to cover every conceivable issue but was responding to those raised in the quoted post.
Add-On - Found this. Why wouldn't it apply to a OC or CC into a private business?
750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
Sec. 552.
Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, (this could be by signage) or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Quite true.
That's a matter of opinion and personal situations and therefore cannot be right or wrong. I will agree that MI is in the top 50%.
Again, it's relative.
Hmmm, so if Joe's Pizza in Kalamazoo (fictitious) posts signs saying no entry with a firearm and you ignore the sign and enter with a firearm, you cannot be charged with trespass? If true, so much for private property rights.
If there is no option to post government buildings, that aspect of MI law is indeed less restrictive.
The number of "special events" is limited. It's pretty difficult to OC without a pistol and you do need a permit (of some type) to purchase/possess. You do not need any type of permit to OC in Wisconsin and you can do so at 18. This does not include GFSZ and other special circumstances.
It is not the universities' constitutions but the state constitution that would need to be changed.
I make mistakes all the time and to be fair the name of WI was sullied first, I just responded.
I'm not sure what I am not "well informed" about. If I made a misstatement of fact, please point it out. I did not attempt to cover every conceivable issue but was responding to those raised in the quoted post.
Add-On - Found this. Why wouldn't it apply to a OC or CC into a private business?
750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.
Sec. 552.
Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, (this could be by signage) or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Last edited:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
It is not a matter of Personal Opinion, Personal Situations, or Relativity when you are dealing with matters of LAW. It is quite an easy comparison just referencing handgunlaw.us and the information on OpenCarry.org. I recently went on a trip to 13 States and had to understand the laws of each State for Carry (I have a MI CPL). I am glad I do not live in some of those other states!
Here is a sample from WI and MI since that is the topic at hand (State Resident carry only):
WI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rrying-(OC)-In-WI-Here-s-what-you-should-know
MI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81204-Open-Carry-Guide-Project
Just the mere fact that WI Residents have the 1000' GFSZ to deal with tells me everything I need to know (MI CPL and MI LTP meets the exclusionary requirements of Title 18 U.S.C §922(q)). When you include Public Buildings as being GFZ, which MI does not have, that completes the picture.
As for Signage having the Force of Law in terms of Trespass, there is controversy about this and to date no clear answer has emerged that I am aware of (as in Case Law).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-552
1(b) above does not state Signage as being proper Notification, whereas other States have clearly spelled this out.
I believe that Judge Napolitano speaks pretty clearly to Firearm Carry in Public Accommodations of Private Property (starting at 0:56 in the following video).
[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
Here is a sample from WI and MI since that is the topic at hand (State Resident carry only):
WI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rrying-(OC)-In-WI-Here-s-what-you-should-know
MI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81204-Open-Carry-Guide-Project
Just the mere fact that WI Residents have the 1000' GFSZ to deal with tells me everything I need to know (MI CPL and MI LTP meets the exclusionary requirements of Title 18 U.S.C §922(q)). When you include Public Buildings as being GFZ, which MI does not have, that completes the picture.
As for Signage having the Force of Law in terms of Trespass, there is controversy about this and to date no clear answer has emerged that I am aware of (as in Case Law).
MCL 750.552 said:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-552
1(b) above does not state Signage as being proper Notification, whereas other States have clearly spelled this out.
I believe that Judge Napolitano speaks pretty clearly to Firearm Carry in Public Accommodations of Private Property (starting at 0:56 in the following video).
[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
It Goes On and On
Whether one state is "better" than another surely is opinion. While you can state with some certainty what the law is, simply adding up the number of pistol free zones, etc. doesn't mean much. My opinion is that WI (after the law takes effect) is more advantageous for those who wish to carry. You are entitled to a different opinion.
You are under the misapprehension that the WI permit does not likewise provide an exemption from the GFSZ. This is incorrect. The legislation were so far as to declare holders of recognized out of state permits as "licensed" by Wisconsin. While I don't think this will hold up, they at least tried. Unliike the Great Lake State, WI does not restrict recognition to "resident" permits. Nor will a permit be required for open carry in a vehicle.
I think that signs are most often viewed as sufficient notice. Otherwise you would have to post somebody 24x7x365 to protect open land. The basic idea is that a property owner can generally decide who can or cannot enter his property. Absent a specific statutory mandate to do so in a particular way, any reasonable notice should suffice. Person to Person notice (to leave) may be required when an individual is already on the property and wasn't warned against entry by signs. Your bolded 1(b). This is different from the initial intrusion where he was advised not to enter. Like 1(a) which you conveniently ignored.
Whether one state is "better" than another surely is opinion. While you can state with some certainty what the law is, simply adding up the number of pistol free zones, etc. doesn't mean much. My opinion is that WI (after the law takes effect) is more advantageous for those who wish to carry. You are entitled to a different opinion.
You are under the misapprehension that the WI permit does not likewise provide an exemption from the GFSZ. This is incorrect. The legislation were so far as to declare holders of recognized out of state permits as "licensed" by Wisconsin. While I don't think this will hold up, they at least tried. Unliike the Great Lake State, WI does not restrict recognition to "resident" permits. Nor will a permit be required for open carry in a vehicle.
I think that signs are most often viewed as sufficient notice. Otherwise you would have to post somebody 24x7x365 to protect open land. The basic idea is that a property owner can generally decide who can or cannot enter his property. Absent a specific statutory mandate to do so in a particular way, any reasonable notice should suffice. Person to Person notice (to leave) may be required when an individual is already on the property and wasn't warned against entry by signs. Your bolded 1(b). This is different from the initial intrusion where he was advised not to enter. Like 1(a) which you conveniently ignored.
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
I firmly disagree with you on multiple points.
Adding up multiple factors, including PFZ's, plays into the comparison and simply having less PFZ's is of fundamental importance as it means more places a person can carry. Right now as the CURRENT FIREARM LAWS stand, I would rather be in MI than in WI. I believe that when the NEW WI LAW TAKES EFFECT, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL. The current legislation for CC in WI is just that - it is not law. I posted about CURRENT LAW, I guess you missed that...
You are trying to equate a NO FIREARM SIGN with NO TRESPASSING SIGN. The 2 are not the same and trying to state a NO FIREARM SIGN MEANS NO TRESPASSING is not recognized by any MI Law known at this time (including CASE LAW). What is well known is that if you are carrying a firearm and are asked to leave and do not do so, then it can be considered trespassing and you can be prosecuted under the law we have both cited. Most people I know just simply do not visit places that do not honor nor support their rights.
Adding up multiple factors, including PFZ's, plays into the comparison and simply having less PFZ's is of fundamental importance as it means more places a person can carry. Right now as the CURRENT FIREARM LAWS stand, I would rather be in MI than in WI. I believe that when the NEW WI LAW TAKES EFFECT, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL. The current legislation for CC in WI is just that - it is not law. I posted about CURRENT LAW, I guess you missed that...
You are trying to equate a NO FIREARM SIGN with NO TRESPASSING SIGN. The 2 are not the same and trying to state a NO FIREARM SIGN MEANS NO TRESPASSING is not recognized by any MI Law known at this time (including CASE LAW). What is well known is that if you are carrying a firearm and are asked to leave and do not do so, then it can be considered trespassing and you can be prosecuted under the law we have both cited. Most people I know just simply do not visit places that do not honor nor support their rights.
Bronson
Regular Member
Are people really arguing over who's laws are the best? Please put away your weiners & tape measures and get back to your lives 
:lol:
Bronson
:lol:Bronson
Gunslinger
Regular Member
What you mean we...
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Well, betrayed may be a little harsh. You didn't get everything that would have been ideal, but think of what you had a year ago. IMO, and I love WI having been there many times growing up in IL before it became a Gulag, Walker done good.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Our Governor promised during his campaign he would sign ANY concealed carry bill that went before his desk. He also ran on balancing the budget. Less taxes, less Government.
He didn't do what he said he would. He didn't do what we told him to do.
Constitutional Carry with optional permits for reciprocity was what we were looking at before he opened his mouth and told us what HE wanted. Literally. We got what HE wanted. Permits and training. And a Right is not a right.
So do the math and draw your own conclusions I guess.
He didn't do what he said he would. He didn't do what we told him to do.
Constitutional Carry with optional permits for reciprocity was what we were looking at before he opened his mouth and told us what HE wanted. Literally. We got what HE wanted. Permits and training. And a Right is not a right.
So do the math and draw your own conclusions I guess.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
I cant read. Therefore the sign is invisible to me.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I in no way sullied the name of Wisconsin... in fact, if you actually read what I said, I stated that I was happy for the fine people of Wisconsin. I only put the Constitutional Carry issue out there in my rant because I wanted Michigan to change... which would imply that I thought, at least in some respects Wisconsin was ahead of where we are. At least you folks are having the discussion.
If you think a comparison of the law here and my interpretation of the law in Wisconsin was somehow a message of which is better... I need to remind you that watering down a right in any form can never be "better".
Also, my message was directed to people from Michigan who desire to carry in Wisconsin once this passes; a logical conclusion since this is the Michigan sub-forum area. Other than the Constitutional Carry point referenced above, at no point in what I wrote did I use any verbiage that would indicate that I thought one state's laws usurpation of a right is better than the other's... they are all bad.
I humbly suggest that instead of creating "conflict" where none exists, you instead attempt to correct our (mis)interpretations of what the law says... after all, you do live there.
Once again, congratulations on a job well done.
You have just stated an opinion. Ok, it's a fact in that you believe it but that's a different issue.
Well, it will be shortly. If you are talking about current law - there really isn't much to talk about. Since the thrust of the thread was the new cc law in WI, it seems obvious what we were talking about. Otherwise it's not an apples to apples comparison. (Michigan does grow good apples.)
A no firearms sign is simply a specific case of a no trespassing sign. No trespassing = Do not come onto my property. No firearms = Do not come onto my property with a firearm. Unless you think somebody is going to trespass by flinging a firearm onto someone else's property. What else does "No Firearms" mean? That the poster doesn't have firearms? That may be true but is not the message that is being sent. If the sign said "No Trespassing with a Firearm" would that make a difference to you?
One last point the new law in WI permits carry of a Taser with a permit. No permit is needed to have one at home or for secured transport. Try that in Michigan.
I'm perfectly happy to call a truce. We really don't advance anybody's interest by quibbling. I hope MI improves and I'm sure you hope the same for WI. Now about Illinois.....
Last edited:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
The apples to apples comparison as you speak of is based upon CURRENT LAW not about pending legislation and my post was quite clear. Sorry that my post about law did not match up with the main thread posting on pending legislation and I understand how the confusion occurred. Speaking of legislation in process, MI HB 4009/4010 would certainly help as these bills would get rid of the MI CC PFZ's.
As to the Trespass discussion we have been having, if you have any lawful cites to back-up your assertions/beliefs, I am sure that myself and others would love to see them. I believe that I have represented the MI Laws as they currently stand, whether or not they are based in "common sense" is a whole different discussion.
As to Tasers, MI is considering changes but they would be under CPL instead of available for anyone without a permit. In addition, a Judge in MI has already ruled that a law against a person possessing a Taser is Unconstitutional (appeal is probably pending). The following are links that discuss these items:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/citizen_taser_could_be_legal_t.html
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...udge-rules-banning-tasers-is-unconstitutional
http://media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/Yanna Ruling.pdf
http://www.aggressivecriminaldefens...state-law-banning-stun-guns-unconstitutional/
As to the Trespass discussion we have been having, if you have any lawful cites to back-up your assertions/beliefs, I am sure that myself and others would love to see them. I believe that I have represented the MI Laws as they currently stand, whether or not they are based in "common sense" is a whole different discussion.
As to Tasers, MI is considering changes but they would be under CPL instead of available for anyone without a permit. In addition, a Judge in MI has already ruled that a law against a person possessing a Taser is Unconstitutional (appeal is probably pending). The following are links that discuss these items:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/citizen_taser_could_be_legal_t.html
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...udge-rules-banning-tasers-is-unconstitutional
http://media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/Yanna Ruling.pdf
http://www.aggressivecriminaldefens...state-law-banning-stun-guns-unconstitutional/
Be careful when using the words "truly FREE" while referring to carry permits. Forcing citizens to get government permission to excessive a RIGHT is NOT freedom.
Ok Help Me Learn
Recap your position for me,
1. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. It is clear that my property is a private lot, not a public park or open field.
a. Person A looks at my land, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
2. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. I post many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille to that effect.
a. Person B reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
3. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property carrying a weasel. I posted many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Weasels."
a. Person C reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property with his weasel. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
4. I am a MI property owner. I don't care if anybody walks onto my property as long they do not take fruit from my trees. I posted many, large, obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Fruit Taking."
a. Person D reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders, enters my property and takes some apples from my best tree. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
Recap your position for me,
1. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. It is clear that my property is a private lot, not a public park or open field.
a. Person A looks at my land, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
2. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. I post many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille to that effect.
a. Person B reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
3. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property carrying a weasel. I posted many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Weasels."
a. Person C reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property with his weasel. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
4. I am a MI property owner. I don't care if anybody walks onto my property as long they do not take fruit from my trees. I posted many, large, obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Fruit Taking."
a. Person D reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders, enters my property and takes some apples from my best tree. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
Last edited:
eastmeyers
Regular Member
I don't know why you are de-railing this thread so much, but let me quickly answer your question. Their is a difference between private property that is open to the public and just private property. A home, or land, that is privately owned is OBVIOUSLY NOT open to the public. ANYPLACE with a no trespassing sign is NOT open to the public. Please try and use a little common sense here. BTW when I went to the WI forum, it was to offer congratulations, not to hassle the locals.
Now there is a difference between a NO TRESPASSING SIGN and a NO FIREARMS sign, first off one says NO TRESPASSING, and has the authority of the law behind it, as long as they are posted as the law states, and the other says NO FIREARMS. I am sorry this is NOT a clear issue for you. But it is not our job to teach you common sense, this is something you should have learned on your own.
And to point out what many have already, we were all civil, you were the one that became hostile without provocation. We only defended against your assertions, and they were only that, assertions.
It is time to get back on track, and get this thread back to what it is about, congratulating WI, and informing MI residents about the legislation in WI.
I say AGAIN CONGRATULATIONS WI, I know it isn't what you wanted, but with one foot in front of the other, one step at a time, you will get it all done! And so will MI, Let Freedom Ring!
God Bless!
If You'd Bothered to Look
You would have seen that it was not I who introduced the subject of signs. I regret that you feel put upon but if you wish to engage in discussion of an issue, you need to be able to handle the fact that other people will have a different view. I asked for your assistance to help me understand what you meant. You respond with sarcasm and unsubstantiated claims about what has "the authority of the law behind it." What you call common sense is simply agreeing with you. Sorry that won't fly. If you could find support in the law for your position, you would post it. So your inability to do so tells all. However, I will be compassionate and discontinue this exchange. I wish you the best.
You would have seen that it was not I who introduced the subject of signs. I regret that you feel put upon but if you wish to engage in discussion of an issue, you need to be able to handle the fact that other people will have a different view. I asked for your assistance to help me understand what you meant. You respond with sarcasm and unsubstantiated claims about what has "the authority of the law behind it." What you call common sense is simply agreeing with you. Sorry that won't fly. If you could find support in the law for your position, you would post it. So your inability to do so tells all. However, I will be compassionate and discontinue this exchange. I wish you the best.
eastmeyers
Regular Member
You made the assertion that in MI "No Firearm Signs" carry the weight of the law. You then posted the no trespassing law, and when you did, you added your own opinion in the quote of the law, in parentheses. It was just that your opinion not fact. In MI, no where in the law does it say that a "No Firearm Sign" holds any water. Yes if you are told by the owner, or the owner's agent to leave you must, or you can be charged for trespassing. These are your assertions, it is up to you to put up a cite, its not my assertion it is yours. I am open-minded, I would be very interested to know if such a law exists. I just don't think it does, if I knew of it I would post it, but I can't post something that does not exist. That is why it is up to the person that makes the assertion to post the cite, or quote of a law, not the person defending against the assertion.
The one exemption to this in MI that I CAN think of is the "No Firearm Sign" for an Entertainment Facility Seating More than 2,500 people, it must be at every entrance, and must be in letters at least 1" in height, and say this is an entertainment facility seating more than 2,500 people. But it doesn't have to say "No Firearms", your suppose to know, no CC is allowed, when you see the sign.
In MOST states that "No Firearm Signs" DO hold the weight of the law, at the bottom of the sign it lists the law that the sign is enforced with. This is not so in MI, because in MI there is no such law.
A personal note: I do not shop/patronize places that have No Firearm Signage, armed or not, not because it is illegal, but because I do not support places that do not support my rights. Hospitals are obviously something different, because I need hospitals.
***IANAL***
Now I am not asking for a cite, because I am pretty sure one does not exist, many people (myself included), also lawyers have been looking for one for years, and have not found one. Although if you find one, even start a new thread because it WILL BE BIG NEWS.
CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK ON TOPIC NOW???
Last edited: