Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Guns, Signs and Trespass in Michigan

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Guns, Signs and Trespass in Michigan

    Dear Mr. Eastmeyers

    Since you were kind enough to respond in a such a polite manner, I will do as you suggested and begin a new thread. The essence of this is my contention that a “No Firearms” sign at the entrance to a business is a proper form of notice under Michigan’s trespass law. Ignoring the sign and entering the premises constitutes a trespass. While unlikely - an individual who does so could be charged and sued civilly. A trespass would also occur in there were no sign or other form of notice at the entry but an authorized person requested that you depart and you did not do so. In both cases there was a restriction (no firearms) and notice (the sign or a person telling you). If you believe the second (personal notice) is correct then you must explain why the first (a sign) is not. Neither is specified in the law. Here goes:

    MCL 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

    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, 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.

    History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951


    What is trespass in our context? The above section says it all. Intentionally going on/into somebody else’s property after having been advised not to do so. Do you agree so far?

    Ok. To make things simple let us say we are talking about a business rather than a residence or private land. We probably agree that said business is generally open to the public during certain hours. Now the question is whether or not the owner of the business may place certain requirement upon the members of the public who wish to enter the building. I think that we would further agree that restrictions that are in violation of other state or federal laws cannot be enforced. Thus the owner cannot refuse entry to a person because of his race, religion, sex, color, age. Now some of these restrictions are local or state and may not apply in all cases. In some instances, subsets of these categories may be refused entry - under 21 in a bar or liquor store, men in a women-only spa (allowable in WI). Ok, so far? So other than these types of limitations a business owner is free to set conditions upon entry (provided that the condition is not a pretext for otherwise unlawful behavior or has a disparate impact upon a certain group. Examples might be refusing entry to those who aren’t wearing a skirt or dress or those that are wearing headgear). So an owner may restrict entry to only those who are wearing some sort of shirt (a upper body covering) - be it a t-shirt, blouse, guyabera, etc. or who are not eating or smoking (in those places where smoking is not altogether banned.) In synch?

    This is a way for the owner to withdraw the otherwise general consent a public business implies. Now the question is how the owner may communicate the restriction on entry. I gather that if he stood at the entrance and told those in violation of the restriction that they could not enter, that would “carry the weight of law” in your opinion and that him saying “I don’t allow firearms in my store” is a way of communicating the restriction.

    So we come to a sign. What is a sign? It is a means of communicating using written language. When you roll up to that red, octagonal piece of metal on a post with the letters STOP on it, you understand that (a) you are receiving a communication from a governmental body and (b) you are required to bring your vehicle to a standstill. Note that the mayor or public works director or police officer was not standing there, waving vigorously and shouting for you to halt. Even if vandals had painted the sign green or deleted a letter, you would recognize the sign and what it means.

    You concede that a No Trespassing sign “carries the weight of law” and has the meaning that nobody is authorized to entry or conversely, that the owner has forbidden entry (to everyone). In the case of our store where, by default, everybody is authorized to enter so how, other than standing at the entrance as described, may the owner forbid entry by people with certain characteristics? In a movie theater you might see a sign that says “No Outside Food” or at a restaurant “Service Animals Only” - do these carry the “weight of law”? The word “trespass” is not to be found. The owner nonetheless has forbidden entry. In the case of the theater, to someone with fried chicken stuffed in his shorts. In the case of the restaurant, to the owner of a pet ferret. Unless specified by statute, no particular wording is required. It is enough to have a sign that contains words that convey the restriction to the average person and place the sign so it can reasonably be seen. Thus “No Firearms” is conveying a restriction (or condition) to entry. Ignoring that restriction is a trespass.

    Likewise unless otherwise specified by statute, personal notice is sufficient but not required. Personal notice is more likely when there is no notice upon entry and the person is being asked to leave. Then refusal to leave is a trespass. However, when notice has already been given at an access point, the trespass occurs upon entry - when the restriction imposed has been violated. It may be that the owner chooses to ask the person to leave to maintain a peaceful atmosphere but that is a gratuitous gesture on his part. In some states, refusal to leave upon personal notice is a graver offense because of the possibly of confrontation and may be called “criminal trespass” or “aggravated trespass.” Often nonviolent, nondestructive trespass is not prosecuted or sued civilly because it is a low priority or recovery would be minimal or nonexistent. This does not mean that a trespass has not occurred.

    In view of all this, except as described above, and in Michigan, a sign “carries the weight of law” in that it can communicate a restriction that, a violation of which constitutes a trespass. The statute doesn’t talk about personal notice, signs or smoke signals because it doesn’t have to. All of these are contained in the concepts of “forbid” and “notify.”

    It is an Old Wives’ Tale that “signs carry no legal weight” in regard to carrying a firearm and trespass. In some instances (often crop fields and certainly residences) no notice whatsoever is required. It is held that it is intuitively obvious that some places are meant to exclude others.

    One last thing - Wisconsin's new law is interesting in that a posted notice on land (only land - not buildings, etc.) does not apply to a licensee if the intent of the owner is to prevent carrying a firearm on the land (vs for some other reason). This would be a case of the sign having no legal weight (at least viz a viz a licensee).
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-25-2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason: add

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    So if a business discriminates against certain groups of lawful people and prevent these people from enjoying the free exercise of their RIGHTS, then maybe this business should fall into legal trouble with the deliberate singling certain people out to not only deny their rights under the Constitution, but to conduct wanton discrimination against them. Frankly these agree to allow the public by opening the business as a PUBLIC business and not a private members only club like a sams club or cosco. In my humble opinion anyone who is against the Constitution is a traitor. If they with total disregard to and or prevent the people or certain people their Constitutional rights then they in fact have forfeited theirs by doing so and willingly I might add.

    I find the contradictions glaring that in our society one can not discriminate due to race yet can due to class. We are a nation in decline.


    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Dear Mr. Eastmeyers

    Since you were kind enough to respond in a such a polite manner, I will do as you suggested and begin a new thread. The essence of this is my contention that a “No Firearms” sign at the entrance to a business is a proper form of notice under Michigan’s trespass law. Ignoring the sign and entering the premises constitutes a trespass. While unlikely - an individual who does so could be charged and sued civilly. A trespass would also occur in there were no sign or other form of notice at the entry but an authorized person requested that you depart and you did not do so. In both cases there was a restriction (no firearms) and notice (the sign or a person telling you). If you believe the second (personal notice) is correct then you must explain why the first (a sign) is not. Neither is specified in the law. Here goes:

    MCL 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

    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, 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.

    History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951


    What is trespass in our context? The above section says it all. Intentionally going on/into somebody else’s property after having been advised not to do so. Do you agree so far?

    Ok. To make things simple let us say we are talking about a business rather than a residence or private land. We probably agree that said business is generally open to the public during certain hours. Now the question is whether or not the owner of the business may place certain requirement upon the members of the public who wish to enter the building. I think that we would further agree that restrictions that are in violation of other state or federal laws cannot be enforced. Thus the owner cannot refuse entry to a person because of his race, religion, sex, color, age. Now some of these restrictions are local or state and may not apply in all cases. In some instances, subsets of these categories may be refused entry - under 21 in a bar or liquor store, men in a women-only spa (allowable in WI). Ok, so far? So other than these types of limitations a business owner is free to set conditions upon entry (provided that the condition is not a pretext for otherwise unlawful behavior or has a disparate impact upon a certain group. Examples might be refusing entry to those who aren’t wearing a skirt or dress or those that are wearing headgear). So an owner may restrict entry to only those who are wearing some sort of shirt (a upper body covering) - be it a t-shirt, blouse, guyabera, etc. or who are not eating or smoking (in those places where smoking is not altogether banned.) In synch?

    This is a way for the owner to withdraw the otherwise general consent a public business implies. Now the question is how the owner may communicate the restriction on entry. I gather that if he stood at the entrance and told those in violation of the restriction that they could not enter, that would “carry the weight of law” in your opinion and that him saying “I don’t allow firearms in my store” is a way of communicating the restriction.

    So we come to a sign. What is a sign? It is a means of communicating using written language. When you roll up to that red, octagonal piece of metal on a post with the letters STOP on it, you understand that (a) you are receiving a communication from a governmental body and (b) you are required to bring your vehicle to a standstill. Note that the mayor or public works director or police officer was not standing there, waving vigorously and shouting for you to halt. Even if vandals had painted the sign green or deleted a letter, you would recognize the sign and what it means.

    You concede that a No Trespassing sign “carries the weight of law” and has the meaning that nobody is authorized to entry or conversely, that the owner has forbidden entry (to everyone). In the case of our store where, by default, everybody is authorized to enter so how, other than standing at the entrance as described, may the owner forbid entry by people with certain characteristics? In a movie theater you might see a sign that says “No Outside Food” or at a restaurant “Service Animals Only” - do these carry the “weight of law”? The word “trespass” is not to be found. The owner nonetheless has forbidden entry. In the case of the theater, to someone with fried chicken stuffed in his shorts. In the case of the restaurant, to the owner of a pet ferret. Unless specified by statute, no particular wording is required. It is enough to have a sign that contains words that convey the restriction to the average person and place the sign so it can reasonably be seen. Thus “No Firearms” is conveying a restriction (or condition) to entry. Ignoring that restriction is a trespass.

    Likewise unless otherwise specified by statute, personal notice is sufficient but not required. Personal notice is more likely when there is no notice upon entry and the person is being asked to leave. Then refusal to leave is a trespass. However, when notice has already been given at an access point, the trespass occurs upon entry - when the restriction imposed has been violated. It may be that the owner chooses to ask the person to leave to maintain a peaceful atmosphere but that is a gratuitous gesture on his part. In some states, refusal to leave upon personal notice is a graver offense because of the possibly of confrontation and may be called “criminal trespass” or “aggravated trespass.” Often nonviolent, nondestructive trespass is not prosecuted or sued civilly because it is a low priority or recovery would be minimal or nonexistent. This does not mean that a trespass has not occurred.

    In view of all this, except as described above, and in Michigan, a sign “carries the weight of law” in that it can communicate a restriction that, a violation of which constitutes a trespass. The statute doesn’t talk about personal notice, signs or smoke signals because it doesn’t have to. All of these are contained in the concepts of “forbid” and “notify.”

    It is an Old Wives’ Tale that “signs carry no legal weight” in regard to carrying a firearm and trespass. In some instances (often crop fields and certainly residences) no notice whatsoever is required. It is held that it is intuitively obvious that some places are meant to exclude others.

    One last thing - Wisconsin's new law is interesting in that a posted notice on land (only land - not buildings, etc.) does not apply to a licensee if the intent of the owner is to prevent carrying a firearm on the land (vs for some other reason). This would be a case of the sign having no legal weight (at least viz a viz a licensee).
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 06-25-2011 at 02:10 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Mosnar87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118
    Sorry if I missed mention of this somewhere in your multi-page post my reasoning for not worrying about "No Guns" or "No Weapons" signs is this, how can it be lawful notice if I must search for it? Many, if not most, malls, grocery stores and other retailers with such signs try to make them unobtrusive (read; stuck on a tiny sign in the corner or small low contrast font on a wall of sliding glass doors) I would not consider that lawful notice and judging by sign requirements in states that have them such as Texas and Ohio, most courts of law would probably agree.
    Last edited by Mosnar87; 06-25-2011 at 10:06 PM. Reason: spelling
    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
    —John F. Kennedy

    "If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
    —Oliver Wendell Holmes

  4. #4
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    So if a business discriminates against certain groups of lawful people and prevent these people from enjoying the free exercise of their RIGHTS, then maybe this business should fall into legal trouble with the deliberate singling certain people out to not only deny their rights under the Constitution, but to conduct wanton discrimination against them. Frankly these agree to allow the public by opening the business as a PUBLIC business and not a private members only club like a sams club or cosco. In my humble opinion anyone who is against the Constitution is a traitor. If they with total disregard to and or prevent the people or certain people their Constitutional rights then they in fact have forfeited theirs by doing so and willingly I might add.

    I find the contradictions glaring that in our society one can not discriminate due to race yet can due to class. We are a nation in decline.
    Your words are both TRUE and basic COMMON SENSE! CARRY ON!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  5. #5
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Mosnar87 View Post
    Sorry if I missed mention of this somewhere in your multi-page post my reasoning for not worrying about "No Guns" or "No Weapons" sings is this, how can it be lawful notice if I must search for it? Many, if not most, malls, grocery stores and other retailers with such signs try to make them unobtrusive (read; stuck on a tiny sign in the corner or small low contrast font on a wall of sliding glass doors) I would not consider that lawful notice and judging by sign requirements in states that have them such as Texas and Ohio, most courts of law would probably agree.
    It isn't NOTICE unless it is NOTICABLE!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member DetroitBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    318
    In Michigan, those signs carry No legal weight

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    I might be splitting hairs here, but how is a sign that tells me that a specific item is not allowed(ie. gun), notifiying me to depart?

    "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"
    Last edited by scot623; 06-25-2011 at 07:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Yes, You Missed It

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosnar87 View Post
    Sorry if I missed mention of this somewhere in your multi-page post my reasoning for not worrying about "No Guns" or "No Weapons" sings is this, how can it be lawful notice if I must search for it? Many, if not most, malls, grocery stores and other retailers with such signs try to make them unobtrusive (read; stuck on a tiny sign in the corner or small low contrast font on a wall of sliding glass doors) I would not consider that lawful notice and judging by sign requirements in states that have them such as Texas and Ohio, most courts of law would probably agree.
    Have another read. If cited/sued you could certainly raise a defense of lack of notice. Whether or not you succeed is another question. What you and I consider adequate notice really isn't relevant. By the way if so many of these signs are tiny and of low contrast...how did you know that they exist?

    By the way, my post fits neatly on one page with several others. You might want to reduce your font size to less than 288.
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-25-2011 at 07:10 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    An Entry Sign Stating "No X"

    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    I might be splitting hairs here, but how is a sign that tells me that a specific item is not allowed(ie. gun), notifiying me to depart?

    "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"
    is notifying you not to enter with X. Personal notice to depart might occur when there was no notice at the entry point. The law covers both despite your selective citation.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Gee Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by DetroitBiker View Post
    In Michigan, those signs carry No legal weight
    I guess that pretty much ends the debate.
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-25-2011 at 07:08 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    As sometimes asked for on this forum, do you have a case where someone was actually convicted of trespassing for "ignoring" a no guns sign?

    It might help to prove your opinion that these signs do carry the weight of law. As I read the law that you quoted, I focus on this,

    after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another,
    My opinion, the owner/agent/occupant/person must do the asking.
    Last edited by xd shooter; 06-25-2011 at 07:31 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    And another thing....

    upon being notified to depart
    Being told to depart signifies that I'm already IN. It says nothing about "entering anyway"...

  13. #13
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    The OP has yet to CITE any law that give a sign weight of law. The MCL he has CITED talks about a person doing the notifying and what types of persons can legally notify you. No where in that MCL does it state that a sign is notice! The only type of signage related to trespass is one prohibiting people period.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Some People Just Don't Want to Know

    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    The OP has yet to CITE any law that give a sign weight of law. The MCL he has CITED talks about a person doing the notifying and what types of persons can legally notify you. No where in that MCL does it state that a sign is notice! The only type of signage related to trespass is one prohibiting people period.
    True. The trespass statute does not contains the magic words "A sign has the weight of law." Nor does it need to. It also doesn't say "A sign is notice." Nor does it need to. It also doesn't say that an owner whispering into your ear "Get the hell out!" is notice. It doesn't need to. In fact the statute says NOTHING about what notice is or how one "forbids." Does this mean there is no such thing as notice, no way to forbid? Talk about using common sense.

    MCL 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

    Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority,
    this would be someone like a LEO or firefighter on official duty - even though the law doesn't say so explicitly

    after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant,

    forbidden - how? The owner standing at the entrance stating "You with the gun are forbidden to enter." Yep. The owner posting a sign that a reasonable person can understand and see at the entrance? Yep. This part deals with somebody who receives notice before he enters the property.

    or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart there from by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart there from,

    this second part deals with somebody already on the property receiving notice - the owner could tell the person to leave or he could hold up a sign telling him to leave. In either case the visitor commits a trespass if he doesn't depart.

    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.
    this is the penalty

    The key in both is once notice is given and the person does not obey the notice, he can be cited/sued for trespass. This could be ignoring a sign or person at the entrance. This could be ignoring a person or sign once on the premises. It's really such a simple concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    No where in that MCL does it state that a sign is notice! The only type of signage related to trespass is one prohibiting people period.
    So if a sign is not notice, how is it related to trespass? Where in MCL does it say anything about "prohibiting people period"?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Again, Court case?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Mosnar87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    By the way if so many of these signs are tiny and of low contrast...how did you know that they exist?
    Fellow forum members, and other bored individuals who find it interesting to search for and post about nearly invisible signs. When I am informed that a place I regularly frequent is posted and I have no recolection of such a sign then I search for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    By the way, my post fits neatly on one page with several others. You might want to reduce your font size to less than 288.
    By the way, when Copy-pasted into word and the font is set at 10 point, your post would take just over two pages to print with standard margins. But that is beside the point. My original intent was not to belittle you over the length of your post, it was to notify you that I might have missed you mentioning the point I raised. But on further review of the OP, I see that you did not make any mention of what I call "Stealth" signs.
    Last edited by Mosnar87; 06-25-2011 at 11:45 PM. Reason: spelling
    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
    —John F. Kennedy

    "If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
    —Oliver Wendell Holmes

  17. #17
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    Is there a point to this rant apjonas?
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Do you have a point here or is this an exercise in metal gymnastics? You quote yet it is still unclear as to your actual argument. As you may or may not have noticed there is a bit of confusion by some in here as to what you are getting at, yes we see your cite, now could you please elaborate in English and avoid being so cryptic and state your thoughts.

    I may risk that 50.00 dollar fine and file suit because a quasi public venue is not actually within the legal rights to exclude certain people, ie blacks, gun owners ect based on some personal prejudice against such. If this is the case then I a business owner should be able to say no blacks, no red heads, people wearing purple shirts ect. There is a conflict between constitutional Laws, U.C.C., and civil statutes as there has been for almost 200 years now. So what type of Government do we have Mr Franklin? Now if you wish to say that property rights reign supreme then you have opened a can of worms that can not be again sealed. The "Bill" of detainer or Bill of Rights states in a chronological order of importance as seen by the Founders. I have a right to tell said business owner to sick it where the sun does not shine and organize a massive protest on the easement of his store or venue. Somehow I don't see too many business owners risking this outcome.

    We have another issue that most brainwashed American who believe we have inalienable rights suffer from, it's called ignorance and this site is included. To venture a guess I would say well over 80% of the people who come here can not discern inalienable from the Constitutional wording of unalienable. My rights are not and never have been inalienable they have since my birth been Unalienable, meaning no one can remove them and I can not surrender them by intentional nor accidental means. So no contractual trickery can allow my ignorance to give away these rights. Fact is that despite our unconstitutional Supreme court rulings can remove my rights also, and contrary to pop culture myth the Supreme Court is not the final word.


    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    is notifying you not to enter with X. Personal notice to depart might occur when there was no notice at the entry point. The law covers both despite your selective citation.
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 06-25-2011 at 11:57 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  19. #19
    Regular Member DetroitBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    I guess that pretty much ends the debate.
    Yes, it does

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    So if a business discriminates against certain groups of lawful people and prevent these people from enjoying the free exercise of their RIGHTS, then maybe this business should fall into legal trouble with the deliberate singling certain people out to not only deny their rights under the Constitution, but to conduct wanton discrimination against them. Frankly these agree to allow the public by opening the business as a PUBLIC business and not a private members only club like a sams club or cosco. In my humble opinion anyone who is against the Constitution is a traitor. If they with total disregard to and or prevent the people or certain people their Constitutional rights then they in fact have forfeited theirs by doing so and willingly I might add.

    I find the contradictions glaring that in our society one can not discriminate due to race yet can due to class. We are a nation in decline.
    Im with BE and the others on this one. Private property open to the public, must allow the lawful behavior, and specifically the constitutional rights that inherently come with it. I am also of the opinion that even if a sign were valid notification, as was previously pointed out, the sign needs to be noticed.

    There is the possibility that they might give you the same reasoning with the sign, as with the law, in that you are supposed to know the law. Both are ridiculous.

    That said, it is of some concern, when reading the self defense laws, because even though the possible fine is only 50$ IF you are in fact guilty of anthing, one must not be in the commission of a crime while defending him/herself or others with a firearm.

    If the OP were the prosecutor, and the judge were Mrs. Aqualung, it could get quite expensive and time consuming.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-26-2011 at 12:22 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Take a Look at This

    http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

    and tell me if your mind is changed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Mosnar87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Haven, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

    and tell me if your mind is changed.
    : There are no specifications for “No Guns” or “No Weapons” signs in Michigan law. Under the law, there are two ways for a CPL holder to know that guns are not allowed in a specific location. The first is the list of “Pistol Free Zones” (often colloquially referred to as violent criminal empowerment zones) that we must all memorize, which is part of the CPL statute (Pistol Free Areas).

    The second is when the owner or lessor of any real property communicates to us that our guns are not welcome there. That communication must be reasonable in order to be effective. By reasonable, I don’t mean polite. I mean that there is an effective means of communicating to us that we are not welcome so long as we are carrying our guns. This can be done with a sign, verbally, or in some kind of printed material.

    For instance, if there is a reasonably-sized and located sign in a retail establishment indicating that guns or weapons are not allowed, that would constitute reasonable notice. If an employee of the same establishment actually tells you that you may not carry on the premises, that would constitute reasonable notice. If your employer has an employee handbook or some kind of printed guidelines, and includes a prohibition on guns and/or weapons, that would constitute reasonable notice.

    If you choose to ignore any such reasonable notice, then you become a trespasser rather than a business invitee. Trespass can be punished as a crime and/or in civil court, and could affect your CPL licensing status.
    Mr. Dulan makes the same point that I have been attempting to make. How is that supposed to change my mind?
    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
    —John F. Kennedy

    "If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."
    —Oliver Wendell Holmes

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

    and tell me if your mind is changed.
    Another attorneys opinion can be completely different. Still waiting for a court case to prove your point...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    You Seem to be a Bright Individual

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosnar87 View Post
    Mr. Dulan makes the same point that I have been attempting to make. How is that supposed to change my mind?
    Thus you should understand that the issue is not the adequacy of signs, that is a side or sub-issue. The change of mind is hoped for those who think "signs carry no legal weight" - ever.

    I will respect, not ridicule those who admit that they were wrong. There may be one or two grown-ups who do so. Sadly, I expect most to hide in the corner while chanting their mantra - "Signs carry no legal weight...auuum...signs carry no legal weight....auuum...." It can be difficult to give up a fixed belief even in the face of facts to the contrary. But part of the function of this site and its forums is to learn. I know I have learned a lot including some ideas I believed to be fact were not. For instance, I thought a MI license functioned as a NICS alternative for purchase. While it does now, it didn't at the time the issue was raised. I also thought if a person is completely innocent, it was a form of civic duty to talk to a LEO. Not anymore.
    Last edited by apjonas; 06-26-2011 at 09:58 AM. Reason: politeness

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    One possible defensive strategy if you were charged for trespass against a sign, would be to set up a video recorder of the entrance, and observe how many people walk through the door without ever reading, or even seen a sign at all. You would easily be able to show that at least the majority of people, if not all of them, never see it.

    It has been my experience, and Im sure the experience of most of us here, that most people dont even notice our openly carried firearms, how are they therefore expected to notice and heed to a sign. Firearms are claimed by some to incite fear and terror into the hearts of men and mice just by the mere presence of them, so if people dont see those, then noticing a sign isnt very likely at all.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-26-2011 at 11:04 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •