• 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.

this is on mcrgo

rvd4now

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
239
Location
down river
hey this is on there web site, i dont think this is true is it..


When you see a "No-Guns" signs on a retail store, restaurant, bank, credit union or taxpayer funded business, please let us know so we can warn others to shop or go elsewhere while armed. If you knowingly ignore their posting you are guilty of criminal trespass.


if so could one please site the mcl for me.


http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_no_gun_signs.asp
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
It appears accurate.

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.


History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5k...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-552
 
Last edited:

rvd4now

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
239
Location
down river
It appears accurate.

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.


History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5k...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-552

yes but from reading that i must be told.. a sign from what i understand holds no weight.. what if i cant read..... or just dont see the sign..
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
yes but from reading that i must be told.. a sign from what i understand holds no weight.. what if i cant read..... or just dont see the sign..

That's part of the argument is whether or not the sign is them telling you you can't come in because you're carrying. I do not believe we have any case law on this.
 

rvd4now

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
239
Location
down river
That's part of the argument is whether or not the sign is them telling you you can't come in because you're carrying. I do not believe we have any case law on this.

i have a hard time reading so i often walk pass these signs .. dame detroit public schools..
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
My thought is this: if you mention that you saw the sign, but decided to ignore it, then you would have just admitted that you were notified. Unless you specifically admitted that you saw the sign, the officer would have a hard time "proving" that you had been asked not to enter with a firearm.
There is an opinion (unpublished) that actually states that:
"Defendant was not told to depart from the premises, and inasmuch as the lot was open to the general public, the “No Trespassing” signs were inadequate to inform defendant that he was forbidden to enter the parking lot. Accordingly, the officers did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for trespassing" Whether this would apply to a "No Guns" sign in a public building, I really don't know.

People v Clay, 1997
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/19970411_C183101(0032)_183101.OPN.PDF
 

rvd4now

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
239
Location
down river
My thought is this: if you mention that you saw the sign, but decided to ignore it, then you would have just admitted that you were notified. Unless you specifically admitted that you saw the sign, the officer would have a hard time "proving" that you had been asked not to enter with a firearm.
There is an opinion (unpublished) that actually states that:
"Defendant was not told to depart from the premises, and inasmuch as the lot was open to the general public, the “No Trespassing” signs were inadequate to inform defendant that he was forbidden to enter the parking lot. Accordingly, the officers did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for trespassing" Whether this would apply to a "No Guns" sign in a public building, I really don't know.

People v Clay, 1997
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/19970411_C183101(0032)_183101.OPN.PDF

im sry i cant read.... lol
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
"Knowingly" is the keyword -- if you didn't see the sign *shrugs*, you didn't know.
 
Last edited:

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
It appears accurate.

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.

(1) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.


History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5k...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-552

I assume that you are referring to Section C regarding signage being adequate, Section C however only refers to farm property, so if it is not a farm it doesn't apply, actually since only that section even mentions signs, and does so only to say that they are sufficient, you could make the argument the argument that they must not be sufficient in Sections A, and B, as C had to actually mention it, so Sections A, and B then would require an actual request to leave.
 
Top