backenj
Regular Member
I can't post the picture from my phone right now, but there is a no gun/weapons sign at the Department of Human Services building in Muskegon. Is it legal?
-
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.
No guns sign at DHS legal?
- Thread starter backenj
- Start date
TheQ
Regular Member
DHS is a child placement agency, making it akin to a sports stadium as far as CC/OC goes.
backenj
Regular Member
So I can OC with a CPL?
TheQ
Regular Member
It's akin to a bar/sports stadium, etc.
To say you can OC with a CPL over-simplifies the matter. See People v Watkins.
Last edited:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
Actually, I think they consider it more like a day care center or something. But I might be wrong. 
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
Department of Human Services is a political subdivision of the executive branch of the State.
They are not preempted by the legislature.
They are not preempted by the legislature.
backenj
Regular Member
What one? I found a few and most are in regards to marijuana. One was about MSU, one was about a fight.
TheQ
Regular Member
Actually, I think they consider it more like a day care center or something. But I might be wrong.
You can't consider the numerous adults, who are dependent on the state for most of their life for food and shelter, who often act immature, And hang out there for the better part of the day to be "children".
TheQ
Regular Member
If you go digging around Michigan gunowners for you will find some references to the case.
If I wasn't on my phone right now, I would link you to the thread.
TheQ
Regular Member
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=136331
Enjoy!
Please note, ultimately Thea case set no new binding precedent one way or another.
Enjoy!
Please note, ultimately Thea case set no new binding precedent one way or another.
Last edited:
backenj
Regular Member
So, are you saying the sign is legal? Thanks Q, I will read it after work.
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
I'm saying that since they're not preempted by the state (since they *are* the state), they may be able to be more restrictive than state law on premises they control.
And that's regardless of whether they're a daycare facility or not.
backenj
Regular Member
OK. Shorter article then I thought. That has to do with a sports arena. This is a state facility. Not the same.
TheQ
Regular Member
In the fact it is a child placement agency, it puts it in the same boat with MCL 28.425o. Some judges don't agree with the black and white law that you can OC in a PFZ.
TheQ
Regular Member
Preemption doesn't apply here, but the Agency's enabling statute might. If their enabling statute doesn't permit them to regulate guns....then.......
Also, the field preemption idea applies (which is one of Michigan Open Carry's arguments in Michigan Open Carry v CADL).
Last edited:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
No, not for that reason. I've been in the DHS office in Lansing, they have, or at least had a "day care" type area where parents who were there to see a case worker could leave their children under adult supervision. Usually some grandmotherly type person.
backenj
Regular Member
It seems that know body knows for sure. Thanks every one.
scot623
Regular Member
Zig was right, they are not preempted. Because DHS is a child placement agency(having nothing to do with the fact there is an area to have kids babysat) it places it firmly in the 28.425o CC restrictions. That leaves OC w/CPL. So, can a state agency ban firearm carry on it's property? Absent a law to stop them(like preemption), I can't see why they wouldn't. Then there is Q's thought that they somehow have to have the power to regulate firearms written somewhere. I suppose that could have merit. So, who is suing the state to find out?
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Like Rob said, there isn't really any settled case law on these situations ....only opinions. I was once told opinions are like a$sholes everyone has them and they all stink.
Last edited: