Drafting letter to local school principal

OC for ME said:

The carry of a properly holstered and plainly visible firearm into any school these days, without the permission of the "staff" in writing, you should expect to be asked to leave.....and that is the very best possible scenario. I will not delve into any scenario that is not the very best scenario when a school staff member discovers your properly holstered and plainly visible firearm.

As a side note, expect to be hassled at a minimum by the local news and likely the national news, let alone the local cops, for causing "undue alarm" when the school goes into lock down cuz a school staff member is not as up to speed on the law as you seem to be.

It seems that your name is "out there" and there is no need to be inconspicuous any further.

Click to expand...

Oh, you do recall that six year olds get suspended from school when they point their finger at another six year old and go "pow".....don't you.

TheQ said:

Your tax dollars also fund thermal nuclear weapon. Do you have the right to take one of them out for a spin?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but, the argument could be made.

Evil Creamsicle said:

Perhaps not, but, the argument could be made.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Maybe with the Soviets!

Perhaps this thread could get back on track of helping Raggs draft this letter instead of stating the 1001 reasons people think it would fail. I would simply add the highlights of the CADL case upholdong preemption. That realistically is the best you can do short of a more specific ruling regarding preemption and schools.

Ezerharden said:

Perhaps this thread could get back on track of helping Raggs draft this letter instead of stating the 1001 reasons people think it would fail. I would simply add the highlights of the CADL case upholdong preemption. That realistically is the best you can do short of a more specific ruling regarding preemption and schools.

Click to expand...

We would do well to keep in mind that CADL is not yet settled caselaw

TheQ said:

We would do well to keep in mind that CADL is not yet settled caselaw

Click to expand...

True


Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk 2 please pardon any typo's.

TheQ said:

Evil Creamsicle said:

TheQ said:

Evil Creamsicle said:

Though, theoretically, isn't it your tax dollars paying for said sporting event? In which case, could an argument be made for you having a right to utilize services which you also fund?

Click to expand...

Your tax dollars also fund thermal nuclear weapon. Do you have the right to take one of them out for a spin?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but, the argument could be made.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Maybe with the Soviets!

Click to expand...

Or with the Michigan Court of Appeals? In CADL vs MOC, that court held "The library is a quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of
preemption . . ."

EC perhaps didn't word his point carefully, but his point is very evident. An entity that is funded by tax dollars (directly or indirectly), such as an entity that provides sporting event services or library services, may be held to be a municipal or "quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of preemption".

The point EC is making is not hard to discern, and it is a good one. I think it is quite overwhelmingly exaggerated and completely in error to be dismissive of it as akin to asking if you have a right to take nuclear weapons for a spin.

TheQ said:

We would do well to keep in mind that CADL is not yet settled caselaw

Click to expand...

CADL vs MOC is precedent, as well as the other cases the Court of Appeals used in deciding it. Until it or other favorable precedents are overturned, they represent the case law "settled" so far.

If EC wanted to go to court and argue that a directly or indirectly tax-funded entity that provides sporting event services is a quasi-municipal corporation subject to preemption, we have a couple of court cases and a couple of lawyers that would give him a fair shot of succeeding.

It's not as poor a shot as you tried to describe as asking for a right to take a nuclear weapon for a spin.

New Draft

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this letter, Here is an updated version, any thoughts would be appreciated.

Dear Principal

I received your letter and due to your misunderstanding of the “open carry permit” I want to take this opportunity to further explain. I have reviewed all of the links you provided. I had read all of these and studied each of them in depth before you furnished them to me. However, you seem to have missed or omitted one: Michigan Compiled Law Excerpt:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...0926--,00.html

which in part says

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who possesses a weapon in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following …

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An individual employed by or contracted by a school if the possession of that weapon is to provide security services for the school.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(e) An individual who possesses a firearm on school property if that possession is with the permission of the school's principal or an agent of the school designated by the school's principal or the school board.

Also you might like to read Michigan State Police here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf Which will open a pdf from the Michigan state police update


The State of Michigan's laws on firearms preempts local laws or rules made by a group such as a local school board. In CADL vs MOC, that court held that quasi-municipal corporations are "subject to the principles of
preemption" and prohibited from establishing a weapons policy "to the extent that it attempts
to regulate firearms contrary to the restrictions set forth in MCL 123.1102.
Link to CADL vs MOC: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/o...304582.opn.pdf

As provided by law in the State of Michigan, I am legally within my rights to open carry a firearm on school property since I hold a valid Michigan Concealed Pistol License.


Thank You

DanM said:

Or with the Michigan Court of Appeals? In CADL vs MOC, that court held "The library is a quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of
preemption . . ."

EC perhaps didn't word his point carefully, but his point is very evident. An entity that is funded by tax dollars (directly or indirectly), such as an entity that provides sporting event services or library services, may be held to be a municipal or "quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of preemption".

The point EC is making is not hard to discern, and it is a good one. I think it is quite overwhelmingly exaggerated and completely in error to be dismissive of it as akin to asking if you have a right to take nuclear weapons for a spin.

Click to expand...

I was countering the point that just because it was funded by your tax dollars that you had a "right" to be there or see it. I gave one such example. The CDC Level 7 viral containment area is another. Small pox, anyone?

Raggs said:

In CADL vs MOC, that court held "The library is a quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of preemption."

Click to expand...

I suggest replacement of this section with the following. Please use some or all of the following as you see fit:

In CADL vs MOC, that court held that a quasi-municipal corporation is "subject to the principles of
preemption" and prohibited from establishing a weapons policy "to the extent that it attempts
to regulate firearms contrary to the restrictions set forth in MCL 123.1102.

Link to CADL vs MOC decision: <http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/assets/pdf/A31963591026.pdf>

Click to expand...

DanM said:

CADL vs MOC is precedent, as well as the other cases the Court of Appeals used in deciding it. Until it or other favorable precedents are overturned, they represent the case law "settled" so far.

Click to expand...

Ummm, no, it's still an active case. Granted, it's binding at a Circuit court, currently. That is still subject to possible change.

The CoA used the Lewellyn field preemption case to decide CADL v MOC. Lewellen is caselaw from SCoM. Only SCoM can overturn it, which CADL and their Amici are trying to do, read this Amicus

DanM said:

I suggest replacement of this section with the following. Please use some or all of the following as you see fit:

Click to expand...

The CoA website is a more authoritative link than the LSJ:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20121025_c304582_65_304582.opn.pdf

Citing case law that is actively under appeal doesn't make for a good argument, IMHO. If anything, it'll draw my CADL favoring amicus briefs to the case.

TheQ said:

The CoA website is a more authoritative link than the LSJ:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20121025_c304582_65_304582.opn.pdf

Citing case law that is actively under appeal doesn't make for a good argument, IMHO. If anything, it'll draw my CADL favoring amicus briefs to the case.

Click to expand...

using your link

TheQ said:

I was countering the point that just because it was funded by your tax dollars that you had a "right" to be there or see it. I gave one such example. The CDC Level 7 viral containment area is another. Small pox, anyone?

Click to expand...

The context was established: an entity that provides sporting event services. EC kept in that context in his post, and merely made a very good point that if it is tax-funded, it very well may not be able to prohibit firearms.

Your "counter-point" was completely out of the context established and to which EC makes a point. That's what makes it wrong. You are correct that it would be very shaky to argue for a right to take a nuclear weapon for a spin or freely enter a CDC Level 7 viral containment area. But those are not the context.

The context is an entity providing sporting event services. The question is whether or not they are preempted. EC makes a good point which in essence is that if they are found to be municipal or quasi-municipal, they could be found to be preempted.

Your "counter-points" are shabby not because they are wrong. They are shabby because they are a complete mismatch to the context being discussed.

As I said, referring to the CADL case in this type of correspondence could draw....unwanted attention (and $$$ on CADL's side) to the case.

DanM said:

The context was established: an entity that provides sporting event services. EC kept in that context in his post, and merely made a very good point that if it is tax-funded, it very well may not be able to prohibit firearms.

Your "counter-point" was completely out of the context established and to which EC makes a point. That's what makes it wrong. You are correct that it would be very shaky to argue for a right to take a nuclear weapon for a spin or freely enter a CDC Level 7 viral containment area. But those are not the context.

The context is an entity providing sporting event services. The question is whether or not they are preempted. EC makes a good point which in essence is that if they are found to be municipal or quasi-municipal, they could be found to be preempted.

Your "counter-points" are shabby not because they are wrong. They are shabby because they are a complete mismatch to the context being discussed.

Click to expand...

"Though, theoretically, isn't it your tax dollars paying for said sporting event? In which case, could an argument be made for you having a right to utilize services which you also fund?"

I was countering the notion that "just because your tax dollars paid for it, you can access it."

I would say "if it's a public accommodation which your tax dollars paid for..." well, that's a different argument.

Splitting hairs? maybe

TheQ said:

The CoA website is a more authoritative link than the LSJ:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20121025_c304582_65_304582.opn.pdf

Citing case law that is actively under appeal doesn't make for a good argument, IMHO. If anything, it'll draw my CADL favoring amicus briefs to the case.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Phil. That is a better link!

I understand your opinion about citing case law that is "under appeal". IANAL, so I can't say whether I agree with you. But, my opinion that EC actually makes a fair point about a tax-funded entity that provides sporting event services relies on the other precedents as well that were cited by CoA, as well as the performance of the attorneys on our side.

Phil if you would like to write a paragraph to explain why the school is preempted to remove the CADL reference I am open to suggestions.

TheQ said:

As I said, referring to the CADL case in this type of correspondence could draw....unwanted attention (and $$$ on CADL's side) to the case.

Click to expand...

Raggs said:

Phil if you would like to write a paragraph to explain why the school is preempted to remove the CADL reference I am open to suggestions.

Click to expand...

The CADL case is the "strongest" decision on firearm field preemption to-date. No other case provides "field preemption". We are in planning phases to use the CADL case to further expand firearm preemption in Michigan to other public entities. That being said, we aren't proceeding with these others cases until the CADL case is settled -- there are good reasons for that:

1. We don't want to have the carpet pulled from underneath us on a new case if SCoM hears the case and decides against us.
2. Finances - we can't afford to fight multiple cases as one time.
3. We'd hate to bring more friends to CADL's side in their SCoM case.

I would urge you to consider this while starting your campaign. Ask: Will you be doing more harm than good? What will you do in the likely case they just flip you the bird?

Just questions you should consider.