Opc in bar (taverne)

[autosurgeon]

Here is some more advice ask the owner whether the primary source is alcohol. They will know.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bronson]

Here is some more advice ask the owner whether the primary source is alcohol. They will know.

See post #17.

Bronson

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

It wasn't passive aggressive. I wanted the OP to know there was more to the story than the previous posters had let on. I didn't have time to post a more thorough background myself. I also wanted to caution the people that were heading out the "advice" that there is more to the story and they should teach people about that part of the story.

Are you suggesting that if I don't have time to give a complete analysis, I should give none and let the previous incomplete thoughts stand?

Sorry...

I was having a bad day and allowed my cynicism to seep into my online musings.

 

[DrTodd]

I asked the owner when I was there and he told me 60 percent of sales is alcohol.

thanks
al

Like I said above, IF the establishment tells you it is 60% of sales then you have to assume he is correct; what makes you think he is going to allow OC? The fact that he informed you what percentage of the sales are alcohol by the glass tells me he doesn't want you to carry there. Do you think he's going to feel differently if you OC?

Why would he have told you it was "60% of sales" unless you asked? :banghead:

If you did ask, my only question is "WHY?"... you have now eliminated any ambiguity in the law which might have been instrumental in getting any charges for CCing there thrown out; OC is out of the question because the owner has implied he doesn't want you there with a firearm. I would strongly suggest that you NOT carry there (neither OC nor CC). The best scenario is that he requests you to leave when you are OC (he does have the right to determine who enters his establishment) and the worst case is that you OC, you are charged, and a judge claims you violated the law. :uhoh:

 

[DrTodd]

It wasn't passive aggressive. I wanted the OP to know there was more to the story than the previous posters had let on. I didn't have time to post a more thorough background myself. I also wanted to caution the people that were heading out the "advice" that there is more to the story and they should teach people about that part of the story.

Are you suggesting that if I don't have time to give a complete analysis, I should give none and let the previous incomplete thoughts stand?

I understand what you are saying BUT might it have been prudent to mention the Watkins case and also state that you will provide a link when you are able? The case is very difficult to find because it was at a level which provides no precedence anywhere else.

• (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[TheQ]

I understand what you are saying BUT might it have been prudent to mention the Watkins case and also state that you will provide a link when you are able? The case is very difficult to find because it was at a level which provides no precedence anywhere else.

• (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Circuit Court documents aren't available online.

People cut Terry v Ohio all the time. Going to start demanding each person that mentions it posts a link?

Oft times I write from my phone on limited time. Finding or posting the link isn't possible at that moment. In this case, no link exists.

Here's a link with more info: http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,25.msg15251.html#msg15251

 

[Raggs]

Circuit Court documents aren't available online.

People cut Terry v Ohio all the time. Going to start demanding each person that mentions it posts a link?

Oft times I write from my phone on limited time. Finding or posting the link isn't possible at that moment. In this case, no link exists.

Here's a link with more info: http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,25.msg15251.html#msg15251

Are you citing yourself?

 

[TheQ]

Are you citing yourself?

Glad to see you're awake. I'm citing a more detailed explanation which contains quoted from the actual case -- which are completely cited.

 

[Raggs]

Glad to see you're awake. I'm citing a more detailed explanation which contains quoted from the actual case -- which are completely cited.

Why would I not be awake?

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

People v Roger Allen Watkins.

I'm gonna cite myself again too, because I did manage to find a link. Again, assuming this is the correct case. You never confirmed nor denied my presumption.

 

[TheQ]

I'm gonna cite myself again too, because I did manage to find a link. Again, assuming this is the correct case. You never confirmed nor denied my presumption.

Yep, it is. But that is the CoA case. The Circuit Court case is the one with Rosie's golden nugget in it. You won't find that one online. You must go to the circuit court and give them the docket number for in my reference.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

Yep, it is. But that is the CoA case. The Circuit Court case is the one with Rosie's golden nugget in it. You won't find that one online. You must go to the circuit court and give them the docket number for in my reference.

Gotcha. Yeah that was a prime quote. "I know what the law says, but I think the law is ridiculous, so I'm going to ignore it". Not surprised CoA overturned that one.

 

[TheQ]

Gotcha. Yeah that was a prime quote. "I know what the law says, but I think the law is ridiculous, so I'm going to ignore it". Not surprised CoA overturned that one.

Actually, if you know the case history, it goes as follows:

1. Watkins was found responsible at a bench trial in District Court.
2. Watkins (Dulan) appealed to Circuit Court, where Judge Rosie let Watkins off on a technicality. She opined Watkins had no way to know the MSU Pavilion was a sorts arena. In her dicta was the golden nugget.
3. The County Prosecutor appealed the decision to the CoA. The CoA agreed to hear the case. The CoA agreed with Judge Rosie in an unpublished (non president setting) opinion that Watkins had no way if knowing MSU Pavilion was a sports arena. Since the case was Resolved by answering the other question, the CoA stood silent on whether or not you can OC in a 28.425o zone.

Whenever possible, the CoA and SCoM prefer to avoid setting precedent.

Ergo, the CoA didn't overturn Rosie, but rather partly agreed with her.

Will someone bookmark the direct URL to this post so it can be referred to in the future?

 

[Raggs]

I'm gonna cite myself again too, because I did manage to find a link. Again, assuming this is the correct case. You never confirmed nor denied my presumption.

EC your google foo is advanced!

 

[DrTodd]

Actually, if you know the case history, it goes as follows:

1. Watkins was found responsible at a bench trial in District Court.
2. Watkins (Dulan) appealed to Circuit Court, where Judge Rosie let Watkins off on a technicality. She opined Watkins had no way to know the MSU Pavilion was a sorts arena. In her dicta was the golden nugget.
3. The County Prosecutor appealed the decision to the CoA. The CoA agreed to hear the case. The CoA agreed with Judge Rosie in an unpublished (non president setting) opinion that Watkins had no way if knowing MSU Pavilion was a sports arena. Since the case was Resolved by answering the other question, the CoA stood silent on whether or not you can OC in a 28.425o zone.

Whenever possible, the CoA and SCoM prefer to avoid setting precedent.

Ergo, the CoA didn't overturn Rosie, but rather partly agreed with her.

Will someone bookmark the direct URL to this post so it can be referred to in the future?

Well, actually you are incorrect. Although the Michigan Appeals Court did affirm the circuit court’s reversal of defendant’s conviction, they found that the prosecutor failed to establish that the Pavilion was a sports arena under the ordinance that incorporates MCL 750.234d. This quite a bit different than circuit court’s reasoning that Mr Watkins did not have notice that the Pavilion was a sports arena. The appeals court placed the onus of responsibility on the prosecutor (step 1 before even deciding Mr Watkins' behavior/understanding.) That step...deciding if Mr Watkins had notice assumes step 1.... which really never took place. We don't know if the argument accepted by the circuit court would also been accepted by the appeals court because it was, at least in this case, unnecessary.

So, as has been stated here again and again, there is always the possibility that a judge will fail to accept what you think to be a settled issue regarding OC. But, at least in areas where the above-mentioned prosecutor does not have jurisdiction, that chance is most likely very small. (Not impossible, though). In the jurisdiction of the prosecutor that laid charges against Mr Watkins, I would be more careful... the prosecutor may try again to have the issue settled before the court.

In reference to the OP's question, the prosecutor for the area would be the Kent County prosecutor, William Forsyth. Mr Forsyth has already declined to prosecute someone who carried a holstered pistol into a school, I don't think that carrying in an establishment listed in MCL750.234d would be any different.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/03/kent_county_prosecutor_man_who.html

 

[TheQ]

Well, actually you are incorrect. Although the Michigan Appeals Court did affirm the circuit court’s reversal of defendant’s conviction, they found that the prosecutor failed to establish that the Pavilion was a sports arena under the ordinance that incorporates MCL 750.234d. This quite a bit different than circuit court’s reasoning that Mr Watkins did not have notice that the Pavilion was a sports arena. The appeals court placed the onus of responsibility on the prosecutor (step 1 before even deciding Mr Watkins' behavior/understanding.) That step...deciding if Mr Watkins had notice assumes step 1.... which really never took place. We don't know if the argument accepted by the circuit court would also been accepted by the appeals court because it was, at least in this case, unnecessary.

So, as has been stated here again and again, there is always the possibility that a judge will fail to accept what you think to be a settled issue regarding OC. But, at least in areas where the above-mentioned prosecutor does not have jurisdiction, that chance is most likely very small. (Not impossible, though). In the jurisdiction of the prosecutor that laid charges against Mr Watkins, I would be more careful... the prosecutor may try again to have the issue settled before the court.

In reference to the OP's question, the prosecutor for the area would be the Kent County prosecutor, William Forsyth. Mr Forsyth has already declined to prosecute someone who carried a holstered pistol into a school, I don't think that carrying in an establishment listed in MCL750.234d would be any different.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/03/kent_county_prosecutor_man_who.html

This is true. The largest variable is the county prosecutors. I've heard there is more than one (or even 5) that think OC in a 28.425o zone is illegal.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

Actually, if you know the case history, it goes as follows:

1. Watkins was found responsible at a bench trial in District Court.
2. Watkins (Dulan) appealed to Circuit Court, where Judge Rosie let Watkins off on a technicality. She opined Watkins had no way to know the MSU Pavilion was a sorts arena. In her dicta was the golden nugget.
3. The County Prosecutor appealed the decision to the CoA. The CoA agreed to hear the case. The CoA agreed with Judge Rosie in an unpublished (non president setting) opinion that Watkins had no way if knowing MSU Pavilion was a sports arena. Since the case was Resolved by answering the other question, the CoA stood silent on whether or not you can OC in a 28.425o zone.

Whenever possible, the CoA and SCoM prefer to avoid setting precedent.

Ergo, the CoA didn't overturn Rosie, but rather partly agreed with her.

Will someone bookmark the direct URL to this post so it can be referred to in the future?

Hmm... the actual quote is misleading without context I guess. I was reading the one you cited from MOC forum.

 

[TheQ]

Hmm... the actual quote is misleading without context I guess. I was reading the one you cited from MOC forum.

It's not misleading. She said it. That's how she feels. But she also felt he had no way to know it was a sporting arena.

You can only fit so much info in a summary/guide before you begin to lose the audience. Want to know the details? Come to a seminar. I rehash the details at every seminar I do.

 

[FreeInAZ]

It's not misleading. She said it. That's how she feels. But she also felt he had no way to know it was a sporting arena.

You can only fit so much info in a summary/guide before you begin to lose the audience. Want to know the details? Come to a seminar. I rehash the details at every seminar I do.

The really scary thing is this female dog in heat is teaching the next generation of legal system workers that it is ok to rule from "feelings" instead of the law. Shame on MSU for giving her a teaching role on their campus.

 

[TheQ]

I understand Rosie campaigned on being tough on gun violence. 3 major gun cases end up in help lap. Coincidence?

People v Watkins
CADL v MOC
MGO v CADL

...I thought judge selection is random draw.