Settle a Debate

[ramblinfeaver]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Which is my question: If he's not on payroll (either under the table or working for free just to help out), then is he not considered an employee? If so, then he NEEDS a CPL and he NEEDS to open carry.

He CAN CC inside the bar with the permission of the owner, REGARDLES if his family own's the bar or not. If you have a CPL you can CC in a bar if you have the owner's permission. Even if the "primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises"...

1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution. b) A church or other house of religious worship. c) A court. d) A theatre. e) A sports arena. f) A day care center. g) A hospital. h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act. (2) This section does not apply to any of the following: a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity. b) A peace officer. c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Obviously the pistol would HAVE to be carried openly and he HAS to have a CPL.

Slightly off-topic, but why does one have to have a CPL in order to OC?

If there is a thread about this already, please provide the link.

Thanks.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

Another issue not brought up....

What if he uses it to stop a mugging while escorting employee to car?
Bar is closed probably punched out and off the clock.
Wouldn't this fall under a plain old citizen self defense, that just happened
to take place at a bar?

Is the money found on the ground reported as 'tips', or do you take your
chances and pocket it? Love those drunks who keep cash in pocket with keys.

 

[Venator]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Obviously the pistol would HAVE to be carried openly and he HAS to have a CPL.

Slightly off-topic, but why does one have to have a CPL in order to OC?

If there is a thread about this already, please provide the link.

Thanks.

He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

Venator wrote:

He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.

So...

WITH a CPL, one DOES NOT have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

WITHOUT a CPL, one DOES have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

OK. I do not see how having a CPL changes one's "right" to OC.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Venator wrote:

He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.

So...

WITH a CPL, one DOES NOT have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

WITHOUT a CPL, one DOES have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

OK. I do not see how having a CPL changes one's "right" to OC.

750.234d prohibits carrying a firearm (pistol) in a bar unless you are licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed pistol.

28.425o prohibits carrying a concealed pistol in a bar even with a CPL.

Therefore, if Section 5o prohibits those with CPL's to CC in a bar, then those with CPL's must OC to be within the law per Section 234d and Section 5o.

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Venator wrote: 

He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners.  A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.

So...

WITH a CPL, one DOES NOT have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

WITHOUT a CPL, one DOES have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

OK. I do not see how having a CPL changes one's "right" to OC.

The part you're missing here is private property rights. You technically can OC just about anywhere, but the property owner can ask you to leave.

Yes, the State does disallow certain places from OC, and in those places, OC is a privilege, reserved for those who have completed a background check and paid the CPL Tax. On the whole, this isn't a horribly bad idea (albeit an expensive tax...), but I also believe that this is in violation of our constitutional right.

 

[Venator]

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Venator wrote:

He doesn't if he has the permission of the owners. A person can OC in a bar without a CPL with permission.

So...

WITH a CPL, one DOES NOT have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

True, but he can ask you to cover or leave, since you can't cover without his permission you need to leave or take you gun to your vehicle.

WITHOUT a CPL, one DOES have to have the owner's permission to OC in a bar.

Yes, a non CPL holder can not have a firearm in any place that sell booze (Any alcohol) unless he has permission from owner or his agent.

OK. I do not see how having a CPL changes one's "right" to OC.
Really there is non if you have permission. A CPL lets you carry OC in places that a non CPL holder can carry in without permission. So if a CPL carries OC in a bar and gets asked to leave he faces no charges if he leaves. A non-CPL holder that OCs in a bar faces a misdemeanor charge for being in a banned area. But all is equal with the owners permission.

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Hmm, had not thought about it until now, but that means that w/o a CPL, as I currently find myself, I can enter a premises that is licensed by the liquor control act with the owners(or managers) permission.

For some reason I hadn't made that connection yet. Not that it will make anything easier, but if I were to say, call ahead to Applebees and attain the permission of the manager to OC, as a patron, then technically speaking, I would be legal yes?

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

Hmm, had not thought about it until now, but that means that w/o a CPL, as I currently find myself, I can enter a premises that is licensed by the liquor control act with the owners(or managers) permission.

For some reason I hadn't made that connection yet.  Not that it  will make anything easier, but if I were to say, call ahead to Applebees and attain the permission of the manager to OC, as a patron, then technically speaking, I would be legal yes?

Technically, yes. However, once the cops arrive and he denies ever granting you permission, you're still screwed.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Likely yes ... however getting the manager to say yes is less likely:cuss:

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Like I said, not very helpful, but curious. I'd get written permission from the owner if they said yes. I'm thinking more along the lines of the party store owner I know down the street.

 

[Venator]

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

Hmm, had not thought about it until now, but that means that w/o a CPL, as I currently find myself, I can enter a premises that is licensed by the liquor control act with the owners(or managers) permission.

For some reason I hadn't made that connection yet. Not that it will make anything easier, but if I were to say, call ahead to Applebees and attain the permission of the manager to OC, as a patron, then technically speaking, I would be legal yes?

Owner or agents permission. Manager may or may not be allowed to give permission. Also get it in writing.

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

I thought manager = agent?

 

[Venator]

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

I thought manager = agent?

It may or it may not. Depends on the authority of the manager and what the owner and the manager have arraigned. All I'm saying is that they may not always be equal. Hence the get it in writing advice.

 

[Venator]

imported post

If a person doe NOT have a CPL he can carry in a bar or any other place prohibited by .234d with permission from owner/agent. He can OC only.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.(b) A peace officer.(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

If you have a CPL you can OC in the areas prohibited in .234d. In order to CONCEAL carry you have to be one of the following, (see below.). So it does look like in order to conceal you must be employed, whatever that entails. I suppose a $1 a night would suffice if it was a family business.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An individual licensed under this act who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the law enforcement agency stating that the retired police officer or law enforcement officer retired in good standing.

(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.

(c) An individual who is licensed as a private investigator or private detective under the private detective license act, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 to 338.851.

(d) Any of the following who is licensed under this act while on duty and in the course of his or her employment:

(i) A corrections officer of a county sheriff’s department.

(ii) A motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

(iii) A member of a sheriff’s posse.

(iv) An auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff’s department.

(v) A parole or probation officer of the department of corrections.

 

[Springfield Smitty]

imported post

If Dude is protecting a PERSON he needs no license. If he is protecting PROPERTY, he needs to be licensed. I have been looking at this myself. The way I see it, if there is a PERSON on the PROPERTY you are good to go. Hope this helps.

This is the definition of a "security guard": http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114616--,00.html

These are the requirements to be licensed: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114622--,00.html

Some FAQ's: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114624--,00.html

Notice:

Do bodyguards or bounty hunters need to be licensed?
Bodyguards do not need a license as long as they are protecting a person (or 'body'). However, when they are protecting valuables on a person or for a person, they are required to have a secuirty guard license.
Bounty hunters are not regulated under Michigan law.

 

[Veritas]

imported post

Springfield Smitty wrote:

If Dude is protecting a PERSON he needs no license. If he is protecting PROPERTY, he needs to be licensed. I have been looking at this myself. The way I see it, if there is a PERSON on the PROPERTY you are good to go. Hope this helps.

This is the definition of a "security guard": http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114616--,00.html

These are the requirements to be licensed: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114622--,00.html

Some FAQ's: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_35470-114624--,00.html

Notice:

Do bodyguards or bounty hunters need to be licensed?
Bodyguards do not need a license as long as they are protecting a person (or 'body'). However, when they are protecting valuables on a person or for a person, they are required to have a secuirty guard license.
Bounty hunters are not regulated under Michigan law.

So this adds a whole new spin to things then... in order for him to lawfully provide physical (property) security he must meet the criteria established by the State? I don't know this guy too well, but I don't think he has a 4-year degree in police administration or industrial security.

Essentially, then, he can ONLY provide security for PEOPLE and not physical property? So if he sees someone on a security camera breaking into a vehicle in the parking lot, he cannot attempt to apprehend the perp?

I'm not sure how this works... because as CITIZENS, we have the right to arrest people in the commission of crimes. It's not something you hear about very often, but it happens. The most recent case that comes to mind was about a year ago... a man in Dearborn was at the bank and witnessed the guy in front of him robbing the teller with a note. He whipped out his pistol (CPL) and held the guy at gun point until police arrived. He was not charged with anything.

I don't see how a law can restrict our rights to arrest someone vandalizing, damaging, or stealing property (among other things) by requiring someone to attain a degree or serve the police force. It's true that you can set yourself up for a world of trouble if you falsely arrest someone and that it's wise to understand the circumstances thoroughly before you act... but I don't understand the difference here between "security guard" and "private citizen looking out for other peoples interests".

I've witnessed crimes in the past and called police. Fortunately, in all of the cases, police were able to respond while I observed and/or followed the perp. But if the police were to not respond in time, I wouldn't hesitate to take it upon myself to intervene to put a stop to the illegal activity and detain the person until police could arrive to transport them.

So what then is the difference between what I would be doing and what Dude would be doing?

 

[RubberArm]

imported post

My understanding, and someone please correct me if I am mistaken, is that in Michigan a citizen can legally arrest a person in the commission of (or about to commit?) a felony. Not so in the case of misdemeanors or civil infractions.