PDinDetroit
Regular Member
IANAL!
Even if it were a School/School Zone, a CPL Holder can Carry Openly in a School in MI. They clearly fail on that point, even though it is minor mention in the TRO/Brief.
-
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.
Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
- Thread starter sprinklerguy28
- Start date
IANAL!
Even if it were a School/School Zone, a CPL Holder can Carry Openly in a School in MI. They clearly fail on that point, even though it is minor mention in the TRO/Brief.
stainless1911
Banned
PDinDetroit : quote: If a specific person has not been served, then they would have to prove you are a member. I would believe that it would be assumed you are until proven otherwise.
MOC just picked up a couple thousand new members. I would say the library owes MOC all those membership dues.:banana:
MOC just picked up a couple thousand new members. I would say the library owes MOC all those membership dues.:banana:
Last edited:
lapeer20m
Regular Member
On a smaller scale, the tro fails on the claim that not granting the tro will cause immediate and irreparable harm.
Also cAdl claims the tro will cause no harm, then two lines later indicates the harm caused to moc members is outweighed by blah blah blah. Those two points are a contradiction.
I am very glad that dean is on the case. He is a legal genius imo.
I will make no statements about legal strategy as I do not want to help the other side.
I do find the authority has more power than the municipalities that created it argument interesting. It would be devastating if the court were to agree.
Also cAdl claims the tro will cause no harm, then two lines later indicates the harm caused to moc members is outweighed by blah blah blah. Those two points are a contradiction.
I am very glad that dean is on the case. He is a legal genius imo.
I will make no statements about legal strategy as I do not want to help the other side.
I do find the authority has more power than the municipalities that created it argument interesting. It would be devastating if the court were to agree.
Last edited:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
The CADL Weapons Policy FAILS as it is not specific enough to be followed. In addition, the Library Director has stated CC is OK - where is stated in Policy and when did the Library Board vote on that? Doesn't ALL mean ALL?
If the District Library really had the AUTHORITY that they claim, why would they include langauge "to the fullest extent permitted by law"?
If the District Library really had the AUTHORITY that they claim, why would they include langauge "to the fullest extent permitted by law"?
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Kind of like 2 children creating a parent??
DanM
Regular Member
I just snorted pop out my nose.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
Correct. That would add to the current right to OC or CC, a restriction on CC. Gotta love gun control.
the500kid
Regular Member
Has anyone written the AG office yet?
TheQ
Regular Member
I've not seen anyone say they have and I have not.
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
Cadl
Are the 13 CADL libraries privately owned or owned by the public?
Are the 13 CADL libraries privately owned or owned by the public?
TheQ
Regular Member
CADL is a Public/Publicly tax funded Library system. 90%+ of their income is a Public Tax Source.
tech411
Regular Member
It made its way to a national blog.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/02/18/lawsuit-against-michigan-open-carry/
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/02/18/lawsuit-against-michigan-open-carry/
stainless1911
Banned
It would be more effective if Dean made the AG request. Now that he's the counsel, it would be more appropriate that way, someone should ask him to do that, or say that he won't so that someone else can.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Well, they really put their foot in it didn't they?
Aside from the other errors, lies, & inconsistencies pointed out above...:
Bottom of pg. 18, "Plaintiff is fearful that notice will cause Defendants to harm CADL and public by accelerating its nonconforming activities."
So there's the problem - you don't conform! Be a sheep, and everything will be OK.
Top of pg. 19 says MOC members entered the library "in mass". Guess they object to the public exercise of religion, as well as the public exercise of the right to self-defense. How many more civil rights will they try to quash? [Hint: the correct spelling is en masse.]
Top of pg. 21 "members... continue to unlawfully & improperly bring weapons..."
Since all I've read of MOC members @ the library has talked about how they're carrying holstered pistols (other than the one guy w/ a shotgun), & since state law says that activity is not only legal, but protected by law, I don't see where they get this conclusion.
Pg. 42 "the weapon could be taken away from him by someone else"
So they admit there are criminals in the library, people who would assault someone & steal her property. Sounds like a good reason to be able to protect myself!
They repeatedly bleat about people being in the "teen & children" areas. Are these areas clearly marked as "children only" or "teens only", or is seating available to anyone who walks up? Even so, are the "adult" areas further from the entrance, or maybe the seating areas were uncomfortably full & the 'younger' areas were more open?
Their policy says "to the fullest extent permitted by law", which is not at all.
So why aren't they working to get the law changed, instead of harassing citizens peacefully exercising their rights?
As for that harassment, by staff and other citizens, doncha think that if someone was actually, really, honestly and for true scared of an armed citizen peacefully reading, said scared sheep would not kick up a fuss & risk annoying that armed citizen? If the sheep were really in fear of injury (as claimed in the suit) the sheep would get away as far & fast as possible while calling for police... more people with guns. (Then again, the police have determined that the library's calls about this are nuisances, & won't respond.)
And in several places they claim "CADL is seeking to protect the safety of its patrons".
Pastrami. Er, bologna.
"Gun-free" areas are more dangerous, more attractive to criminals, than areas in which potential victims are allowed to fight back. Compare, for example, Alaska, Vermont, & Arizona with DC, Chicago, & NYC. Heck, throw in Texas & Florida on the 'armed potential victim' side, and most schools on the 'defenseless' side.
I also think it's not too smart of them to point out in the statutes where it says an agency like them is included under "gov't entity".
Aside from the other errors, lies, & inconsistencies pointed out above...:
Bottom of pg. 18, "Plaintiff is fearful that notice will cause Defendants to harm CADL and public by accelerating its nonconforming activities."
So there's the problem - you don't conform! Be a sheep, and everything will be OK.
Top of pg. 19 says MOC members entered the library "in mass". Guess they object to the public exercise of religion, as well as the public exercise of the right to self-defense. How many more civil rights will they try to quash? [Hint: the correct spelling is en masse.]
Top of pg. 21 "members... continue to unlawfully & improperly bring weapons..."
Since all I've read of MOC members @ the library has talked about how they're carrying holstered pistols (other than the one guy w/ a shotgun), & since state law says that activity is not only legal, but protected by law, I don't see where they get this conclusion.
Pg. 42 "the weapon could be taken away from him by someone else"
So they admit there are criminals in the library, people who would assault someone & steal her property. Sounds like a good reason to be able to protect myself!
They repeatedly bleat about people being in the "teen & children" areas. Are these areas clearly marked as "children only" or "teens only", or is seating available to anyone who walks up? Even so, are the "adult" areas further from the entrance, or maybe the seating areas were uncomfortably full & the 'younger' areas were more open?
Their policy says "to the fullest extent permitted by law", which is not at all.
So why aren't they working to get the law changed, instead of harassing citizens peacefully exercising their rights?
As for that harassment, by staff and other citizens, doncha think that if someone was actually, really, honestly and for true scared of an armed citizen peacefully reading, said scared sheep would not kick up a fuss & risk annoying that armed citizen? If the sheep were really in fear of injury (as claimed in the suit) the sheep would get away as far & fast as possible while calling for police... more people with guns. (Then again, the police have determined that the library's calls about this are nuisances, & won't respond.)
And in several places they claim "CADL is seeking to protect the safety of its patrons".
Pastrami. Er, bologna.
"Gun-free" areas are more dangerous, more attractive to criminals, than areas in which potential victims are allowed to fight back. Compare, for example, Alaska, Vermont, & Arizona with DC, Chicago, & NYC. Heck, throw in Texas & Florida on the 'armed potential victim' side, and most schools on the 'defenseless' side.
I also think it's not too smart of them to point out in the statutes where it says an agency like them is included under "gov't entity".
mastiff69
Regular Member
Has anyone contacted the (Judicial 10yr committtee ) this is a clear cut (over stepping her bounds to say the least)
It would be so much easier to let the proper legal authority reel in a out of bounds Judge...
Or better yet protest in front of the court house,
Or contact the TV news, if anyone has noticed there have been no news stories about this that i have seen...
It would be so much easier to let the proper legal authority reel in a out of bounds Judge...
Or better yet protest in front of the court house,
Or contact the TV news, if anyone has noticed there have been no news stories about this that i have seen...
manicdevery
Regular Member
Good luck guys, I will hopefully be able to help.
Devery
Devery
What have happened to "innocent until proven guilty"???
Require THEM to prove that you are a member!
Besides, no one can prove the "absence by search" - it is logically impossible to prove that "you are not a member" (have you ever seen a "not a member card"?). This is because any amount of evidence or search domain presented still leaves INFINITE un-searched and un-discovered portion "outside".
In a same way, the state can not require you to bring a "he/she is not married certificate" when you decide to marry. Because such certificate is impossible in its nature. I.e. what if you are secretly married in another country? - can we require an affidavit from EVERY person on the planet Earth?
However, it is possible to prove that "you are a member" by bringing just one material evidence.
Once again - Require THEM to prove that you are a member!
Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
"On the question whether the housing authority was an arm of the Commonwealth, we considered it significant that the Housing Authorities Law did not, in and of itself, create the housing authority. We said that "local activation, optional with each locality" was required. 217 Va. at 32, 225 S.E.2d at 367. We also noted that once the housing authority came into being, it was subject to substantial local control.
The Park Authority was not directly created by the Commonwealth. It is a creature of one or more localities and is essentially subject to their control. This fact was noted by the trial court in its letter opinion and conceded by counsel in oral argument. Indeed, the trial court stated that it made its ruling "despite the fact that the language of the Park Authorities Act and the Housing Authorities Act are in many respects identical." Here we are compelled by facts, similar to those in Hampton Red. Authority, to reach a similar conclusion. We hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Park Authority is not an arm of the Commonwealth." Prendergast v. Park Authority, 227 Va. 190, 194 (1984).
Is there Michigan Case law like this?
The Park Authority was not directly created by the Commonwealth. It is a creature of one or more localities and is essentially subject to their control. This fact was noted by the trial court in its letter opinion and conceded by counsel in oral argument. Indeed, the trial court stated that it made its ruling "despite the fact that the language of the Park Authorities Act and the Housing Authorities Act are in many respects identical." Here we are compelled by facts, similar to those in Hampton Red. Authority, to reach a similar conclusion. We hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Park Authority is not an arm of the Commonwealth." Prendergast v. Park Authority, 227 Va. 190, 194 (1984).
Is there Michigan Case law like this?