Bronson
Regular Member
You need NO permit to OC, and can do so at 18.
Yes we do, but at least it's free.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xo...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-422
Bronson
You need NO permit to OC, and can do so at 18.
Okay, okay, sorry, I included that under pistol registration. But good call. No need for a permit to LGOC.Yes we do, but at least it's free.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xori2545gb2zfzbnn5dbe045))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-422
Bronson
You are they eyes that see through the bushes.
Quite true.Well, in all honesty, EVERY STATE, has its drawbacks, period.
That's a matter of opinion and personal situations and therefore cannot be right or wrong. I will agree that MI is in the top 50%.But lets be honest, if you count OC WITH a CPL, MI has it MUCH better than WI's or pretty much any other states laws.
Again, it's relative.Don't get me wrong, the 2A is a right, and all this firearm control is BS, and are just privileges. But Michigan has VERY few PFZ's if you OC w/CPL,
signs do not carry the weight of the law (for the most part, their are few exceptions, like CC in an entertainment facility).
If there is no option to post government buildings, that aspect of MI law is indeed less restrictive.You can carry in ALL Village, Township, City, County, and State buildings (including Police Stations), unless its in a court house, this by the way includes the State Capital Building, both OC and CC..
The number of "special events" is limited. It's pretty difficult to OC without a pistol and you do need a permit (of some type) to purchase/possess. You do not need any type of permit to OC in Wisconsin and you can do so at 18. This does not include GFSZ and other special circumstances.As for "Special Events", if MI had that BS law, they would get away with banning at places like the Downtown Hoedown, and Arts Beats & Eats. You need NO permit to OC, and can do so at 18.
It is not the universities' constitutions but the state constitution that would need to be changed.The main things that DO need to be changed in MI are:
Registration of Pistols
PFZ for CC (w/o CPL)
GFZ for OC (w/o CPL)
We need to pass Constitutional Carry
We need to be able to carry in a vehicle w/o permit
Get rid of the Universities "Constitutions" .
That is about all I can think of off the top of my head, which may be worse than some states, but if you think about it we can carry in MUCH more places than most states. If you don't believe me look up other states the strange places you can't carry is nuts!
So before you start talking about throwing stones in glass houses, maybe you should put the blow torch and step out of the igloo before you drown.
MI has its faults, they are huge, but every state has their faults and they are also huge. Am I happy for WI, I am ecstatic! But seriously, don't attack someone when you aren't well informed.
MCL 750.552 said:750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552.
(1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
It is not a matter of Personal Opinion, Personal Situations, or Relativity when you are dealing with matters of LAW. It is quite an easy comparison just referencing handgunlaw.us and the information on OpenCarry.org. I recently went on a trip to 13 States and had to understand the laws of each State for Carry (I have a MI CPL). I am glad I do not live in some of those other states!
a sample from WI and MI since that is the topic at hand (State Resident carry only):
WI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rrying-(OC)-In-WI-Here-s-what-you-should-know
MI:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81204-Open-Carry-Guide-Project
Just the mere fact that WI Residents have the 1000' GFSZ to deal with tells me everything I need to know (MI CPL and MI LTP meets the exclusionary requirements of Title 18 U.S.C §922(q)). When you include Public Buildings as being GFZ, which MI does not have, that completes the picture.
As for Signage having the Force of Law in terms of Trespass, there is controversy about this and to date no clear answer has emerged that I am aware of (as in Case Law).
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-552
1(b) above does not state Signage as being proper Notification, whereas other States have clearly spelled this out.
I believe that Judge Napolitano speaks pretty clearly to Firearm Carry in Public Accommodations of Private Property (starting at 0:56 in the following video).
[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE[/video]
IL is worse than Kalifornia -- and this is the land we picked our President from. We better pick more wisely next time...
Just to clarify, OCers only need a permit if they are interested in reciprocity or are living in urban areas and are surrounded by school zones. The permit system allows travel through school zones. We can still OC without permission.
And Constitutional Carry had overwhelming support. In the last poll I believe before the Senate vote it was just shy of 90% for Constitutional Carry (out of 40,000 polled). We had a Constitutional Carry Bill authored. Surprisingly Constitutional Carry was cooking along and looked like it was going to be the law of the land. Until... At the last minute our Governor stepped in and publicly declared he wanted a bill with permits and training. And that was the end of that. During the voting yesterday Constitutional Carry was continually brought up by both sides. Both sides know it is coming and acknowledged that. We were betrayed by our Governor IMHO.
I think that signs are most often viewed as sufficient notice. Otherwise you would have to post somebody 24x7x365 to protect open land. The basic idea is that a property owner can generally decide who can or cannot enter his property. Absent a specific statutory mandate to do so in a particular way, any reasonable notice should suffice. Person to Person notice (to leave) may be required when an individual is already on the property and wasn't warned against entry by signs. Your bolded 1(b). This is different from the initial intrusion where he was advised not to enter. Like 1(a) which you conveniently ignored.
I make mistakes all the time and to be fair the name of WI was sullied first, I just responded.
I firmly disagree with you on multiple points.
Adding up multiple factors, including PFZ's, plays into the comparison and simply having less PFZ's is of fundamental importance as it means more places a person can carry. Right now as the CURRENT FIREARM LAWS stand, I would rather be in MI than in WI.
I believe that when the NEW WI LAW TAKES EFFECT, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL. The current legislation for CC in WI is just that - it is not law. I posted about CURRENT LAW, I guess you missed that...
You are trying to equate a NO FIREARM SIGN with NO TRESPASSING SIGN. The 2 are not the same and trying to state a NO FIREARM SIGN MEANS NO TRESPASSING is not recognized by any MI Law known at this time (including CASE LAW). What is well known is that if you are carrying a firearm and are asked to leave and do not do so, then it can be considered trespassing and you can be prosecuted under the law we have both cited. Most people I know just simply do not visit places that do not honor nor support their rights.
Illinois the land of obamy,
we've got them surrounded, now it is a matter of time before the land of Lincoln becomes truely FREE !
Thank you goes out to all of the people that stood up and fought to regain there rights back !!!!
The apples to apples comparison as you speak of is based upon CURRENT LAW not about pending legislation and my post was quite clear. Sorry that my post about law did not match up with the main thread posting on pending legislation and I understand how the confusion occurred. Speaking of legislation in process, MI HB 4009/4010 would certainly help as these bills would get rid of the MI CC PFZ's.
As to the Trespass discussion we have been having, if you have any lawful cites to back-up your assertions/beliefs, I am sure that myself and others would love to see them. I believe that I have represented the MI Laws as they currently stand, whether or not they are based in "common sense" is a whole different discussion.
As to Tasers, MI is considering changes but they would be under CPL instead of available for anyone without a permit. In addition, a Judge in MI has already ruled that a law against a person possessing a Taser is Unconstitutional (appeal is probably pending). The following are links that discuss these items:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/citizen_taser_could_be_legal_t.html
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...udge-rules-banning-tasers-is-unconstitutional
http://media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/Yanna Ruling.pdf
http://www.aggressivecriminaldefens...state-law-banning-stun-guns-unconstitutional/
Recap your position for me,
1. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. It is clear that my property is a private lot, not a public park or open field.
a. Person A looks at my land, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
2. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property. I post many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille to that effect.
a. Person B reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
3. I am a MI property owner. I do not want anyone to enter my property carrying a weasel. I posted many large obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Weasels."
a. Person C reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders and enters my property with his weasel. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
4. I am a MI property owner. I don't care if anybody walks onto my property as long they do not take fruit from my trees. I posted many, large, obvious signs in thirty languages and braille stating "No Fruit Taking."
a. Person D reads my signs, shrugs his shoulders, enters my property and takes some apples from my best tree. Has a trespass occurred?
b. If not, what would have to happen before a trespass occurs (if ever)?
I don't know why you are de-railing this thread so much, but let me quickly answer your question. Their is a difference between private property that is open to the public and just private property. A home, or land, that is privately owned is OBVIOUSLY NOT open to the public. ANYPLACE with a no trespassing sign is NOT open to the public. Please try and use a little common sense here. BTW when I went to the WI forum, it was to offer congratulations, not to hassle the locals.
Now there is a difference between a NO TRESPASSING SIGN and a NO FIREARMS sign, first off one says NO TRESPASSING, and has the authority of the law behind it, as long as they are posted as the law states, and the other says NO FIREARMS. I am sorry this is NOT a clear issue for you. But it is not our job to teach you common sense, this is something you should have learned on your own.
And to point out what many have already, we were all civil, you were the one that became hostile without provocation. We only defended against your assertions, and they were only that, assertions.
It is time to get back on track, and get this thread back to what it is about, congratulating WI, and informing MI residents about the legislation in WI.
I say AGAIN CONGRATULATIONS WI, I know it isn't what you wanted, but with one foot in front of the other, one step at a time, you will get it all done! And so will MI, Let Freedom Ring!
God Bless!
You made the assertion that in MI "No Firearm Signs" carry the weight of the law. You then posted the no trespassing law, and when you did, you added your own opinion in the quote of the law, in parentheses. It was just that your opinion not fact. In MI, no where in the law does it say that a "No Firearm Sign" holds any water. Yes if you are told by the owner, or the owner's agent to leave you must, or you can be charged for trespassing. These are your assertions, it is up to you to put up a cite, its not my assertion it is yours. I am open-minded, I would be very interested to know if such a law exists. I just don't think it does, if I knew of it I would post it, but I can't post something that does not exist. That is why it is up to the person that makes the assertion to post the cite, or quote of a law, not the person defending against the assertion.You would have seen that it was not I who introduced the subject of signs. I regret that you feel put upon but if you wish to engage in discussion of an issue, you need to be able to handle the fact that other people will have a different view. I asked for your assistance to help me understand what you meant. You respond with sarcasm and unsubstantiated claims about what has "the authority of the law behind it." What you call common sense is simply agreeing with you. Sorry that won't fly. If you could find support in the law for your position, you would post it. So your inability to do so tells all. However, I will be compassionate and discontinue this exchange. I wish you the best.