• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Bill Aims to Reform Gun Free Zones

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
That's gotta be a tough one to pass. It requires almost side-ways thinking, as opposed to other anti-measures, such as suppressors, constitutional carry, shall-issue.

Good luck to them!
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Not sure how I feel about that, but it is not my state. Maybe to respect property owners, and respect gun owners lower any fine for carry where posted to a petty fine. That is the way it used to be in NC, until a gun rights group got it changed to losing the permit, before it was just a minor trespassing charge so people ignored signage. Even bragged about it.

Personally I would like to see a national law that gives the people the right to sue when they are not allowed to defend themselves and fall victim to a crime. To me that seems like the fair option, no different then not shoveling the snow off the entrance to the business, or not putting up wet floor signs.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Bad bill, a wolf in sheep's clothing because it actually further restricts carry rights rather than expand them. The RINO governor will veto it anyway. Michigan is a little odd in their firearms laws in the respect that its legal to openly carry a firearm in a school as long as you have a CPL. Open carry is legal because there is no law against it, no license required. This bill is not worth the trade off and will lead to further restrictions.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Meekhof is out at the end of his term. Limits. Nice to see that he's going to try and screw the people that put him in office to begin with.
 

REPR

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
11
Location
Michigan
The MI senate passed it. I'm not sure how I feel about the trade off, but honestly if you walk into a school with a gun you will get the cops called on you. There's no question about that.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Under Michigan law walking into a school with an openly carried firearm is a legal act. That said, the general public is not traipsing through the halls of any school at will. If a person does not have legitimate business in any school they should not be there. You can also openly carry into a bar legally under current law. Current law only regulates concealed carry and lays out the places concealed carry is prohibited even with a permit. Should this bill actually become law then the residents of Michigan will have lost another slice of their liberty and freedom.......then what comes next? Mag limits? Don't go down the path of New Jersey. Keep and defend your rights. I am a former Michigan resident.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Actually, according to an appeals court ruling in the Clio and Ann Arbor cases, no, you can't carry legally at all in a school if the school has a policy saying you can't, which most do.

Either way, these bills, as written, suck.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,836
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Not being a resident anymore I'm not getting involved with emailing, but many of those of us who contested this in 2012 and 2015 are either ready to or already have been emailing reps to try and stop it. We have still from 2012 a compilation of pro and anti gun emails to send so that it can be fought from both fronts by anyone who wants to participate regardless of their preferences.

Hopefully MOC will be against it like 2015 instead of anti open carry like 2012 with lobbying in favor of SB59, but I don't know because they blocked me from their site and FB page for openly carrying after the conclusion of an event they didn't even show up for. :lol: At least we can say they are better than MCRGO, who began blocking people in 2015 for calling them out over their support of these anti gun bills and has never faltered in trying to get them passed. And speaking of which, if anyone here is a MCRGO member I would suggest contacting them and telling them why they are out of line.
 
Last edited:

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Actually, according to an appeals court ruling in the Clio and Ann Arbor cases, no, you can't carry legally at all in a school if the school has a policy saying you can't, which most do.

Either way, these bills, as written, suck.
CADL v MOC the courts refused to acknowledge in their decisions. These judges are legislating from the bench. Just my opinion here. I thought that this issue was being appealed. How do schools get around the preemption issue? Unless of course a judge reads something into the law that isn't there.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
2
Location
Genesee County
CADL v MOC the courts refused to acknowledge in their decisions. These judges are legislating from the bench. Just my opinion here. I thought that this issue was being appealed. How do schools get around the preemption issue? Unless of course a judge reads something into the law that isn't there.
The MCoA last year (2016) reversed the lower court ruling and now allows schools to prohibit firearms district-wide. The MCoA held that schools are not a local unit of government (most of us believe this is false) and therefore the prohibition.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
It's not a belief. It IS false. Activist judges however, refuse to look at the facts. And that leaves us where we are now.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,022
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The MCoA last year (2016) reversed the lower court ruling and now allows schools to prohibit firearms district-wide. The MCoA held that schools are not a local unit of government (most of us believe this is false) and therefore the prohibition.
I can (kinda) see how the court may have made such a ruling. Maybe those in the right position can get MI's legislature to imitate KY's preemption law, which was also revised after various governmental entities played similar games.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
I can (kinda) see how the court may have made such a ruling. Maybe those in the right position can get MI's legislature to imitate KY's preemption law, which was also revised after various governmental entities played similar games.
Not really, Ky.'s original preemption law only mentioned city and county "ordinances". Many cities and counties bypassed this by passing "rules" or "policies" that prohibited firearms, but had no penalty. Then they would charge violators with trespassing, if they refused to leave. Other local government entities, such as schools, libraries, water districts, transportation authorities, health depts, regional entities of all kinds, etc. were not covered.

The big improvement in out new law is the removal of immunity for local governments and local government officials that violate. This gives us the ability to collect attorney's fees in a successful lawsuit. Under the old law, we could sue, but if we won the only thing that would happen was that the judge would order that the illegal policy be removed. We couldn't collect anything. The cities and counties can often win in circuit court, due to the close relationship between the local officials and the judges, but if they lose, you can expect them to appeal as long as there is an appeal possible. They are using taxpayer's money and don't care how much it costs and know that is not the case with us. Without loser pays, how often could we do that without going broke?

Our statute is based on the Florida law that was passed the year before our's. That statute would be a better model for any state that wants to upgrade their preemption. The biggest problem is convincing anybody that it is necessary to do so. Over the years, I have had city attornys laugh at me when I said we'd sue. They have dared me to sue. They knew we couldn't afford to do it.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,022
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Not really, Ky.'s original preemption law only mentioned city and county "ordinances". Many cities and counties bypassed this by passing "rules" or "policies" that prohibited firearms, but had no penalty. Then they would charge violators with trespassing, if they refused to leave. Other local government entities, such as schools, libraries, water districts, transportation authorities, health depts, regional entities of all kinds, etc. were not covered. ...
Thanks for the additional info.
 
Top