Man Open Carry's @ High School Soccer Game, Coache's/Parent's Freak Out. - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Man Open Carry's @ High School Soccer Game, Coache's/Parent's Freak Out.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhorton71 View Post
    Ok 2 things are wrong with your statement. First the article says they are unsure of whether the officer questioned him or not so the assumption must be that he wasn't until further proven. Second once they told him it was private property and the weapon wasn't allowed that included the parking lot. The person returned to the game with his holster on and the coach then assumed the gun was still on the property of the school.

    Ok... right up to this point private property rights and State trespass laws apply.

    Again Federal Law precedes state law because it is private property and he was asked to leave.

    And it is here that you are confusing Federal law with private property trespass laws. The Federal law concerning possessing a firearm within 1000ft of a school has nothing to do with the completely separate State private property trespass laws. The two are totally unconnected.

    I can carry on my property but I don't let anybody else carry on my property.

    Not allowing others to carry on your property is covered by State trespass laws and, even if your property is a school Federal law does not apply to anyone who has a "license to possess a firearm" (see post #26 for a cite of and a link to the actual law(s) and please note that Michigan has a licensing law separate from it's CPL laws that provides for a "license to possess").
    A portion of my reply is contained in blue within the quoted post above.

    When the gentleman was asked to leave he was legally required to....... leave the entire property including the parking lot or face arrest on State trespass laws. Putting his gun in the car doesn't satisfy being required to leave the property. At this point whether he has, or doesn't have, a "license to possess a firearm" that would exempt him from the Federal law is immaterial since by not leaving he is already in violation of State trespass law.

    But... Federal school zone laws only apply to those who do not have a "license to possess" (doesn't specify a carry permit... just a "license to possess"... again see post #26). And Federal school zone law has absolutely nothing to do with private property rights so...

    A person who has a "license to possess" could be arrested for trespass under State law if he doesn't leave when required to... But could NOT be arrested for being within 1000ft of a school because that Federal school zone law does not apply.

    A person who does NOT have a "license to possess" could be arrested for being within 1000ft of a school under Federal law whether he was asked to leave or not.... but if he wasn't required to leave then he couldn't be arrested for trespass because the State trespass law does not apply.

    And a person who does not have a "license to possess" could be arrested for being within 1000ft of a school under Federal law and also arrested for trespass under State law if he didn't leave when required to.

    I am not an attorney and to my knowledge that separate licensing law has not been tested in court (nor do I have any desire to be the first case).... but it is still there.

    Edited to add... I wonder how the States that have Constitutional carry with no permits or licenses get around that Federal school zone law?

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Edited to add... I wonder how the States that have Constitutional carry with no permits or licenses get around that Federal school zone law?
    They don't get around it. It is exactly the same situation as "legalized" Marijuana. It's still illegal at the Federal level. Just not worth it for the Federal government to attempt to enforce it.

    And exactly as you pointed out, and has been repeated more times than once in this thread, if the subject possessed a MI CPL, which there is more to base an assumption on that he did vice did not, then the Federal School Zone Act has absolutely NOTHING to do with it WHATSOEVER, regardless of whether the subject was trespassing or not. If the subject did not have a MI CPL, then he would have been in violation of the Federal School Zone Act, absolutely 100%, regardless of whether the subject was trespassing or not. The CPL is all that matters for the GFSZA (as long as the gun was loaded and not in a locked case) - not whether or not any school official asked the subject to leave.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    They don't get around it. It is exactly the same situation as "legalized" Marijuana. It's still illegal at the Federal level. Just not worth it for the Federal government to attempt to enforce it.

    And exactly as you pointed out, and has been repeated more times than once in this thread, if the subject possessed a MI CPL, which there is more to base an assumption on that he did vice did not, then the Federal School Zone Act has absolutely NOTHING to do with it WHATSOEVER, regardless of whether the subject was trespassing or not. If the subject did not have a MI CPL, then he would have been in violation of the Federal School Zone Act, absolutely 100%, regardless of whether the subject was trespassing or not. The CPL is all that matters for the GFSZA (as long as the gun was loaded and not in a locked case) - not whether or not any school official asked the subject to leave.
    In Michigan a CPL may not be the only "license" that meets Federal regs for school gun free zones.... please note that the following law is separate from Michigan's CPL laws yet still provides for a "license to possess":

    Michigan Legislature - Section 28.422

    FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
    Act 372 of 1927


    28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; forging application; implementation during business hours.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.

    (2) A person who brings a pistol into this state who is on leave from active duty with the armed forces of the United States or who has been discharged from active duty with the armed forces of the United States shall obtain a license for the pistol within 30 days after his or her arrival in this state.

    (3) The commissioner or chief of police of a city, township, or village police department that issues licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols, or his or her duly authorized deputy, or the sheriff or his or her duly authorized deputy, in the parts of a county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, in discharging the duty to issue licenses shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols to qualified applicants unless he or she has probable cause to believe that the applicant would be a threat to himself or herself or to other individuals, or would commit an offense with the pistol that would violate a law of this or another state or of the United States. An applicant is qualified if all of the following circumstances exist:
    -snip-

    which would appear to satisfy the Fed requirements to have a "license to possess" that you correctly referenced:

    Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I fail to see your point.

    The ban of firearm possession also does not apply:

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    so.... reading both of those laws it would appear that Michigan's law 28.422 satisfies Fed law for a "license".

    Like I said before, I'm not an attorney nor have I heard of any court cases exploring how that might work, yet the law is what it is. So... a case can be made that the man would still have satisfied the Federal requirement for a "license" even if he didn't have a CPL as long as he satisfied Mi law 28.422.

    Having said that.... I am always perturbed when folks (not talking about you NavyLCDR) instantly assume someone is guilty instead of understanding that in this country it is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty because he was doing something I don't like so I'll assume the worst". And in the case of the guy at the school in MI....

    entire article can be read here:

    Pistol-carrying fan leads to forfeit of soccer game between Western Michigan Christian and Hudsonville Freedom Christian | Local Sports Journal

    Pistol-carrying fan leads to forfeit of soccer game between Western Michigan Christian and Hudsonville Freedom Christian

    -snip-
    Officer Douglas Conrad said the fan has a Concealed Pistol License and did nothing illegal.
    -snip-

  5. I find the comments on the article to be quite fair and balanced. Heck, open carry gets bad mouthed more on this forum than in that article's comments.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #35
    ezkl2230 Guest
    OK. Here is an excerpt from a report run by WZZM regarding this incident; it should put some questions to rest:

    Muskegon police were called to the scene and determined that both sides were following the law.

    "The gentleman had the right to carry the weapon on the property and we had the right to ask him to leave," says Hulings. Soccer game canceled due to armed spectator | wzzm13.com
    Now, Jhorton71, both sides could only be following the law if A) the carrier had a CPL, B) the game was taking place on the property of a PRIVATE, not public, school, and C) the carrier met his legal obligation by securing his firearm in his vehicle when he was asked to leave.

    It was confirmed that the carrier had divested himself of his firearm:

    Five minutes later, the man returned.

    "I turned around and saw the gentlemen come back and this time he had his holster showing with no gun in it," says Hulings.
    So they knew that he had, in fact, secured his firearm in his vehicle, something about which he was not happy, but was fully in accordance with the private property rights of the private school and applicable state law.

    Still, the coach was afraid that he MIGHT make a scene; he had no actual evidence to support that fact, as there is noting to indicate that the carrier made any threats of any kind:

    "At that point, I called the other coach and said we're calling the game; we forfeit. My fear was he was upset and came back and that something was going to happen."

    So the coach called the game.

    Does this answer everyones' questions?

    The carrier had a CPL.

    He had a legal right to openly carry at the school unless the school, being private, asked him not to.

    He, in accordance with Michigan law, secured his firearm in his vehicle in the parking lot and returned, unarmed, to the game.

    The coach, still wetting himself, decided to call the game anyway.

    The REAL issue for Jhorton71 is found in his posting that consists only of a URL for an article dealing with violence against referees. He is a referee, he is afraid that something could happen to him, and he is going to contort both federal and state law to protect himself - as if someone who is out to cause trouble is going to pay attention to such things.

  7. I still don't understand why people keep mentioning whether the school is public or private. A school is a school public, private, or parochial. My point was still misread since if he didn't hold a permit he was breaking federal law. Also there is no mention whether this sporting area seated 2500 (which I seriously doubt). So in other words what many on this list have said is that the coach has no right to question anyone possessing a gun since if he has the gun he absolutely must have a permit or he wouldn't be carrying it around. I get it, criminals always follow the law. Also it is noted that if someone has private property and they don't want guns on their property obviously they shouldn't have any rights at all and should allow open carry. I mean we don't like people telling us we can't carry but it is perfectly acceptable for us to tel them they must let us fringe upon their right.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhorton71 View Post
    I still don't understand why people keep mentioning whether the school is public or private. A school is a school public, private, or parochial. My point was still misread since if he didn't hold a permit he was breaking federal law. Also there is no mention whether this sporting area seated 2500 (which I seriously doubt). So in other words what many on this list have said is that the coach has no right to question anyone possessing a gun since if he has the gun he absolutely must have a permit or he wouldn't be carrying it around. I get it, criminals always follow the law. Also it is noted that if someone has private property and they don't want guns on their property obviously they shouldn't have any rights at all and should allow open carry. I mean we don't like people telling us we can't carry but it is perfectly acceptable for us to tel them they must let us fringe upon their right.
    A privately owned school is private property and can use the State trespass laws to support requiring someone to leave. A public school can't use the trespass laws because they are not private property. And the only way Federal school zone law applies is if the person "possessing" a firearm on/in school property, private or public, is if the person carrying does not have a "license to possess" a firearm.

    How Michigan law interacts with Federal law has already been explained in posts preceding your latest post. And now you want to throw in the Michigan law that makes it illegal to concealed carry in a sporting arena that has nothing to do with the law about concealed carry in an entertainment facility with more than 2500 seats but is still legal to open carry in an arena (and an entertainment facility regardless of how many seats it has) with a CPL (which is Michigan law NOT Federal law) to bolster your argument that the guy in question would not be allowed to open carry at a school?

    The 2500 seats thing is a State law that has no connection to Federal law and only applies to concealed carry in an entertainment facility. Open carry with a CPL is still legal no matter how many seats there are or aren't! So mentioning that law shows a lack of understanding of Michigan law and actually undermines your argument.

    Not to mention I and ezkl2230 even posted cites and links to where the guy in question DID have a CPL and the responding police determined the guy was not doing anything illegal.

    State trespass laws support private property rights whether that private property is a school or not but the Federal school zone law does NOT have anything to do with private property trespass law regardless of if the private property is a school or not.. or even if the school is private property or not.

    Anyone who has a "license to possess" a firearm (Federal law does not stipulate what kind of "license" only a "license to possess") in the state the school is located in is exempt from the Federal school zone law.

    A rant follows...

    In my estimation there are entirely too many people who think the right to bear arms should be subject to being controlled by their personal opinion of who, where, why, how, and what kind, should NOT be "allowed".... and I believe those people certainly do understand that the right to bear arms means not having to ask permission... and it is being confronted with the understanding that they are just not important or powerful enough to be in a position where people come to them for............. permission.... that pisses them off the most.

    End rant... please resume normal discussion.

    Edited to be more clear about the difference between a "sports arena" and the 2500 seats stipulation for an "entertainment facility".

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...me=mcl-28-425o

    FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
    Act 372 of 1927


    28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsections (1) and (2); violation; penalties.
    -snip-
    (c) A sports arena or stadium.
    -snip-
    (f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals -snip-

  9. #38
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A privately owned school is private property and can use the State trespass laws to support requiring someone to leave. A public school can't use the trespass laws because they are not private property. And the only way Federal school zone law applies is if the person "possessing" a firearm on/in school property, private or public, is if the person carrying does not have a "license to possess" a firearm.

    How Michigan law interacts with Federal law has already been explained in posts preceding your latest post. And now you want to throw in the Michigan law that makes it illegal to concealed carry in a sporting arena that has nothing to do with the law about concealed carry in an entertainment facility with more than 2500 seats but is still legal to open carry in an arena (and an entertainment facility regardless of how many seats it has) with a CPL (which is Michigan law NOT Federal law) to bolster your argument that the guy in question would not be allowed to open carry at a school?

    The 2500 seats thing is a State law that has no connection to Federal law and only applies to concealed carry in an entertainment facility. Open carry with a CPL is still legal no matter how many seats there are or aren't! So mentioning that law shows a lack of understanding of Michigan law and actually undermines your argument.

    Not to mention I and ezkl2230 even posted cites and links to where the guy in question DID have a CPL and the responding police determined the guy was not doing anything illegal.

    State trespass laws support private property rights whether that private property is a school or not but the Federal school zone law does NOT have anything to do with private property trespass law regardless of if the private property is a school or not.. or even if the school is private property or not.

    Anyone who has a "license to possess" a firearm (Federal law does not stipulate what kind of "license" only a "license to possess") in the state the school is located in is exempt from the Federal school zone law.

    A rant follows...

    In my estimation there are entirely too many people who think the right to bear arms should be subject to being controlled by their personal opinion of who, where, why, how, and what kind, should NOT be "allowed".... and I believe those people certainly do understand that the right to bear arms means not having to ask permission... and it is being confronted with the understanding that they are just not important or powerful enough to be in a position where people come to them for............. permission.... that pisses them off the most.

    End rant... please resume normal discussion.

    Edited to be more clear about the difference between a "sports arena" and the 2500 seats stipulation for an "entertainment facility".

    Michigan Legislature - Section 28.425o

    FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
    Act 372 of 1927


    28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsections (1) and (2); violation; penalties.
    -snip-
    (c) A sports arena or stadium.
    -snip-
    (f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals -snip-
    Bikenut - he has made up his mind. He refuses to see that this has nothing to do with state law overriding federal law, it has everything to do with federal law accommodating state law. We have given him everything he needs to see to know what state and federal law have to say about this, that state law and federal law both allow for carry on school property under certain conditions, and that there is, because of the way the GFSZA is worded to accommodate state law, a difference in the way a private school can handle such a situation versus a public school. We have proven in two different articles that the fan did indeed possess a CPL. Until he can get over his fear that someone might bust a cap in him if they disagree with one of his calls as the article to which he referred warns him, he will continue to fight the facts.

  10. There was no proof in any article that the man had a CPL. That was my whole point. It just says that in order to possess a gun in Michigan you must have a permit. Felons aren't allowed to possess but they somehow still have them. The article in question mentioned that it did not know if the police actually questioned the man or not. That is what still would make it a federal law until the officer verified the permit.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhorton71 View Post
    federal law takes priority over state law. Private and Parochial schools are mentioned in the Federal Gun Free zone act. I am not a troll as some of you might expect. You are assuming the man had a CPL. There was no mention of that so it would be safe to say that until he presented it he doesn't have one. I do agree that the police should have handled the situation. As far as the person who said he has been upset and never pulled the trigger on anyone, Same for me. But I'm not worried about me discharging my gun in anger. I happen to worry about some of the other people that I have witnessed that didn't have a gun in their possession at the time. I prefer to carry concealed so not to provoke an instance. Negative publicity about guns of any kind does not help our cause at all. Also if you read the Michigan law, it says you can possess to pick up or drop off not to continue to occupy school property. The parking lot your talking about is covered in the Federal law as within a 1000 feet range of School property. The weapon to be secured must be unloaded and locked in a secure area of the vehicle. The article only mentions he returned it to the car. As for the official that witnessed violence at a game, aren't you glad someone didn't carry a gun when they acted a fool. Just remember the negative publicity is way more damaging than 10 positive articles about guns.
    Police legally can not "handle the situation" Michigan Law states Police can not stop you soley on the reason of you carrying a firearm. All they could have done was enforced a trespass, but they did not ask him to flat out leave, they asked him to put the weapon away OR leave.
    "Michigan law prohibits permit holder from carrying concealed weapons into schools and other "gun-free zones," but a statutory loophole does not prevent permit holders from openly-carrying in those areas." And from the same article (as I provided) Last year, open-carry advocate Nicholas Looman walked into Aberdeen Middle School in Grand Rapids with a holstered pistol on his hip. A staff member stopped and questioned him, and the district temporarily banned him from school property. The Kent County prosecutor said that while he showed "extremely poor judgement," Looman had not violated any state laws.
    Open carry onto/into school property is ONLY legal if you have a Concealed Pistol License FROM the state of Michigan.

    Michigan lawmaker, MEA renew call to close open-carry gun loophole on Sandy Hook anniversary | MLive.com
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast