Important Michigan Supreme Court action...
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Important Michigan Supreme Court action...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355

    Important Michigan Supreme Court action...

    Open carry of pistols AND long guns is legal in Michigan. (There are some legal restrictions that apply! LEARN THE LAWS!!)

    A while back a young man openly carried a shotgun on his back in a sling into a Lansing public library... it caused quite a stir.

    Because of this incident the Lansing library "authority" called CADL (Capitol Area District Library) filed legal action against MOC (Michigan Open Carry) hoping to prove an "authority" had the power to make it's own gun law....and the circus began.

    CADL maintained that, because they were an "authority" they could make their own gun laws/rules/policies. MOC contended that the Michigan legislature occupied the entire field of gun law.

    What was at stake is quite simple.. if an "authority" (a unit of government borne out of two other different units of government) could circumvent the legislature and make their own gun law so that any "authority" .. like a "library authority" or a "downtown development authority" or a "transit authority" or "what the hell ever authority")... had the power to arbitrarily make their own gun control laws.

    The first ruling by the Circuit Court presided by Judge Aquilina was in favor of the CADL with a restraining order set against MOC...

    http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/pre...injunction.pdf

    Was reversed by the Court of Appeals...

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/M...nLibraries.pdf

    And that decision was upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court denying CADL an appeal.

    http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/s...3-11-20_or.pdf

    Which means the ruling of the Court of Appeals is upheld.

    And what does all that mean? It simply means that the Highest Court in Michigan has upheld the Appeals Court decision that the Michigan Legislature completely and fully occupies the entire field of gun law. No other State governmental agency or unit of government in Michigan has the power to make gun law through ordinances, rules, or policies.

    It quite simply means that MCL 123.1102

    FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)
    Act 319 of 1990


    123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

    Sec. 2.

    A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

    rules supreme in Michigan.

    Choke on that all you piss ant wanna be local tyrants trying to hide behind an "authority" with your anti gun rules about carrying in public libraries, on public transportation, and carrying in public parks!

    Edited to add:
    This decision impacts ALL methods of carry... not just open carry of pistols or long guns but even concealed carry since if an "authority" had the power to make it's own gun law it could not only ban open carry of long guns and/or pistols but could just as easily ban concealed carry also.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Good news for you Michiganers!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. #3
    ezkl2230 Guest
    That isn't going to stop Mayor Heartwell of Grand Rapids from trying to force another court battle regarding OC. A customer who called our store recently told us that he had first called the GRPD for guidance on OC, and was told that, while it is legal, he had better have a good attorney, because if the GRPD caught him carrying openly, they were going to arrest him and confiscate his firearm. MI is a pre-emption state, but Heartwell still believes municipalities should have the authority to make/enforce their own rules. To top it all off, our illustrious governor is on record that he sees no value in open cary in public, and wants it to go away; he wants schools, public offices, etc., to have the authority to make the same kinds of decisions..

    This battle ain't over yet in Michigan.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    That isn't going to stop Mayor Heartwell of Grand Rapids from trying to force another court battle regarding OC. A customer who called our store recently told us that he had first called the GRPD for guidance on OC, and was told that, while it is legal, he had better have a good attorney, because if the GRPD caught him carrying openly, they were going to arrest him and confiscate his firearm. MI is a pre-emption state, but Heartwell still believes municipalities should have the authority to make/enforce their own rules. To top it all off, our illustrious governor is on record that he sees no value in open cary in public, and wants it to go away; he wants schools, public offices, etc., to have the authority to make the same kinds of decisions..

    This battle ain't over yet in Michigan.
    Seems to me the battle really is "over" since it doesn't matter what petty tyrant wants to be in control.. the Supreme Court of Michigan, by upholding the Appeals Court decision that it is the legislature that occupies the entire field of gun law, just told ALL the petty tyrants, mayors, councils, police depts., hell... even including the Governor, they have no authority and no power to control the possession and/or carrying of firearms.

    As for those mayors and/or police depts. that decide to ignore that Supreme Court decision? Well... let the lawsuits begin! In the cash strapped climate of our economy and the way folks feel about government wasting money right now? I suspect a few high profile and expensive pay outs from lost law suits because of illegal ordinances/arrests would greatly NEGATIVELY impact any politicians chances of re election.... and I suspect those politicians know that very well.

    Bloomberg and his minions ("mayors") must be highly annoyed about now.

    Oh... and wouldn't a police dept. telling someone that...

    "while it is legal, he had better have a good attorney, because if the GRPD caught him carrying openly, they were going to arrest him and confiscate his firearm."

    be a violation of U.S. Code Title 18? Commonly known as a "color of law" violation where the police use their authority to intimidate a person for the purpose of violating their rights?

    18 U.S.C. 242 : US Code - Section 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, - See more at: 18 U.S.C. 242 : US Code - Section 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law

  6. #5
    If in fact we have to have an authority making gun laws, it SHOULDN'T be every Tom, D!ck and Harry Authority.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by dogshawred View Post
    If in fact we have to have an authority making gun laws, it SHOULDN'T be every Tom, D!ck and Harry Authority.
    Especially the Dicks.

    Interesting that they were able to find a judge to support the incorrect opinion to start the whole thing off. The law is pretty clear so it was a rogue justice that sent it on up the legal ladder. Glad that when it faced multiple judges that reason and clarity came to the fore.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by farsidefan1 View Post
    Especially the Dicks.

    Interesting that they were able to find a judge to support the incorrect opinion to start the whole thing off. The law is pretty clear so it was a rogue justice that sent it on up the legal ladder. Glad that when it faced multiple judges that reason and clarity came to the fore.
    From your comment about the "rogue justice" it is apparent that you took the time to follow the links I provided and had the patience to read everything. Well Sir... I am very highly impressed! It is rare for folks to actually follow links to learn the actual factual truth... and it is even more rare for someone to slog their way through the legalese of a couple of court decisions.

    Well done!

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Ok.... here is a summary of the timeline that lead up to that Supreme Court decision. The really important part is that Michigan's Supreme Court refused to even consider changing the Michigan Appeals Court decision that -(paraphrased)- no unit, not even a quasi unit like an "authority", of government (and that would also include public schools) in Michigan has any power to make any ordinances, rules, or policies, more strict than existing Federal/State law that prohibit the possession (that would include carrying) of firearms because it is the legislature of Michigan that owns the entire field of gun law. In short all the wannabe local tyrants that want to impose local gun control in parks/cemeteries/schools/municipal buildings/libraries/public transit... can't.

    The following is a bit long... my apologies...

    Posted by TheQ on MGO post #49

    MGO Community Forum

    Circa Early December 2010: Phillip Hofmeister (Local Coordinator for MOC) openly carries his holstered Springfield XDm into the downtown branch of CADL to pick up a book that he had reserved "on hold". In and out in less than 5 minutes, no issues.

    Circa Mid-December 2010: Tyler Hiliker openly carried a Remington 870 into CADL. He gets asked to leave and complies.

    Circa Late December 2010: Phillip Hofmeister attends CADL board meeting (while CC). No issues, the gun matter wasn't brought up but CADL did approve their annual budget which had ~$28,000 for their legal budget (guess they blew that out of the water).

    Circa Early January 2011: Phillip Hofmeister takes Library book back that was borrowed in December. Before turning it in, he sits down in the middle of the Library and reads the book. Within 5 minutes a Security Guard asks him to leave. Hofmeister offers to cover up his firearm with his coat (having a CPL). The Security guard insists no guns (open or concealed) are allowed in the Library. Hofmeister leaves.

    January 2011: Various members of the public openly carry a handgun into the Library. They are asked to leave and most do. When they refuse LPD is called and shows up asking the person to leave or face trespass.

    Mid-January 2011: Phillip Hofmeister and Brian Jeffs (MOC Director of Research) are hasseled by the Security guard of CADL and LPD because they refuse to answer the question of whether or not they were carrying (neither of them were). After having their 4th and 5th amendment rights violated, they are permitted to attend the CADL Board meeting they were there to attend. Brian Jeffs speaks to the CADL board.

    Early February 2011: Rob Harris (MOC VP) calls LPD Police Captain (now chief) Yankowski. Harris convinces Yankowski that by sending his men, he's essentially enforcing a local ordinance in violation of MCL 123.1102. Yankowski agrees to not enforce the ban. On February 8th (?) Rob Harris and Scott Webb (then President of MOC) go to the library to do some research on gun laws prior to attending the City of Lansing commission meeting. Both men are asked by CADL security to leave, neither comply. LPD is called but don't show. CADL assigns a security guard to stand next to each man while he is in the library. At one point Mr. Webb goes to use the rest room, a guard accompanies him. Mr. Harris does the same a few minutes later.

    Mid February 2011: After being advised by LPD that LPD will no longer enforce the ban until CADL gets a court order, CADL files suit and obtains an ex-party Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining "members of MOC" (how can they tell if someone is a member or not? who knows) from openly carrying handguns into the Library. MOC is made aware of the suit on or around Febuary 17th when Tyler Hiliker (who was attending a CADL board meeting) is taken down and cuffed by LPD and served a copy of the TRO/complaint. Within a day every member of MOC's Board of Directors (as filed with LARA) is served with a copy of the complaint and a TRO.

    March-May 2011: CADL Director Lance Warner testifies in a hearing that he hopes to ban all guns, open or concealed, from the Library. At the same time, CADL argues in MGO v CADL that CADL has not banned concealed carry, so they can get the case (presided over by Judge Rosemarie Aqualina) dismissed on summary judgement. MGO v CADL is is dismissed summarily. CADL v MOC is dismissed summarily in CADL's favor by presiding Judge Rosemarie Aqualina and a permanent injunction order is entered enjoining MOC members and all members of the public from openly carrying into CADL.

    June 2011: MOC appeals the Circuit Court's ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals. the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court Record can be followed online.

    CADL's spending on the case (based on past FOIA requests) is estimated at $125,000. Another FOIA will be filed within a couple months to ascertain the exact amount.

    It suffices to say MOC's spending on this same case is significantly less.

    The above, and links to more info, can be found here:

    CADL vs. MOC - Chronological History | Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Best part was the slap that original judge got in http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/o...4582-final.pdf.
    The trial court, therefore, erroneously granted summary disposition in favor of CADL on the basis that the weapons policy
    was valid as a matter of law. Furthermore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by granting CADL’s request for permanent injunctive relief, i.e., by permanently enjoining MOC, its members, their agents, and members of the public from entering CADL’s buildings and branches while openly carrying a weapon in violation of CADL’s weapons policy.
    Any time a higher court says that a lower one abused its discretion, that is a slap in their face.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  11. #10
    An extremely happy resolution. Unfortunately I'm going to be shocked if we have heard the end of it. Other jurisdictions run by puppets will try again and I would not be surprised if some Bloomie money helps their cause.
    Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head!

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