MI: Judge rules for Open Carry Organization, Enforces State Law

Gun Watch ^ | 28 May, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In March of 2016, members of Michigan Gun Owners and Michigan Open Carry were illegally expelled from a booth they had rented at the DeVos Place Convention center. They were expelled because they were openly carrying holstered pistols.

The organizations filed a lawsuit against the DeVos Place Convention Center and its management company for violation of Michigan state law. On Friday, May 26, 2017, Judge Joseph Rossi of the Kent County Circuit found for Michigan Open Carry (MOC) and Michigan Gun Owners (MGO). It did not take long. The Judge listened to the arguments for about an hour, and reviewed the lawsuit. He issued a summary judgment for the plaintiffs. From mlive.com:

On Friday, attorney Dean Greenblatt, who represents Michigan Open Carry, said a no-concealed carry policy contradicts state law.

He argued that the properties are public and, while organizations leasing them could choose who they invite to a private event, they can't implement firearm regulations, and public entities cannot enforce them.

After hearing an hour of arguments and reviewing both sides of the lawsuit, Rossi sided with the open-carry advocates. The judge advised that the wording of the venues' weapons policy should be updated to properly align with Michigan's state gun laws.

The case is an example of the requirement to be willing to fight to enforce the law.  The law may be on your side, but if the local powers that be are willing to flout it, they can succeed in destroying your rights with little effort.

Second Amendment supporters have had the Constitution on their side since the beginning. Then supporters built the organizations and communications networks to elect responsive politicians, pass laws and strengthen state Constitutions. Now supporters are in the process of enforcing the laws that have been passed.

Suppressing open carry is primarily aimed at suppressing strong, symbolic, political, speech. People who see a person unapologeticly carrying a firearm learn an important visual lesson. The right to arms exists, is exercised, and is enforced. The state has limits to its power.

Those are powerful messages in Michigan, and over all of the country.


©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

A judge that follows the law. Nice to see.

[MarMema]

God Bless my state and please send the liberals here elsewhere to live.

Proud to be a Michigander.

[exnavy]

I am with you on all that, all Michigan libs, California is calling you.

[gaijin]

We had open carry in California right up until the point when a few people started taking advantage of it.

Then they took away it away from us - very instructive.

I’m praying that we’ll be Shall Issue, one day.

I’m sure it won’t be soon but I’m still praying.

[Yo-Yo]

Just to be clear to my fellow Michiganders, the law being followed here is for a CPL holder only. The law reads that if you are licensed you may not carry concealed in several specified places, including an entertainment facility that holds more than 2,500 people (like the DeVos Convention Center.)

However, because the prohibition only applies to concealed carry, Michigan courts have ruled that CPL holders may open carry in any of the listed areas.

This Michigan State Police article regarding open carry in Michigan sums it up nicely:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

Excerpt:

Note, the above statute applies to CPL holders
carrying a concealed pistol. If the CPL holder is
carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does
not apply. As noted above, the unlawful
premises listed in MCL 750.234d do not apply to
persons with a valid CPL. Therefore, a person
with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed
pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o
and MCL 750.234d.

[marktwain]

California had unloaded open carry.

Even that was not tolerable to the totalitarian leftists in California.

We are on the road to a Supreme Court that will give them a comeuppance, and/or national reciprocity that will allow out people from other states to exercise their Second Amendment rights in California.

[i_robot73]

Follows the Law? Did I miss the ‘all existing *law* is hereby null and void as it violates the plain language of the 2nd A.’??

>
Second Amendment supporters have had the Constitution on their side since the beginning. Then supporters built the organizations and communications networks to elect responsive politicians, pass laws and strengthen state Constitutions. Now supporters are in the process of enforcing the laws that have been passed.
>

Shame they’re not supporting and enforcing, as per the top.

Guess like taxes: Just a *LITTLE* slavery\violation of Rights is fine. Govt will find just how they can push that line; aided by their lackeys in black robes (follow the $$).

[marktwain]

All or nothing approaches to restoring Second Amendment rights have not worked. Every one has failed, often with disastrous results.

I would love to have you give me a counter example, one where Second Amendment rights have been restored, all in on fell swoop, by someone who declares: “That law is illegal under the Second Amendment.”

I have not seen a single example, but there have been plenty of attempts.

[MileHi]

All or nothing approaches to restoring Second Amendment rights have not worked. Every one has failed, often with disastrous results.

I give you Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Colorado has lost some ground because of this fools all or nothing approach.