Here are some of my thoughts on the CADL Lawsuit and other assorted items (some or all of this you probably already know). I cannot believe the absolute BS in the lawsuit, I am pissed off!
1. I have read through some of the Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO. What the hell were they smoking when they wrote this up? Did the Ann Arbor Hash Bash move to Lansing/Ingham County without Media Coverage??? I know, I know, back on the subject at hand.
2. The CADL Press Release is incorrect and does not match the terms of the Signed Ex-Parte TRO (page 29), but does match the Ex-Parte Emergency Motion for TRO (Page 23). These inconsistencies should be brought up in the Responses to the TRO and the Complaint.
3. The CADL Mission Statements have clearly been violated during the past few weeks (
http://cadl.org/about). By this TRO, they are definitely not "Community-based services and collections
accessible to all", and by their actions of security following around OC'ers essentially harassing them, they are definitely not providing "Excellence in patron service".
4. Their Weapons Policy under #3 is not specific enough as to what is allowable and therefore cannot be followed by library patrons (
http://cadl.org/about/policy/policy-SER103.pdf). This clearly needs to be addressed in the Responses.
5. Under their Code of Conduct, I believe that the ACLU might be interested in the following: "15. People may not solicit or beg in the library." I believe that Royal Oak just had some contact about this very same item.
6. Under their Code of Conduct, I believe that the following would be against MI Constitution Article I Section 11: "19. Patrons must provide identification when requested by library staff."
7. They believe that they are an authority and not subject to preemption since authorities are not specifically included in MCL 123.1101. The counter to that is that they are compromised of 2 entities that fall under the definition of local unit of government under MCL 123.1101 and the URBAN COOPERATION ACT OF 1967 (Act 7 of 1967) clearly defines the 2 entities and the authority as Public Agencies in MCL 124.502 (
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-502) and they may only exercise "any power, privilege, or authority that the agencies share in common and that each might exercise separately" according to MCL 124-504 (
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-504). The only minor "gotcha" here may be MCL 124.503 (
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-124-503), but each separate municipalities' libraries would be adopting "bylaws and regulations governing the board and the library" coming under preemption in MCL 123.1102 and therefore MCL 124-504 would not stop that authority from being exercised, only that they cannot regulate certain items such as FIREARMS. If they could regulate rights, then no RIGHTS are safe within the walls of the CADL.
8. The TRO and Compliant encompass actions to restrict and/or eliminate the following RIGHTS of specific persons: US Constitution 1A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 5 for RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (carrying a firearm openly can be construed as a Political Statement) and US Constitution 2A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 6 for the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
9. The TRO and Compliant encompass actions to restrict rights only of specific persons belonging to or affiliated with MOC, who have not been charged with nor convicted of any crime under Due Process of Law. This would create a class of persons that can Open Carry at CADL Locations as long as they are not affiliated with MOC. This would be a violation of Equal Protection Under Law based upon US Constitution 14A and MI Constitution Article 1 Section 2.
10. The TRO and Compliant claim persons are carrying unlawfully, carrying improperly, and are trespassing. Yet, the Lansing Police Department will refuse to respond to remove them from the premises. The statements are incongruous and the CADL should be "called onto the carpet" to answer questions on these. I would guess the entire District Library Board and the Library Director should be deposed and called to the stand to highlight their stupidity.
11. Within the TRO and Compliant, the District Library Board claims to have the authority under law to enact regulations concerning carry of firearms while at the same time claiming they have no adequate remedy at law from stopping people from carrying firearms. Priceless! Again, call them onto the carpet!
12. The statements within the TRO and Compliant regarding MOC Members being a danger carrying their firearms are not supported by any fact nor by any past incident within CADL. Statements like "accidental discharge" occurring with holstered firearms really takes the cake!
13. Denial of a Person's Rights does not cause them harm? Unbelievable!!!
I think that is enough for now...
