Author Topic: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (Read 89937 times)

METL · « **Reply #100 on:** May 25, 2011, 09:31:42 PM »

It was mixed bag.

Judge didn't rule on brandishing.

CADL dropped the "school zone" thing

Judge ruled pre-emption does not apply and CADL can regulate firearms.

northofnowhere · « **Reply #101 on:** May 26, 2011, 07:54:56 AM »

Day One: Aquilina states firearms preemption does nto apply to authorites created by the government units it does apply to.

Days to come: All Downtown Development Authorities pass no firearms laws for all public streets and parks. All County commissions that manage things such as the airports, county highways, and of course the Road Commission, all make transporting firearms illegal on all county roads and sidewalks and adjoining property.

This ruling is a bit more far reaching then just open carry. Aquilina has given all local units of government a way around the Michigan Constitution.

On a more positive note, the subway lady gave me all of last nights cookies to munch on, only cookies that taste good with milk nowadays.

METL · « **Reply #102 on:** May 26, 2011, 09:27:03 AM »

Although circuit court doesn't set precedence, I agree with you. If this gets chaulked up as a 'L' in the appeals court, then commissions, agencies, authorities, and anything else they want to rename things can now circumvent the Michigan Constitution. I am PRETTY sure that is not what the legislature intended when they drafted the state law governing local ordinances on firearms.

scot623 · « **Reply #103 on:** May 26, 2011, 01:31:40 PM »

The problem is, when the authorities start banning firearms based off this ruling...who will take it to court and fight it? MOC can only afford so much litigation(and barely that).

fozzy71 · « **Reply #104 on:** May 26, 2011, 09:43:01 PM »

Quote from: northofnowhere on May 26, 2011, 07:54:56 AM

Day One: Aquilina states firearms preemption does nto apply to authorites created by the government units it does apply to.......

wardog6t · « **Reply #105 on:** May 28, 2011, 02:35:53 AM »

Quote from: fozzy71 on May 26, 2011, 09:43:01 PM

Quote from: northofnowhere on May 26, 2011, 07:54:56 AM
Day One: Aquilina states firearms preemption does nto apply to authorites created by the government units it does apply to.......

Hmmmm makes my wonder? How much did the person responsible for this whole fiasco donate to the cause?

emt805 · « **Reply #106 on:** May 28, 2011, 02:46:16 AM »

Yes, why not ask the person who created the illegal firearms ban to start all this... Find them and ask how much they donated...

CV67PAT · « **Reply #107 on:** May 28, 2011, 02:59:26 AM »

Quote from: emt805 on May 28, 2011, 02:46:16 AM

Yes, why not ask the person who created the illegal firearms ban to start all this... Find them and ask how much they donated...

I'd say they donated quite a bit. After all, they prevailed in their suit. And their counsel wasn't free either.

emt805 · « **Reply #108 on:** May 28, 2011, 04:37:55 AM »

I would not call it them prevailing, that ruling is one persons opinion and not necessary that of the written law. I do agree that all this laws are bull after the US Constitution states these rights shall not be infringed, but all these laws do is infringe on my rights.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #109 on:** May 28, 2011, 04:50:43 AM »

Quote from: emt805 on May 28, 2011, 04:37:55 AM

I would not call it them prevailing, that ruling is one persons opinion and not necessary that of the written law. I do agree that all this laws are bull after the US Constitution states these rights shall not be infringed, but all these laws do is infringe on my rights.

If you don't think they have prevailed, strut into CADL with an open carried pellet gun, like the guy that started this crap, and see what happens. I'll bet that "one person's opinion" will land your ass in jail. Period.

emt805 · « **Reply #110 on:** May 28, 2011, 05:17:18 AM »

that guy that "started this crap" in my eyes has bigger balls than you do for sticking up for rights and illegal firearm bans. This ruling came from an anti OC friendly judge and not the written law. It is only a road block and not a final ruling

CV67PAT · « **Reply #111 on:** May 28, 2011, 01:43:32 PM »

Quote from: emt805 on May 28, 2011, 05:17:18 AM

that guy that "started this crap" in my eyes has bigger balls than you do for sticking up for rights and illegal firearm bans. This ruling came from an anti OC friendly judge and not the written law. It is only a road block and not a final ruling

And what have you done that would be indicative of the size of your genitalia?

Many on this forum, and within this organization have expressed a willingness to exercise prior restraint and based upon their ability financially to engage in the subsequent litigation that would be resultant of "activist" actions.

There was no "sticking up" here. And while the judge opined unfavorably, it is now the law of the land. Show us the size of your cojones and go pick out a Dr Seuss book at the CADL while toting your shotgun.

wardog6t · « **Reply #112 on:** May 29, 2011, 12:24:50 PM »

Quote from: CV67PAT on May 28, 2011, 01:43:32 PM

Quote from: emt805 on May 28, 2011, 05:17:18 AM
that guy that "started this crap" in my eyes has bigger balls than you do for sticking up for rights and illegal firearm bans. This ruling came from an anti OC friendly judge and not the written law. It is only a road block and not a final ruling

And what have you done that would be indicative of the size of your genitalia?

Many on this forum, and within this organization have expressed a willingness to exercise prior restraint and based upon their ability financially to engage in the subsequent litigation that would be resultant of "activist" actions.

There was no "sticking up" here. And while the judge opined unfavorably, it is now the law of the land. Show us the size of your cojones and go pick out a Dr Seuss book at the CADL while toting your shotgun.

From a K.I.S.S perspective this action while whieding a air soft gun has done more harm then good. Your opinion of genitialia is just that. Restraint is a very useful action in certain circumstances and this seems to be the case here. To also point out his "Sticking up for our rights and illegal firearms bans" has done nothing but show the lack luster, irresponsible nature of this individual and the cronies that supported him in this action. As other have stated MOC.INC cannot afford to pay for attorneys to fight your lawsuit.. Therefore if you cannot afford an attorney to fight for my rights do not infringe upon them....I do not need nor want individual of this type sticking up for my rights, thanks but no thanks! Take you airsoft gun back to the park to play!

CV67PAT · « **Reply #113 on:** May 29, 2011, 01:18:58 PM »

ocdetroit · « **Reply #114 on:** May 29, 2011, 04:57:10 PM »

WOW +1 Carry On.

Greyh Seer · « **Reply #115 on:** July 01, 2011, 04:55:39 PM »

So what's the latest on this case?

When is the next court date? I'd like to support by showing up.

hamaneggs · « **Reply #116 on:** February 07, 2012, 12:11:08 PM »

Bump for Newbies!

kwikrnu · « **Reply #117 on:** June 25, 2012, 01:42:11 PM »

Wow, so much anti-open carry attitude on an open carry website...

CV67PAT · « **Reply #118 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:52:00 PM »

Quote from: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 01:42:11 PM

Wow, so much anti-open carry attitude on an open carry website...

More like "anti-stupid" attitude.

kwikrnu · « **Reply #119 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:03:14 PM »

Quote from: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 03:52:00 PM

Quote from: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 01:42:11 PM
Wow, so much anti-open carry attitude on an open carry website...

More like "anti-stupid" attitude.

No, it is anti-open carry attitudes on an open carry forum.

News:

Author Topic: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (Read 89937 times)