Author Topic: Open Carry in School - Parents/Police have Opposite Reactions (Read 18969 times)

hells.saints · « **on:** December 17, 2013, 08:40:51 PM »

Subscribe for more open carry videos.

casper · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:29:08 PM »

How can they charge him with trespassing ? They have their own rules, really. Doesn't Michigan have a preemption law ? Also the cops example of, you can't park your RV there and camp out is stupid, cause that doesn't fall under preemption, they need to get a clue.

gryphon · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:25:23 PM »

I couldn't understand the audio on the second half of the video. Anyway, you said you checked with an attorney and confirmed that a school can tresspass you (forbid you to come on the property), even though it was a public, not a private school.

Let's look at a different scenario. Let's say you were going to the school to vote. The school can not trespass you for openly carrying a pistol then, so why can they now?

hevymetal · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:42:42 PM »

Quote from: gryphon on December 17, 2013, 10:25:23 PM

I couldn't understand the audio on the second half of the video. Anyway, you said you checked with an attorney and confirmed that a school can tresspass you (forbid you to come on the property), even though it was a public, not a private school.

Let's look at a different scenario. Let's say you were going to the school to vote. The school can not trespass you for openly carrying a pistol then, so why can they now?

I believe schools can selectively isolate and exclude any individuals they choose from any school activity. I distinctly remember several parents being "Banned" from attending any school events after they were caught drinking at a dance they were supposed to be supervising. They were well over 21 so it was legal for them but alas it made no difference. They were however still allowed to attend conferences. Be branded as a troublemaker and your gone.

Voting is activity which trumps ANYTHING the school does. It just so happens in some locals it takes place in school grounds. Your right to vote superceeds their wish to keep you away. By attempting to deny you your right to vote they now are in violation of federal election law. They may not like the fact you are armed when showing up to vote, but the fact you are armed CANNOT preclude you from voting.

JMHO
Hevy

Jeff · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:45:10 PM »

I'm only a minute in but LOL, "I guess ill have to pull up the law for you"

Did you go back in to finish watching the show that the jerk lady made you miss some of by calling the cops?

bigt8261 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:21:57 AM »

Quote from: hevymetal on December 17, 2013, 10:42:42 PM

I distinctly remember several parents being "Banned" from attending any school events after they were caught drinking at a dance they were supposed to be supervising. They were well over 21 so it was legal for them but alas it made no difference.

The difference is there is no preemption when it comes to alcohol. The school may make it's own policy in this regard. Same when it comes to RV's. Again, these scenarios have no relevancy to the OP as the state of Michigan does not preempt schools from regulating these activities.

Hells, who is your attorney? IANAL, but I personally feel both your attorney and the officer was wrong about trespassing you.

Officer: "You will be trespassed."
You: "Why?"
Officer: "Because you have a gun"
End of story

If you had entered a classroom and truly disrupted the learning environment in that classroom, then that is a different story. The speed at which the officer responded, or lack thereof, demonstrated how much you were not a disruption. IMO, there is no case for trespassing here.

bigt8261 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:34:10 AM »

dublicate

gryphon · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2013, 10:20:00 AM »

You can say that again.

casper · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:39:04 AM »

At 8:40 of the video, the officer says it has to be unloaded ? REALLY ! Give me a break.

casper · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:53:02 AM »

At 3:17. STOP saying technical loop hole.

casper · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2013, 12:04:03 PM »

The police will tell you whatever they want to get their way. Like we're a bunch of know nothings. If they had a leg to stand on, he would have been arrested, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! NEVER get legal advise from a police officer !!!!

casper · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2013, 12:11:32 PM »

The way the police handle stops like this, only make the anti gun crowds voice louder and stronger. They need to tell the anti's that it's legal and move on. NOT harass LAC's. We still have rights too, no ? What would the police say to me if I called and said there's a guy with baggy pants here and I'm afraid of him. Would he get a speech, and be told to put his pants in the trunk, (unloaded) ? It sounds stupid, because it is.

TheQ · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2013, 12:28:11 PM »

@OP

You are aware that there is a good argument that could be made that schools are preempted, right? Under the capital area District Library versus Michigan open carry case.

Xpiatio · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:01:00 PM »

I watched the video and have to agree with Casper. I cringed when I heard "technical loop hole". when people use that term, people automagically assume that the activity being done is negative and bad. I pin it right up there next to people who deliberately bring up signs on doors when they didn't need to.

OT: I tried all day to respond to any post via Tapatalk on Android. Are other people experiencing the same issue?

bigt8261 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:47:16 PM »

A loophole is something that was not intended. I tell the antis that if they can prove to me that it was unintended, that I will be ok with the term loophole. Otherwise, its just hollow rhetoric.

TheQ · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2013, 06:03:04 PM »

Sen. Green was the one who wrote the shall-issue law. I suppose one could ask him if he intended it.

gryphon · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2013, 06:42:18 PM »

We shouldn't talk like it's a "loophole." We shouldn't even allow that viewpoint. That assumes the legislature has no idea what it's doing when it writes laws. Our position must be that the laws are written that way on purpose.

Arkansas just went through this. OC recently became legal there, and some people immediately began saying, "No, that's not what the legislature meant to do!" Fortunately many people fought that opinion publicly, in the press, and I think it is now settled (meaning people are no longer trying to say it is not legal). The AG eventually came out and agreed with that.

The law specifically states that only CC in a school is (generally) against the law. Period. That must be the end of the discussion. Never say that it is a loophole that we are exploiting!

Jeff · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:39:44 PM »

I am exploiting the loophole that allows me to take sleeping pills at night when I can't sleep.

casper · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:52:29 PM »

What's amazing to me is the entity that make the laws, (along with issuing CPL's) is the same entity that doesn't know how to enforce those said laws, and violates our rights while we're complying with those said laws. "You can have these privileges/rights, but we will harass you if you exercise them ?"

CV67PAT · « **Reply #19 on:** December 19, 2013, 11:39:03 AM »

1... Find a better lawyer.
2... It's not a "loophole"
3... The law's are not all that complicated once you are knowledgeable about them
4... Stand your ground. If the police really could have arrested you, they would have.
5... Find a better lawyer.

News:

Author Topic: Open Carry in School - Parents/Police have Opposite Reactions (Read 18969 times)