Huron Valley schools to tackle open carry issue

[CitizensHaveRights]

Well, we have here a superintendent who believes his feelings are more important than state law.
We have a board member and a board president who seem determined to pass a resolution to violate the law, but at least one of them thinks he needs to 'research' the law first.
I'm pretty sure the 'eloquent' parent has already explained the law to them, but perhaps somebody else can explain it to them in writing before they go any farther?

If they pass an illegal resolution, I'd love to see them getting their copies of the summons and complaint the next day.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2014/10/29/huron-valley-schools-open-carry/18112039/

"We had a parent who very eloquently came to the district and expressed his intent to open carry in a couple of our school buildings," said HVS School Board Trustee Jeff Long at an Oct. 20 board dialogue meeting.

Long said he intends to research the issue and write a resolution prohibiting open carry of weapons on school properties. "While I have no objections to the rights of open carry, I don't see a need for a parent to open carry a weapon in any of our buildings."

Superintendent Jim Baker declined to identify the parent, but said the man, who is properly licensed, has in fact, open carried a weapon in two of the district's buildings — those his children attend — after hours, when most students had gone home.

"I am grateful he went to the building administrator and told that principal what he planned on doing in advance," Baker said. "I've had multiple conversations with (the parent), he's talked with the building administrators, and he's been very forthright, in some regards very progressive, and I appreciate that. He didn't just show up unannounced. But that doesn't change the way I feel about the law."

"We're hopeful to come to a resolution before Nov. 30," Walsh said. "We want to make sure we have a good understanding of the law before we move forward."

[bigt8261]

There was a very long thread about this started by the parent in our Facebook group about a week or two ago. Myself and other leadership provided advice to that parent in that thread and I have been in contact with the parent since this article came out. He doesn't want media attention so we are handling that part.

Shortly after the article came out, I contacted the author and spoke to her about the issue for a while. She was very nice and asked great questions. She even called me back later to make sure she understood the law correctly. She put more effort into understanding this issue than the vast majority of reporters I've worked with.

I also wrote an email to Mr. Long and CCed the board president and school super.

All of the citations are linked in the email.

Mr. Long,

It has come to my attention that you are researching the topic of openly carried firearms on school property. As someone with extensive knowledge of the subject, I would like to offer my assistance.

Both federal (18 U.S. Code § 922 (q)(2)(A)) and state (MCL 750.237a (4)) law prohibit firearms on school property. However, both federal (18 U.S. Code § 922 (q)(2)(B)(ii)) and state (MCL 750.237a (5)(c)) law also exempt those who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol.

State law (MCL 28.425o (1)(a)) prohibits those with a CPL from carrying a concealed firearm on school property, except for parents or legal guardians in their vehicle while dropping off or picking up a student.

The only legal option left to parents is to carry in an unconcealed manner.

Under state law, it is illegal for a local unit of government to regulate firearms to an extent that is more strict than federal or state law. Michigan Public Act 319 of 1990 states in Sec. 2 (MCL 123.1102) in part:

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 [...] except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

This statute was upheld in 2003 by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale No. 242237

It was again upheld in 2012 and applied to all "quasi-municipal corporations", such as school districts (see pg 6) in Capital Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc. No. 304582

It is therefore my recommendation that you adopt a policy similar to one Traverse City Area Public Schools recently adopted. The new language can be viewed HERE (starts on pg 54 and covers 3 sections 3217, 4217 and 7217). The policy, in summary, forbids the possession of weapons by staff while in the course of their employment, and by all visitors. The policy also exempts visitors that are "permitted by law". This policy seems to comply with state law while still offering flexibility for future changes at the state and federal level.

In the meantime, I recommend avoiding the enforcement of any unlawful policies.

Thank you for your efforts and please feel free to send any questions you may have my way.

Tom Lambert
Vice President
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

[bigt8261]

Here is the reply I received from the board President:

Thank you for providing this information! 

Rebecca Walsh
HVS Board of Education President

Here is the reply I received from Mr. Long, board VP:

Mr. Lambert,
    I appreciate your help in understanding the laws, and do support the right to legally carry a weapon.
That being said, as an elected official, it is my sworn duty to set aside my personal feelings and address the concerns of my constituents. 
I would ask that any further communications be directed to our Board President.

Thank You

Jeffrey Long
Huron Valley Schools
Board of Education

[TucTom]

So lets help them write a law to allow CC on school property. Oh that's right, that idea has been shot down (pun intended).

[TheQ]

http://miopencarry.org/news/2014/10/Huron-Valley-School-leaders-think-feelings-trump-State-law-on-guns

[part deux]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/milford-parents-concerned-about-open-carry-at-school/29444126

[linux203]

Interesting story, but nothing indicated government abuse.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Just an excuse to do "NIMBY on the street" sound bites and talk about the impending government abuse in Huron Valley while implying that government abuse is a good idea.

[part deux]

It's all about marketing, something firearm owners generally don't practice.  MOC with their limited resources have done more than the other two mi orgs, and probably one of the most successful groups in the country.

Article here, article there, suddenly public interest perks up, and anti's along with uninformed begin flooding the legislature with calls to "keep the children safe".  Complicit public media compounds the struggle.

[bigt8261]

I'm not worried about legislative pressure at the moment. Last year and earlier this year, there were a number of schools that passed resolutions and asked the legislature to ban guns in schools. (Though they did it in a REALLY dumb way.)

We are at the end of the session and this one school is not going to generate enough pressure. We've already given Snyder enough butthurt for SB 59. It's safer for them to just ignore the schools who are already lying about budget cuts.

[bigt8261]

For those who remember, most of the schools asked the legislature to add schools to MCL 750.234d. Which would have changed NOTHING. Idiots.

[linux203]

Let's use their stupidy... a bill to remove schools from 28.425o and add it to 750.234d.

[CV67PAT]

And here is the response:

https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php?topic=4630.msg38017#msg38017

[G36shooter]

GR and I will be there.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Let's use their stupidy... a bill to remove schools from 28.425o and add it to 750.234d.

Too bad 750.234(d)(2)(D) says "the owner" instead of "an owner". It would have wonderful implications for public property.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

[CitizensHaveRights]

The new policy of dealing with lawful OC of calling 9-1-1 and locking the schools down is the holding of childrens' educations hostage for ransom. The ransom is our rights under the law. If we exercise our rights, they'll disrupt the schools and claim it's our fault.

I'd like to see a large group call their bluff and make hourly visits to every school in the district for a week. You don't have to be a parent, just ask to speak to an administrator about the idiocy of their new policy.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Well, the policy has been in place for 3 weeks, and Google can't find any news.
Did the OCers stay away, or has somebody called the schools' bluff?

[bigt8261]

The parent has not stayed away, just nothing is making the news because it's not a big deal. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Can you tell us what happened when he came back?

[CV67PAT]

Nothing.

[CitizensHaveRights]

They ignored their famous new policy, didn't call 911, didn't lock the building down?

So the point of the threat was to frighten parents off from carrying, but there seems to be no intent to carry out their threats?

[part deux]

They ignored their famous new policy, didn't call 911, didn't lock the building down?

So the point of the threat was to frighten parents off from carrying, but there seems to be no intent to carry out their threats?

And this is why I LOVE MOC and the work the organization is doing!  It appears their public bravado got some behind the scenes scrutiny and maybe they realized how stupid their plan was.  Don't expect a public announcement of any policy changes.