Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Open Carry Specific => OC Questions => Topic started by: Lonewolf0714 on June 21, 2014, 12:10:02 PM
-
I went down to the Department of Human Services (DHS) on June 20th, 2014 to ask questions about the new medicaid expansion program. I did not carry my firearm openly or concealed. On my way out I stopped at the security desk and asked if this was only a state building or also a federal building. The security guard said it was only a state building and not federal. At that point I asked if people were allowed to carry their firearms inside. He responded by saying no . And then said no weapons were allowed inside this building because of policy. I asked for the phone number for his directer and he gave me the contact information for Juan Ortiz. His number is (269) 337-4900. My question is, I thought I could legally open carry inside this state facility just like at the lansing capital building?
-
I don't see anything here that falls into one of the MI prohibited areas, so it sounds like their policy defies state preemption law. Also the guard just may be wrong about policy. Did you see any "no guns" signage? Did you call Juan Ortiz and tell him his guard is giving out bad information?
-
I did not see any signs posted that pertained to weapons of any kind. I also thought the 3 security guards were unaware of the pre-emption law. I tried to contact the director (Juan Ortiz) but was unable to get through to him. I will attempt communication with him again on (06-23-2014). I hope he will acknowledge the law when I try to contact him again.
-
How many times do I have to explain this? Preemption does not apply to state agencies. If the state agency has within the law that forms it the power to regulate weapons or make security rules then most likely they can legally ban firearms. HHS is one such agency that has such powers.
Also in relation to CC they are a child placing agency. So both forms of carry are a no go.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
-
I guess that means I dont need to bother Mr. Ortiz with my question. Thanks for the information.
-
How many times do I have to explain this? Preemption does not apply to state agencies.
It doesn't? My bad, then, as I thought it applied to everything state and below. If it's not a prohibited location in the Michigan state law then I thought it was good to go.
I guess I'll have you explain it to me when I call you. :D
-
123.1101 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.
(b) “Pistol” means that term as defined in section 222 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.222 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.
Sec. 2.
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, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
-
Does this mean that the Secretary of State can enact & enforce anti-gun policies in their locations?
-
No since they do not have any language in their enacting law that would allow them to do so.
Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates
-
If the state agency has within the law that forms it the power to regulate weapons or make security rules...HHS is one such agency that has such powers.
Does this mean that the Secretary of State can enact & enforce anti-gun policies in their locations?
No since they do not have any language in their enacting law that would allow them to do so.
So the next obvious question is, how do we know the HHS has this language, and how do we know or find out what other state agencies have this language?
-
You find the laws that setup and regulate that state agency and read em
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
-
For the record, autosurgeon and I disagree on this.
He has been around longer and has looked into this more than I have, however, I feel that CADL v MOC changed everything. In my interpretation, before CADL we had a list of preempted entities. After CADL, we now have field preemption. (Before CADL - these entities are preempted. After CADL - only the Legislature can set the rules)
If push comes to shove, it will probably take another court case to decide the matter. In the meantime, err on the side of caution with autosurgeon.
-
Has there been discussions in HB5500 about codifying CADL vs. MOC into MCL 123.1102?
-
Has there been discussions in HB5500 about codifying CADL vs. MOC into MCL 123.1102?
We thought about it. Preemption statutes in a few other states literally say the legislature is occupying the field. In order to do that in Michigan we would need to open up 123.1102 for amendments. We decided that wouldn't be wise while we have a governor that wants to undermine preemption. Instead, we'll just add to the act for now.
-
We thought about it. Preemption statutes in a few other states literally say the legislature is occupying the field. In order to do that in Michigan we would need to open up 123.1102 for amendments. We decided that wouldn't be wise while we have a governor that wants to undermine preemption. Instead, we'll just add to the act for now.
:yeahthat: RINO.
-
Still wouldn't matter what preemption said if the law forming the state agency gave them authority to ban weapons.
Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates
-
Still wouldn't matter what preemption said if the law forming the state agency gave them authority to ban weapons.
I didn't see anywhere in the State Constitution or the statute forming the agency where they were granted the authority to ban weapons.
-
Kind of curious about this. I work for DHS and the building is posted "no weapons" but our employee policy also states that Michigan is an open carry state and we aren't supposed to say anything to someone lawfully doing so or even ask them to leave.