Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: sprinklerguy28 on February 17, 2011, 09:10:07 PM

Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: sprinklerguy28 on February 17, 2011, 09:10:07 PM
Today Michigan Open Carry, Inc. was served a temporary restraining order from Capital Area District Library(CADL).  This order bans MOC members and it affiliates from open carrying into the CADL's libraries. We ask that for now you refrain from OCing there for the time being. We will be having a hearing on February 24, 2011 at 11:00am. The court is located at 303 W. Kalamazoo, 2nd Floor, Lansing, MI. MAP (http://<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=303+W.+Kalamazoo+Street+2nd+Floor+Lansing,+MI%C2%A0+48933&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=303+W+Kalamazoo+St,+Lansing,+Ingham,+Michigan+48933&amp;gl=us&amp;z=14&amp;ll=42.729304,-84.556263&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=303+W.+Kalamazoo+Street+2nd+Floor+Lansing,+MI%C2%A0+48933&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=303+W+Kalamazoo+St,+Lansing,+Ingham,+Michigan+48933&amp;gl=us&amp;z=14&amp;ll=42.729304,-84.556263&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>s)

MOC has retained legal counsel to represent us in this matter. We ask all who can to come out to show your support. This case can have huge implications on 2A rights.

TRO (http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/cadl_tro.pdf)

edited by northofnowhere to include additional HTML, dial up friendly link to TRO Here (http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/cadl).
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 17, 2011, 09:36:31 PM
WLNS (http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=14053227)
City Pulse (http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-5510-court-blocks-guns-temporarily.html)
CADL Press Release (http://cadl.org/news/TROPressRelease2-17-11.pdf)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DrScaryGuy on February 17, 2011, 10:09:23 PM
All MOC members and affiliates?
WTF did I do?  I've never even been there.
NOW I'm thinking about going up there to cause a fuss...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kryptonian on February 17, 2011, 10:09:45 PM
will throw out my disclaimers first - will not violate the order of course and wouldn't cause or stir up any negative attention towards MOC. I am a (recent) paid member. now some questions -
1) how would they know any OCers that go in there are MOC or affiliates? would they automatically violate MOC from the restraining order if a random OCer walked in? seems like a hater could just OC in there and get booted out to stab MOC. hope that doesn't happen.
2) what qualifies as an affiliate?
3) how was the order received?
4) what happens to MOC for a violation?

take 'em on guys. proud to be a member. you have my support.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 17, 2011, 10:21:17 PM
I like how the library admin guy is quoted as "need to provide a gun free and safe environment for the children"...    seriously....  how exactly is he going to make it "safe"?  What is to keep someone from waltzing in there and blowing everyone away, or blowing up 1/2 the building? (DISCLAIMER:  hypothetical only, of course no MOC is planning any type of reliation)  He is not keeping ANYONE safe...  it is an illusion.  Some people amaze me with their sheer stupidity.

Anyways, I'm sure that they have eyes in here just so you know.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 17, 2011, 10:21:40 PM
So now being a member of an organization can cause what is a lawful activity for a non-member to become an unlawful activity for that organizations members? So should we resign our memberships in mass in order to be able to participate in a lawful activity?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 17, 2011, 10:26:23 PM
will throw out my disclaimers first - will not violate the order of course and wouldn't cause or stir up any negative attention towards MOC. I am a (recent) paid member. now some questions -
1) how would they know any OCers that go in there are MOC or affiliates? would they automatically violate MOC from the restraining order if a random OCer walked in? seems like a hater could just OC in there and get booted out to stab MOC. hope that doesn't happen.
2) what qualifies as an affiliate?
3) how was the order received?
4) what happens to MOC for a violation?

take 'em on guys. proud to be a member. you have my support.

My guess is that "affiliate"  are those that post here as "regular members".
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on February 17, 2011, 10:31:56 PM
will throw out my disclaimers first - will not violate the order of course and wouldn't cause or stir up any negative attention towards MOC. I am a (recent) paid member. now some questions -
1) how would they know any OCers that go in there are MOC or affiliates? would they automatically violate MOC from the restraining order if a random OCer walked in? seems like a hater could just OC in there and get booted out to stab MOC. hope that doesn't happen.
2) what qualifies as an affiliate?
3) how was the order received?
4) what happens to MOC for a violation?

take 'em on guys. proud to be a member. you have my support.

My guess is that "affiliate"  are those that post here as "regular members".

That would be my none attorney assessment as well.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 17, 2011, 10:37:06 PM
will throw out my disclaimers first - will not violate the order of course and wouldn't cause or stir up any negative attention towards MOC. I am a (recent) paid member. now some questions -
1) how would they know any OCers that go in there are MOC or affiliates? would they automatically violate MOC from the restraining order if a random OCer walked in? seems like a hater could just OC in there and get booted out to stab MOC. hope that doesn't happen.
2) what qualifies as an affiliate?
3) how was the order received?
4) what happens to MOC for a violation?

take 'em on guys. proud to be a member. you have my support.

My guess is that "affiliate"  are those that post here as "regular members".

That would be my none attorney assessment as well.

And those that post on OCDO as well, as that forum has always been used as means to disseminate and coordinate.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: ocdetroit on February 17, 2011, 10:52:55 PM
What we will do is just wait an see what the lawyer says. The Judge is not following or upholding Michigan laws. That's why all our tax money going down the drain again. Our law makers work for us. Some, most of them need to get a pair. Carry On.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: emt805 on February 18, 2011, 04:59:16 AM
"Anyone carrying a weapon in to a CADL library will be asked to leave, and if they do not comply, local law enforcement will be called to enforce the Court’s order."

So they continue to enforce illegal laws rather than the legal ones? Makes alot of sense.

"One of the attorneys for CADL, Gary Bender, said that CADL’s goal is to maintain a safe, gun free zone for children and adults who frequent the Capital Area District Library system."

So because you teach your kids that firearms are bad does not mean that everyone does. When taught properly there is nothing to fear. What next banning cars from school parking lots because the kids walk around there? Or banning cars from crosswalks because that is where the children and adults frequent?

Looks like this Werner guy should be joining the unemployment lines since he has not done his homework, a head of a library with all kinds of access to laws and information infront of him.


Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 08:07:43 AM
"The restraining order was granted the same day an 18-year-old Lansing man attended a CADL meeting at the downtown Lansing location with a gun. Lansing police were called to the scene and determined the gun was an airsoft gun, which is like a BB gun, Lt. Noel Garcia said. The man was asked to leave and left without incident, Garcia said."   This was posted on Lansing State Journal dot com today 
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110218/NEWS01/302180002/Capital-Area-District-Library-gets-restraining-order-on-gun-carriers?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE[/URL
An AIRSOFT GUN!,  Anybody know if this is True or not?

Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: emt805 on February 18, 2011, 08:14:55 AM
Bender is completly ignoring the ferndale lawsuit and public buildings
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: sprinklerguy28 on February 18, 2011, 08:38:35 AM
Copy of TRO is in original post.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 09:06:54 AM
Bender is completly ignoring the ferndale lawsuit and public buildings

If you read the TRO, It looks like their argument will be that the CADL believes that they are an Authority,separate and distinct from any local
city or county. therefore excluding them from preemption.  So its a little different from the ferndale case. should be interesting.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: PDinDetroit on February 18, 2011, 09:32:01 AM
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 18, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
My favorite part is how they say "legislators meant what they meant" with regards to "local units of govt" but then allow themselves to expand upon what a "school" means...


But I gotta say, I don't like the looks of the tone this might set in general..


By their definition, ANY PLACE A SCHOOL SANCTIONED EVENT IS A PFZ.    Riiiiiight.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 18, 2011, 09:49:24 AM
Additionally, if they are in no way affiliated with the city of lansing or the county, then where do they get money?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: esq_stu on February 18, 2011, 10:22:00 AM
I would assume that a person discovered to be carrying in CADL facilities could potentially be hauled into court and face a citation for contempt. That person would then need to spend money on lawyers to establish that he is not affiliated in any way with MOC. In other words, I feel there is sufficient potential for an expensive hassle that I personally would, out of an abundance of caution, not carry there.

Another lawyer might feel differently. That's my two cents.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: PDinDetroit on February 18, 2011, 10:27:45 AM
Sounds like it is worth far more than that!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 11:45:43 AM
"The restraining order was granted the same day an 18-year-old Lansing man attended a CADL meeting at the downtown Lansing location with a gun. Lansing police were called to the scene and determined the gun was an airsoft gun, which is like a BB gun, Lt. Noel Garcia said. The man was asked to leave and left without incident, Garcia said."   This was posted on Lansing State Journal dot com today 
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110218/NEWS01/302180002/Capital-Area-District-Library-gets-restraining-order-on-gun-carriers?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE[/URL
An AIRSOFT GUN!,  Anybody know if this is True or not?

AN AIRSOFT GUN??? IF THIS IS NOT BEING AN ATTENTION WHORE THAT NOTHING IS. THERE IT IS THE PROOF THAT THIS LITTLE POS HAD NOTHING IN MIND BUT TO KEEP POKING THE BEE'S NEST. AND IN DOING SO GOT MANY A GOOD MAN TO FALL FOR HIS FOLLY. MOC COULD HAVE BEEN SPENDING MONEY ON LEGAL FEES GETTING CADL BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW INSTEAD OF DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST A TRO THAT WAS IMPOSED BECAUSE SOME LITTLE FREAKING BOY WANTED TO PLAY WITH HIS TOY GUNS IN THE LIBRARY.

I HAD BEEN WONDERING HOW IN THE WORLD HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF A PISTOL, SINCE HE HAD BEEN WHINING INCESSANTLY ABOUT HOW THE LANSING PD WAS NOT GIVING HIM A PERMIT TO PURCHASE. HERE'S THE REASON WHY HE IS NOT GETTING ONE... HE IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY. HE IS A SCOFFLAW. HE HAS ADMITTED OPENLY THAT HE IS A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE IN A SOUTHERN STATE.

IS THIS THE SAME AIRSOFT GUN THAT HE WAS BLATANTLY DISPLAYING AT HE MCDONALDS AFTER THE PONDEROSA INCIDENT?

AND WHO WAS IT THAT COORDINATED THAT DEBACLE??? HMMMM

AT LEAST THE CURRENT LEADERS OF MOC AREN'T TURNING TAIL AND RUNNING LIKE THE ONES THAT DID AFTER THAT MESS.

THANK YOU SPRINKLERGUY, SCOT623, RANDY K, ET AL FOR YOUR UNWAIVERING LEADERSHIP!!!

QUITTERS DON'T WIN AND WINNERS DON'T QUIT!!!

CAPS LOCK off




edit for spelling
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 18, 2011, 11:46:47 AM
I have no law background what so ever, but this sounds pretty dangerous for setting a precedence.....  Next thing you know all sorts of public buildings will be off limits.... parks.... all sorts of stuff.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 18, 2011, 11:48:21 AM
I wonder if that's the airsoft gun stolen from my house in a recent burglery?     >:(     What did it look like?  lol
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
I wonder if that's the airsoft gun stolen from my house in a recent burglery?     >:(     What did it look like?  lol

Apparently it looked like a Highpoint 9    (http://i50.tinypic.com/29qb0i8.jpg)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 01:23:49 PM
What did the one he was supplied with, at the Ponderosa Incident by an anonymous MOC leader, look like?

It seems that he was trying to "impress" the reporter by telling him it was Highpoint 9mm pistol. Apparently the Lansing PD was not so easily "impressed".
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 01:43:04 PM
What did the one he was supplied with, at the Ponderosa Incident by an anonymous MOC leader, look like?(It looked Silly,Thats what it looked like)  ;D

It seems that he was trying to "impress" the reporter by telling him it was Highpoint 9mm pistol. Apparently the Lansing PD was not so easily "impressed". (If he wanted to impress him,he should of said it was a Colt Delta Elite 10mm or someting like that.) he would have gained more street Cred. ::)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 18, 2011, 02:10:35 PM

Apparently it looked like a Highpoint 9    (http://i50.tinypic.com/29qb0i8.jpg)

Aww shoot..  mine was a beretta 9... 2 tone.      ;D




What did the one he was supplied with, at the Ponderosa Incident by an anonymous MOC leader, look like?(It looked Silly,Thats what it looked like)  ;D

It seems that he was trying to "impress" the reporter by telling him it was Highpoint 9mm pistol. Apparently the Lansing PD was not so easily "impressed". (If he wanted to impress him,he should of said it was a Colt Delta Elite 10mm or someting like that.) he would have gained more street Cred. ::)




Tacti-cool!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 02:12:32 PM
What did the one he was supplied with, at the Ponderosa Incident by an anonymous MOC leader, look like?(It looked Silly,Thats what it looked like)  ;D

It seems that he was trying to "impress" the reporter by telling him it was Highpoint 9mm pistol. Apparently the Lansing PD was not so easily "impressed". (If he wanted to impress him,he should of said it was a Colt Delta Elite 10mm or someting like that.) he would have gained more street Cred. ::)


Does this appear to be an airsoft?

(http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/f67c9b87.jpg)

This was an airsoft.

(http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/DSC_9779-1-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
Was this the original shotgun used?

(http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/7904a961.jpg)

Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 02:33:27 PM

Now I wonder if it was an airsoft shotgun that he had in the library in the first place.

(http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/e0b508ab.jpg)

I am going to propose that the name of the organization be changed to:

Michigan Airsoft Open Carry.

Why just limit the organization to promoting and defending the lawful carry of real guns?

The by-laws should be changed to include replicas of guns, airsoft guns, bb guns, and sticks shaped like guns.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 02:36:15 PM
[[/quote]
Now seriously, does this look like someone that would even know what a Colt Delta Elite 10mm even is? Never mind carrying one.
[/quote]

Well now that you mention it, He looks like a very sophisticated guy, I bet he has great taste in firearms (edited from original version per Mod)  (http://i56.tinypic.com/13z4841.jpg)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
(http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/th_ff08fb9a.jpg) (http://s512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/CV67PAT/?action=view&current=ff08fb9a.mp4)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on February 18, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
OK guys I am going to say this once and only once. NO more personal attacks on anyone.

I would also request that you each edit your posts so I don't have to.

Thank You
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 18, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
OK guys I am going to say this once and only once. NO more personal attacks on anyone.

I would also request that you each edit your posts so I don't have to.

Thank You

Personal references deleted, per your request.

Detroitbiker started it though. :P
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 18, 2011, 03:14:23 PM

Detroitbiker started it though. :P

Did not, You... You... Doo doo head    :'(
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: tech411 on February 18, 2011, 04:35:19 PM
It made its way to a national blog.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/02/18/lawsuit-against-michigan-open-carry/
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kubel on February 18, 2011, 05:03:39 PM
This won't be as clear and easy as the Ferndale ruling. This case will boil down to whether or not CADL's board is a local unit of government, and it's something they have a chance of winning.

If it's not, what would prevent any local unit of government from just establishing a separate 'authority' to make all its laws under? If we win this, it would be a major victory for liberty.
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 18, 2011, 05:15:21 PM

If it's not, what would prevent any local unit of government from just establishing a separate 'authority' to make all its laws under? If we win this, it would be a major victory for liberty.

+1 for LIBERTY, my second love.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kubel on February 18, 2011, 07:10:05 PM
CADL seems to have removed all recent press releases regarding open carry incidents. Does someone have these saved? I happen to remember one of them where they admitted they were a local unit of government.

EDIT: Found it. Looks like they took the press release down. But the text of the release has been preserved here:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?85689-MOC-Members-hassled-in-Capitol-Area-District-Library&p=1464976&viewfull=1#post1464976

Quote
LIBRARY REACTS TO GUN INCIDENTS: ENFORCEMENT OF LIBRARY GUN BAN IS FOR SAFETY OF ALL PATRONS
Since December 11, 2010, the Downtown Lansing location of the Capital Area District Library has been the site of regular visits by openly armed members of the group Michigan Open Carry (MOC). The MOC members have attempted to openly carry rifles and handguns in CADL’s Downtown Lansing library. “Carrying weapons is in direct violation of CADL’s Code of Conduct and is also causing a great deal of alarm and panic among staff and patrons” according to Lance Werner the Director of CADL. Most recently, a staff member was so terrified that she was unable to work and had to be removed from her shift at a public service desk.
CADL’s Code of Conduct states “All weapons are banned from Library premises to the fullest extent permitted by law”. Because the Capital Area District Library is an autonomous municipal entity under Michigan law, with policy making authority, the Board of Trustees has the ability to set policy that is legally enforceable. All public libraries have some type of Code of Conduct to ensure appropriate behavior and a safe environment for all visitors, adults and children. “CADL’s weapon’s policy will continue to be enforced unless the Board is otherwise instructed by a court of law” Werner said.
CADL contracts with Joseph A. Young & Associates to provide security services at our Downtown Lansing and South Lansing locations. In each instance where an openly armed member of MOC has visited the Downtown location, a security guard has asked the person to leave because carrying weapons in the library violates CADL’s Code of Conduct. Initially, these MOC visitors complied, but recently have refused to leave stating that they have the right to open carry in CADL locations. According to Werner, “At first, the Lansing Police Department was willing to help enforce CADL’s Code of Conduct with respect to the open carrying of firearms. Unfortunately, LPD stopped responding to CADL’s calls for assistance”.
As a result, CADL has had to solely rely on the expertise and willingness of security personnel from Joseph A. Young to manage conflicts arising from MOC armed visits. As a preventive measure, security guards are being placed with open carry visitors so as to avoid potential conflict with some of CADL’s patrons. One of the larger concerns is that patrons could misread a situation and attempt to disarm a gun carrying MOC visitor.
“It is very important to me that the safety of our customers and staff comes first” Werner said. “Sadly, the repeated attempts to violate CADL’s Code of Conduct by MOC members carrying weapons in to the library is making our goal of ‘safety first’ more costly for CADL” he added.
The Capital Area District Library system serves all of Ingham County with the exception of East Lansing. For more information, visit cadl.org.

EDIT: I was able to retrieve and save the original press release complete with their letter head.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Small_Arms_Collector on February 18, 2011, 07:42:44 PM
Three things:

First how would this affect members in terms of the 4473 question "Are you currently under a restraining order?"?

Second is anyone up for a peaceful picket of the Library?  Don't go in, or even cross on to their "property", just stand outside on the sidewalk maybe with signs, open carrying of course.  They think they can keep lawful carriers out, lets see how they feel about the entire sidewalk lined with people lawfully carrying so that anyone who goes in, or out will have to pass through the line, not to try to stop anyone, they can freely go in, and out, just as we can freely stand there, and let them, and everyone else see that we are not going away, maybe even bring the long guns out just to make a point.

Third what is their policy on knives?, what's to stop someone from rubbing their collective faces in it by say carrying a Sabre in?  OK maybe that's a little silly but these smarmy egotistical bastards are making me angry. >:(
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kubel on February 18, 2011, 08:31:21 PM
1) I had a similar question regarding the fact that we are (broadly) defined in a restraining order and thus could have implications on our CPL or gun purchases. But it's only temporary. It will be resolved in court one way or another.

2) A peaceful picket is up to you, you are of course free to do so. But I think our point is very well known. At this stage, it's most important now that the court takes our point. I think it's best to lay low for a while. I think the library has a good case suggesting they are an autonomous authority but I think we have a better case since their board is appointed by local governments, they are funded by local government tax money, they are in a building owned by a local government, and they provide a public service. Their other argument is it's a school, which is flawed since we can OC with a CPL. As long as the judge properly interprets the law, we will win.

3) Carrying a knife, like carrying a long gun, is probably 100% legal (and for the sake of liberty, I'm all for it), but its more difficult to argue practicality lugging around a long gun or a sword (and I'm not suggesting one would need a 'reason' anyway, but for whatever reason, people are typically more comfortable around a holstered pistol than a shouldered long gun). In other words, I feel you are free to do it and would support you, but others may not.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Michigander on February 18, 2011, 08:47:00 PM
This won't be as clear and easy as the Ferndale ruling. This case will boil down to whether or not CADL's board is a local unit of government, and it's something they have a chance of winning.

If it's not, what would prevent any local unit of government from just establishing a separate 'authority' to make all its laws under? If we win this, it would be a major victory for liberty.

What they are doing is trying to push the envelope for entities which are authorized at the state level, which they claim allows them to make up whatever rules they want as they go along, regardless of any other laws and protections. Much like I believe every last community college board in the entire state has done since the enactment of the community colleges act. This may very well bite them all in the ass.

This will certainly be the biggest gun rights case in the state since MCRGO took on Ferndale. It is simply unfortunate that it had to be a library which can play itself off as a mild mannered childrens environment/place of learning, vs us, now tainted as not so serious about self defense, rather just trying to carry there with toys and long guns to piss people off. As I said on OCDO, being painted as a bully towards libraries is one of the few things that will get almost any individual from any political spectrum to think you are a fool. May as well kill kittens for a sport. Not that we don't all have a certified right to be seen as obnoxious fools, but it certainly doesn't further our cause, and it certainly pisses me off. Professionalism is something that we all NEED to emphasize as we carry. (I do hope it's clear that I'm not slamming anyone who respectably carried a holstered and registered handgun to the library)

Looking back to the beginning, when we had the first meeting and everyone who heard about it, including our family and closest friends told us we would get arrested and that we were nuts, I am beyond grateful that MOC has evolved to have such well spoken reps, and these days enough of a support network to take this on. 3 years ago these reckless actions could have much more easily ended open carry, or otherwise devastated lawful carry in the state both through new laws and through court cases. Regardless of how this case turns out, I hope it will be an important lesson in how we conduct ourselves, and why.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 19, 2011, 12:33:46 AM
Three things:

First how would this affect members in terms of the 4473 question "Are you currently under a restraining order?"?

Second is anyone up for a peaceful picket of the Library?  Don't go in, or even cross on to their "property", just stand outside on the sidewalk maybe with signs, open carrying of course.  They think they can keep lawful carriers out, lets see how they feel about the entire sidewalk lined with people lawfully carrying so that anyone who goes in, or out will have to pass through the line, not to try to stop anyone, they can freely go in, and out, just as we can freely stand there, and let them, and everyone else see that we are not going away, maybe even bring the long guns out just to make a point.

Third what is their policy on knives?, what's to stop someone from rubbing their collective faces in it by say carrying a Sabre in?  OK maybe that's a little silly but these smarmy egotistical bastards are making me angry. >:(

I think that a peaceful picket at the library is a wonderful idea.

But shouldn't we follow the example set forth by the one that really got this off the ground and moving in the first place?

Let's all rally around him and open carry Airsoft guns just like he did!

That would really send a message to those egotistical bastards that we mean business and that we take Airsoft open carry serious.

Those people have got to be shown that we are not about to let them prevent us from carrying a toy gun anywhere that is lawful!!!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kryptonian on February 19, 2011, 01:14:36 AM
win or lose i think a legal precedent will be set. a win of course will shoot down individual entities from establishing seperation from 'unit of govt' and a loss could be a foothold against premption. this would then turn to case law and used by judges all over the state. fingers crossed on this one.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Small_Arms_Collector on February 19, 2011, 01:34:36 AM
Three things:

First how would this affect members in terms of the 4473 question "Are you currently under a restraining order?"?

Second is anyone up for a peaceful picket of the Library?  Don't go in, or even cross on to their "property", just stand outside on the sidewalk maybe with signs, open carrying of course.  They think they can keep lawful carriers out, lets see how they feel about the entire sidewalk lined with people lawfully carrying so that anyone who goes in, or out will have to pass through the line, not to try to stop anyone, they can freely go in, and out, just as we can freely stand there, and let them, and everyone else see that we are not going away, maybe even bring the long guns out just to make a point.

Third what is their policy on knives?, what's to stop someone from rubbing their collective faces in it by say carrying a Sabre in?  OK maybe that's a little silly but these smarmy egotistical bastards are making me angry. >:(

I think that a peaceful picket at the library is a wonderful idea.

But shouldn't we follow the example set forth by the one that really got this off the ground and moving in the first place?

Let's all rally around him and open carry Airsoft guns just like he did!

That would really send a message to those egotistical bastards that we mean business and that we take Airsoft open carry serious.

Those people have got to be shown that we are not about to let them prevent us from carrying a toy gun anywhere that is lawful!!!

?  What am I missing?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: emt805 on February 19, 2011, 05:25:00 AM
In the TRO they explain it as a public library, on page 6 and 7 items 34&35 they speak of being  a weapon free zone and school property listing MCL 750.237a. But as we all know
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. so a weapon free zone is not a true weapon free zone.

And really number 53? It is proven that legal carry is not to be feared but those that are criminals

#7 on the affidavit, I hate to tell you but OC of long guns is also legal.

#11 " a patron shouted at the man carrying a gun to," get the hell out of the library""
That to me sounds like a threat to those carrying legally and lawful

This pisses me off on the thing listed MCR 3.310(B)(1)(b)
"A. I did not notify Defendant or its members that we intended to request this Honorable Court for a restraining order to restrain Defendants from violating CADL's weapons Policy for the reasons that Plaintiff is fearful that notice will cause Defendants to harm CALD and public by accelerating its non-conforming activities."
When has MOC been shown to be violent for sticking up for our rights?

on the ex-parte emergency motion for TRO
#6 unless injunctice relief is granted preventing Defendant and its members from entering CADL's premises, CALD and its library patrons will face immediate and irreparable harm
How so? You should submit the letter about patrons threatening to not allow and cause harm to legal carriers entering the library

#12 Neither defendant nor the pblic interest  will be harmed by the granting of  injunctive relief
Not true it will create a criminal empowerment zone knowing that we cannot defend ourselves when needed.

#15 Think about the kids!!! So families cannot protect themselves? I have seen numberous reports about people being harmed and raped at public libraries.

Under facts of Brief un support of plaintiff's motion page they point out CADL is following MCL 397.182
(a) Establish, maintain, and operate a public library for the district.
(g) Enter into a contract to receive library-related service from or give library-related service to a library or a municipality within or without the district.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: smellslikemichigan on February 19, 2011, 07:13:08 AM
In the TRO they explain it as a public library, on page 6 and 7 items 34&35 they speak of being  a weapon free zone and school property listing MCL 750.237a. But as we all know
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. so a weapon free zone is not a true weapon free zone.

And really number 53? It is proven that legal carry is not to be feared but those that are criminals

#7 on the affidavit, I hate to tell you but OC of long guns is also legal.

#11 " a patron shouted at the man carrying a gun to," get the hell out of the library""
That to me sounds like a threat to those carrying legally and lawful

This pisses me off on the thing listed MCR 3.310(B)(1)(b)
"A. I did not notify Defendant or its members that we intended to request this Honorable Court for a restraining order to restrain Defendants from violating CADL's weapons Policy for the reasons that Plaintiff is fearful that notice will cause Defendants to harm CALD and public by accelerating its non-conforming activities."
When has MOC been shown to be violent for sticking up for our rights?

on the ex-parte emergency motion for TRO
#6 unless injunctice relief is granted preventing Defendant and its members from entering CADL's premises, CALD and its library patrons will face immediate and irreparable harm
How so? You should submit the letter about patrons threatening to not allow and cause harm to legal carriers entering the library

#12 Neither defendant nor the pblic interest  will be harmed by the granting of  injunctive relief
Not true it will create a criminal empowerment zone knowing that we cannot defend ourselves when needed.

#15 Think about the kids!!! So families cannot protect themselves? I have seen numberous reports about people being harmed and raped at public libraries.

Under facts of Brief un support of plaintiff's motion page they point out CADL is following MCL 397.182
(a) Establish, maintain, and operate a public library for the district.
(g) Enter into a contract to receive library-related service from or give library-related service to a library or a municipality within or without the district.

it's all about the non-conformance isn't it?  this reminds me of an old humorous saying... "the beatings will continue until moral improves"
they want to keep smacking us until we fall in line with the rest of the sheeple.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: northofnowhere on February 19, 2011, 07:52:30 AM
beating would be cruel and unusual punishment to improve moral, they should try water boarding, approved by the feds and everything.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheElk on February 19, 2011, 12:10:39 PM
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=14053227 (http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=14053227)
CADL Granted Restraining Order Against Michigan Open Carry

Excerpt:
Officials at the CADL say anyone carrying a weapon into the library will be asked to leave and if they do not comply law enforcement will be called. However, they say those people would be welcomed back to the library if they do not bring a weapon.

Their TRO says they are afraid that we are dangerous. Yet we are allowed back if we don't have a weapon? You would think they would be afraid of us concealing as well, if of course we are that dangerous. Ridiculous.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 19, 2011, 11:02:24 PM
Does anybody know if there is a sign on the doors at the CADL saying No Weapons,or No Firearms?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 19, 2011, 11:13:45 PM
Or no Airsoft gunz?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 19, 2011, 11:37:31 PM
Or no Airsoft gunz?
Hehe  ;D  Hey I saw in another thread that you were out looking for a new carry piece. Did ya find anything good?

I was working on mine earlier today,just waiting for the first coat of stain to dry before I can apply another.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 19, 2011, 11:48:56 PM
Or no Airsoft gunz?
Hehe  ;D  Hey I say in another thread that you were out looking for a new carry piece. Did ya find anything good?

I was working on mine earlier today,just waiting for the first coat of stain to dry before I can apply another.

No luck. Sprinklerguy was a smart alec and sent me down the street in the wrong direction.

I ended up at Home Depot and got some duct tape to make my new stainless.v2 drop leg holster. I'm going shopping at toys r us tomorrow with my granddaughter looking to see what they might have.

Are you using a urethane based stain or oil based on yours? Be careful. I read over on another forum that using a urethane based stain will void the warranty on some of the manufactured ones like yours. That's why I prefer to hand carve mine. I'll look for a link later for you.

This is the one I'm looking to get:

(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182780_1558711050978_1331311020_31227756_6141153_s.jpg)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 20, 2011, 12:22:20 AM
Are you using a urethane based stain or oil based on yours? Be careful. I read over on another forum that using a urethane based stain will void the warranty on some of the manufactured ones like yours. That's why I prefer to hand carve mine.

yeah I went with Oil, I read about the urethane problems on Blocktalk.com 

 heres the model I went with

 (http://i53.tinypic.com/317e3ox.jpg)





 ;D
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 20, 2011, 12:43:20 AM
Are you using a urethane based stain or oil based on yours? Be careful. I read over on another forum that using a urethane based stain will void the warranty on some of the manufactured ones like yours. That's why I prefer to hand carve mine.

yeah I went with Oil, I read about the urethane problems on Blocktalk.com 

 heres the model I went with

 (http://i53.tinypic.com/317e3ox.jpg)





 ;D

I like that a whole lot better than the one I was looking to get. It's got that modernistic cellulose fiber look. And the grain is nice and tight. I love the placement of the knot too. It accents it so well.

Do you think you could put together a group buy for all the members that want one. Maybe we could get a discount if we get enough interest.

Maybe we could even get them in time for the hearing on the TRO.

I'm pretty good with a can of krylon too. We could save a few bucks by not having to send them off for finishing to that shop that sprinklerguy used. That place is so anti-oc. I was there once. He's got a big sign on the front door that says "no loaded firearms allowed". He put it up just because some fellow exercising his rights had an accidental discharge, while showing off his gun, that destroyed the glass display case and almost killed the dog. What a scaredy cat. If you can't handle a few accidental discharges in your shop, you shouldn't be a gunsmith.

Sorry to get off topic.

In any case I want one of those if you can get a group buy together. Count me in. I'll just have to put off renewing my membership for a while.
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 20, 2011, 01:01:34 AM
Does anybody know if there is a sign on the doors at the CADL saying No Weapons,or No Firearms?

I can confirm there is NO signage about their weapons policy.

I have suggested in the past (To Denny) they consider adding one if they insist on enforcing their policy.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 20, 2011, 01:06:55 AM
Does anybody know if there is a sign on the doors at the CADL saying No Weapons,or No Firearms?

I can confirm there is NO signage about their weapons policy.

I have suggested in the past (To Denny) they consider adding one if they insist on enforcing their policy.

Huh?!?!?

You suggested that they put up a sign to enforce an unlawful policy?!?!?

That makes about as much sense as retreating just because Denny said so. Duh!
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 20, 2011, 01:10:49 AM

Huh?!?!?

You suggested that they put up a sign to enforce an unlawful policy?!?!?

That makes about as much sense as retreating just because Denny said so. Duh!

I'd like to see them forced to stick up an MOC Lawful Carry Welcome sticker as the results of a counter-suit...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 20, 2011, 01:23:58 AM

Huh?!?!?

You suggested that they put up a sign to enforce an unlawful policy?!?!?

That makes about as much sense as retreating just because Denny said so. Duh!

I'd like to see them forced to stick up an MOC Lawful Carry Welcome sticker as the results of a counter-suit...

Had you not retreated, you could have had that stipulated in your suit.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: DetroitBiker on February 20, 2011, 11:04:43 AM

That place is so anti-oc. I was there once. He's got a big sign on the front door that says "no loaded firearms allowed". He put it up just because some fellow exercising his rights had an accidental discharge, while showing off his gun, that destroyed the glass display case and almost killed the dog. What a scaredy cat. If you can't handle a few accidental discharges in your shop, you shouldn't be a gunsmith.

[/quote]

What!... Todd never heard about a desk pop before?  Every gun shop has a desk pop at least once a year.  That's just normal procedure,nothing to get worked up about. My last one  was like in sept.08    LOL ;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9tLrOHXH4&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 20, 2011, 11:37:46 AM


[/quote]

What!... Todd never heard about a desk pop before?  Every gun shop has a desk pop at least once a year.  That's just normal procedure,nothing to get worked up about. My last one  was like in sept.08    LOL ;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9tLrOHXH4&feature=player_embedded
[/quote]

I don't think that he's allowed to do desk pops there. The storefront used to be an ice cream parlor. Kidz used to go there and read comic books. So it's grandfathered in as a gun free school zone in accordance with title 11CADL42.3(c):

"In order to create the impression of a safe and friendly environment, similar to a living room, any property and/or properties that may have been or may be heretofore occupied, used,and frequented by children, or may sometime in the future may be occupied, used or frequented by children is hereby declared to be a gun free zone."

I'm not certain if that includes Airsoft guns though. Maybe someone will poke the bees nest for us so we can get a test case going.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on February 20, 2011, 12:49:48 PM
Just got back from my carpenter's shop. He was fabricating me a custom wooden gun like Detroitbiker's. He's got a Class VI Wooden Gun Manufacturer and Fabricator's license from BATF (Bureau of Airsoft and Toy Firearms).

He's got some excellemt bird's eye maple that he was showing me that would really look kool for a new open carry piece.

The subject of a group buy came up for MOC. That's when the problems started.

He says that he can't fab me anything all because I am a member of MOC and am thereby restricted because of the TRO.

He also told me that if I have a knife in one hand and a piece of wood in the other, I would be in violation of the BATF rules because of constructive possession.

This whole thing is having far reaching ramifications. I will be extra careful now. I have removed all cutting boards and toothpicks from my trailer. Just so there can't be any implication involving constructive possession until this whole CADL thing has blown over.

I guess we'll just have to wait until then to get that group buy going.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: northofnowhere on February 22, 2011, 01:23:06 PM
dial up friendly version of the TRO:

http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/cadl/
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: venator on February 22, 2011, 03:00:57 PM
"The restraining order was granted the same day an 18-year-old Lansing man attended a CADL meeting at the downtown Lansing location with a gun. Lansing police were called to the scene and determined the gun was an airsoft gun, which is like a BB gun, Lt. Noel Garcia said. The man was asked to leave and left without incident, Garcia said."   This was posted on Lansing State Journal dot com today 
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110218/NEWS01/302180002/Capital-Area-District-Library-gets-restraining-order-on-gun-carriers?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE[/URL
An AIRSOFT GUN!,  Anybody know if this is True or not?

AN AIRSOFT GUN???

It was not an air soft gun.  It was a lawfully registered firearm as fefined and required by state law.   It was registered some time ago and since that time the LDP has not issued him a PP for further firearms.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on February 22, 2011, 03:16:24 PM
Thank you for the information Ven.
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 23, 2011, 06:28:14 PM
From MOC VP: TRO hearing postponed until March 8. Time: TBD.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheElk on February 23, 2011, 08:40:03 PM
What a bunch of statist crap.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: northofnowhere on February 24, 2011, 07:28:53 AM
11 hour drive for me, glad I didn't decide to head down, as I had seriously given thought to it.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 24, 2011, 07:39:51 AM
Who makes the rules? (http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-5516-who-makes-the-rules.html)

New City Pulse Story
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: emt805 on February 24, 2011, 08:20:30 AM
Who makes the rules? (http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-5516-who-makes-the-rules.html)

New City Pulse Story

So they go back and forth one article says no firearms allowed the next saying cc is legal. This bender guy sounds as much of a flip flop as the cadl director.

Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero called Michigan Open Carry members’ protests of the library’s no-weapons policy “ridiculous.”

“If my kids were there, it doesn’t provide a great deal of comfort (to me),” he said of people openly carrying guns. “In fact, just the opposite. I find it hard to believe they are creating an atmosphere of safety.”

Bernero added: “I’d love to be able to legally prevent it,” acknowledging that the city can’t institute a ban on guns in public.[/Quote]

I'm glad I did not vote for him nor did he make it to governor
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on February 24, 2011, 10:20:09 AM
So is "tyler" someone that used to post here? 
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on February 24, 2011, 10:27:39 AM
So is "tyler" someone that used to post here?

He is.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Super Trucker on February 24, 2011, 12:44:09 PM


Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero called Michigan Open Carry members’ protests of the library’s no-weapons policy “ridiculous.”

“If my kids were there, it doesn’t provide a great deal of comfort (to me),” he said of people openly carrying guns. “In fact, just the opposite. I find it hard to believe they are creating an atmosphere of safety.”

Bernero added: “I’d love to be able to legally prevent it,” acknowledging that the city can’t institute a ban on guns in public.[/Quote]

[/quote]

I know this type of comment is a big part of the reasons I did not vote for this guy for Governor.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: scot623 on March 07, 2011, 06:21:10 PM
Amended complaint from CADL adding that OC is brandishing.

http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/cadlvsmocamended.pdf

MOC motion to dissolve TRO

http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/moc_motion_and_brief_to_dissolve_ex_tro_filed.pdf

MOC response to show cause

http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/moc_response_to_show_cause_final.pdf
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 07, 2011, 07:04:27 PM
Very good job counselors.

Some on my thoughts expressed quite eloquently.

The "Authority" can adopt as many rules and regulations that they wish. They in no way can supersede law.

And simple unfounded fear is not irreparable harm to the public.

And finally just who is MOC?

Sic 'em.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: scot623 on March 07, 2011, 07:28:05 PM
I'm a member of the NRA and MGO....where is the TRO against them?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on March 08, 2011, 11:00:47 AM
So today is the hearing, no?   What was the time?   Will there be a ruling today?   I think the responses sound pretty air tight..   
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on March 08, 2011, 11:11:18 AM
So today is the hearing, no?   What was the time?   Will there be a ruling today?   I think the responses sound pretty air tight..   

4:00 PM
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 08, 2011, 11:19:33 AM
I think I read on one of the other official MOC forums that it is at 4PM.

Kudos to the counselors for their stellar efforts.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on March 08, 2011, 11:58:40 AM
Are we still encouraged to attend?   I def. could be there...   
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on March 08, 2011, 02:03:55 PM
Are we still encouraged to attend?   I def. could be there...
Yes. Please dress professionally/business casual if possible.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 08, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
Are we still encouraged to attend?   I def. could be there...
Yes. Please dress professionally/business casual if possible.

Dress code now too?

Can I wear my empty holster?

For someone that doesn't like the government telling you what to do, you sure have a lot of rules.
Title: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on March 08, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
Are we still encouraged to attend?   I def. could be there...
Yes. Please dress professionally/business casual if possible.

Dress code now too?

Can I wear my empty holster?

For someone that doesn't like the government telling you what to do, you sure have a lot of rules.

It was a suggestion, not a rule.

NOTE personal attack removed
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 08, 2011, 02:35:42 PM
Are we still encouraged to attend?   I def. could be there...
Yes. Please dress professionally/business casual if possible.

Dress code now too?

Can I wear my empty holster?

For someone that doesn't like the government telling you what to do, you sure have a lot of rules.

It was a suggestion, not a rule. For you, Pat, you can wear an empty holster, a clown nose, and a big yellow clown suit as well as a sign on your back that say: kick me. I'd care less, it'd befit you.

Your personal attack is uncalled for. But not unexpected.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on March 08, 2011, 02:38:24 PM
I would appreciate it if you guys can take the rest of this discussion to PM 8) Thanks!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on March 08, 2011, 04:54:23 PM
Turned out I couldn't be there...   I missed lunch today, and Big John's was calling to me...  hehe...  Hope things are going well.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on March 09, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
Turned out I couldn't be there...   I missed lunch today, and Big John's was calling to me...  hehe...  Hope things are going well.

Things are not well at all.  Follow this link. (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87766-CADL-v-MOC-hearing-updates-3-8-2011)
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 09, 2011, 03:16:09 AM
Why is there a MOC forum if MOC business is posted on another forum? Northofnowhere says that he has a lot to handle outside of this forum. If it is not being utilized, why not free up his time to attend to more important matters and shut down the forum? There seems to be no need for it as long as ocdo is the prefered venue for discussion of MOC matters.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on March 09, 2011, 07:07:34 AM
I too would like to know why it was not posted first here and then linked elsewhere...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheElk on March 09, 2011, 08:06:37 AM
Yeah, I kept surfing the MOC website last night.  ... crickets...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: 13mile9 on March 09, 2011, 08:41:30 AM
Yes..I am bothered by this as well.  I have noticed over the past couple of months, that most of the voices that were frequent on this forum, were now being more active on other forums.  It has especially slowed down since this event took place back before Christmas.    And yes, the priority for posting the information from yesterday should have started here.   If folks have migrated to OCDO, then this one should be shut down.  I have to much time on my hands to sit around and monitor/read more than one or two forums.  I have a life...that is why I have refused to register with OCDO....looks like I need to now.

The posting of these circumstances to OCDO seems to have drawn the attention of others across the country.  That is one positive.   Proves that MOC is much more of a micro-sub-culture of another larger subculture.   ???
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on March 09, 2011, 09:44:37 AM
I see nothing wrong with posting in both places.... but it should be posted in both places at the same time.

The way I see it if it pertains to all OCers it should be posted on MOC, OCDO and MGO.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL on March 09, 2011, 10:51:11 AM
I too was pretty disappointed that I missed the discussion apparently... I checked here many times last night waiting for some news...     yup...     @----__@-_-------     Tumbleweeds.



I'm glad I didn't goto the courthouse... I would have been so pissed off at the judge for not following what the law says.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Beo on March 09, 2011, 02:39:56 PM
I was also disappointed that the news wasn't posted here sooner. I use MOC as my primary source of information on OC.

I think the MOC forums have slowed down because I joined. For some reason I have a tendency to clear a room when I come in.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 13, 2011, 12:56:18 AM
I see nothing wrong with posting in both places.... but it should be posted in both places at the same time.

The way I see it if it pertains to all OCers it should be posted on MOC, OCDO and MGO.

Maybe dissemination here with links to this site as opposed to linking from here to the information on another site. Understanding that this does affect gunowners throughout the state, it is still nonetheless CADL vs MOC.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: northofnowhere on March 13, 2011, 08:55:19 AM
I respect what the MOC Board does on a daily basis, the amount of workload and information they sift through constantly.  Even with that said I think they were very slow to post some information about what happened.  I think they are putting too much effort into crafting the perfect statement perhaps, while some other guy who knows parts of the story is posting it everywhere else, lol.  Getting information out to the membership, especially when we have so many making donations and becoming paid members, is extremely important in my eyes, and clearly others eyes as well.  I am confident this MOC Board is much more self evaluating, and will work through their small issues rather then make us bring them up every time there.

I make mistakes, a whole hell of a lot of them, just ask my wife.  I expect people to make mistakes, use bad judgment, and I think in this case all they did was misjudge how impatient we all are, as I was anxiously awaiting something in my in-box or on the forums all evening as well.  I was very disappointed I was unable to attend the hearing, but traveling is rough on ones budget.  I was also feeling quite homesick thinking I should be down there anyways, lol.  The Board will learn, as we all do.  If I didn't trust them to run the group I wouldn't stay on and put the work into the group as an IT Department member.  I honestly hope these guys tough it out more then their term, as they are all solid management for us, and we owe them much more praise then we give them.

-jason r.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: autosurgeon on March 13, 2011, 09:18:47 AM
Good post Jason!

Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on March 13, 2011, 03:05:22 PM


Good post autosurgeon!

Sent from my antique PC using hunt & peck.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: emt805 on May 25, 2011, 03:36:33 PM
Any news yet on todays event?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: smellslikemichigan on May 25, 2011, 05:05:03 PM
captured from twitter:

"MOC has lost it's case vs. CADL. According to the judge, preemption does not apply to "authorities". We must appeal this ruling."
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL 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.

Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: 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.

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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: METL 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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: scot623 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). 
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: fozzy71 on May 26, 2011, 09:43:01 PM
Day One: Aquilina states firearms preemption does nto apply to authorites created by the government units it does apply to.......
:o ???
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: wardog6t on May 28, 2011, 02:35:53 AM
Day One: Aquilina states firearms preemption does nto apply to authorites created by the government units it does apply to.......
:o ???

Hmmmm makes my wonder? How much did the person responsible for this whole fiasco donate to the cause?
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: 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...
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on May 28, 2011, 02:59:26 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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on May 28, 2011, 04:50:43 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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on May 28, 2011, 01:43:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: wardog6t on May 29, 2011, 12:24:50 PM
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!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on May 29, 2011, 01:18:58 PM


^
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: ocdetroit on May 29, 2011, 04:57:10 PM
WOW +1 Carry On. ;D
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: Greyh Seer 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.

Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: hamaneggs on February 07, 2012, 12:11:08 PM
Bump for Newbies!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 01:42:11 PM
Wow, so much anti-open carry attitude on an open carry website... :'(
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 03:52:00 PM
Wow, so much anti-open carry attitude on an open carry website... :'(

More like "anti-stupid" attitude.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 04:03:14 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.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 04:19:39 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.

No. It's not.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 04:25:26 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.

No. It's not.

Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 04:33:04 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.

No. It's not.

Yes, it is.

This is no lees about stupid than the stupid baiting of cops that some idiot did in a park in Tennessee.

Nothing more than being an attention whore. The Airsoft gun didn't garner the attention he desired, so he tried a shotgun. Just like the stupid attention whore in TN that didn't get the attention he desired with a S&W pistol, so he tried an ak-47 and subsequently got the attention he desired. But it all backfired when he lost his lawsuit.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: kwikrnu on June 25, 2012, 04:44:03 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.

No. It's not.

Yes, it is.

This is no lees about stupid than the stupid baiting of cops that some idiot did in a park in Tennessee.

Nothing more than being an attention whore. The Airsoft gun didn't garner the attention he desired, so he tried a shotgun. Just like the stupid attention whore in TN that didn't get the attention he desired with a S&W pistol, so he tried an ak-47 and subsequently got the attention he desired. But it all backfired when he lost his lawsuit.

I thought the carry of shotguns was off-topic? 

I simply open carried a handgun where it was lawful to carry and the lawsuit is alive and well and will be argued in the 6th circuit coa next month.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 04:50:35 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.

No. It's not.

Yes, it is.

This is no lees about stupid than the stupid baiting of cops that some idiot did in a park in Tennessee.

Nothing more than being an attention whore. The Airsoft gun didn't garner the attention he desired, so he tried a shotgun. Just like the stupid attention whore in TN that didn't get the attention he desired with a S&W pistol, so he tried an ak-47 and subsequently got the attention he desired. But it all backfired when he lost his lawsuit.

I thought the carry of shotguns was off-topic? 

I simply open carried a handgun where it was lawful to carry and the lawsuit is alive and well and will be argued in the 6th circuit coa next month.

That was YOU?!?!?

ROFLMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: TheQ on June 25, 2012, 05:06:45 PM

I thought the carry of shotguns was off-topic? 


It is.  The CADL suit was started not because of soemone carying a shotgun, but rather because CADL began ejecting people who were openly carrying holstered handguns.  This prompted the suit, not the shotgun incident.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: CV67PAT on June 25, 2012, 05:34:10 PM

I thought the carry of shotguns was off-topic? 


It is.  The CADL suit was started not because of soemone carying a shotgun, but rather because CADL began ejecting people who were openly carrying holstered handguns.  This prompted the suit, not the shotgun incident.

Regardless, the suit was brought against MOC. Therefore it is a subject for discussion, even if it involved an AT-4.
Title: Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Post by: yance on June 25, 2012, 06:42:16 PM

Regardless, the suit was brought against MOC. Therefore it is a subject for discussion, even if it involved an AT-4.

You never know when you'll need one!

Martial Law Training, St. Louis? Army Trains MP's To Drive Tanks On U.S. Streets - UPDATE 6/23/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkFloGtKuLs#noexternalembed-ws)