Author Topic: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.  (Read 31191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sprinklerguy28

  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Webb Tactical
Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« 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

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

edited by northofnowhere to include additional HTML, dial up friendly link to TRO Here.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 01:22:35 PM by northofnowhere »

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
  • Karma: +591/-37
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline DrScaryGuy

  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Ironically named
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #2 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...

Offline kryptonian

  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: +2/-3
  • First Name (Displayed): dave
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #3 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.
i don't fear the barking dog...i'm scared of the quiet dog

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +14/-2
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #4 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.

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #5 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?
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #6 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".
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline autosurgeon

  • MOC Treasurer
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +28/-43
  • First Name (Displayed): Ryan
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #7 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.
Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #8 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.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline ocdetroit

  • Posts: 462
  • Karma: +0/-31
  • STAY STRONG (WE THE PEOPLE).
  • First Name (Displayed): THE BIG O
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #9 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.
Open carry in Detroit
With both of them.

Offline emt805

  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #10 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.



Offline DetroitBiker

  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #11 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?

« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 08:09:46 AM by DetroitBiker »

Offline emt805

  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2011, 08:14:55 AM »
Bender is completly ignoring the ferndale lawsuit and public buildings

Offline sprinklerguy28

  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Webb Tactical
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2011, 08:38:35 AM »
Copy of TRO is in original post.

Offline DetroitBiker

  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #14 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.

Offline PDinDetroit

  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #15 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). 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).  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) 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).  The only minor "gotcha" here may be 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...

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +14/-2
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #16 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.

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +14/-2
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #17 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?

Offline esq_stu

  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #18 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.

Offline PDinDetroit

  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Temporary Restraining Order-CADL v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2011, 10:27:45 AM »
Sounds like it is worth far more than that!