Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Open Carry in Schools Case

Ammoland ^ | 11 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Michigan law protects the right of people with carry permits to openly carry guns in schools. The law also preempts local government entities from creating local laws and regulations that violate the state laws.

People with carry permits are more law abiding than police officers. They make schools more safe, not less safe. Some school officials are perfectly willing to have law enforcement officers openly carry in schools, but not parents with carry permits. From foxonline.com:

“Obviously, we don’t believe that individuals should open carry in our school unless they are uniformed officers of law enforcement,” says Fletcher Spears III, Superintendent of Clio Public Schools. “But the bigger issue behind this is the ability of school districts to create their own rules within the law.”

Gun advocates say that goes against their rights and state laws.

“State law allows people to lawfully possess fire arms at schools, says Tom Lambert, President of Michigan Open Carry.

Michigan Open Carry is the group suing Clio Schools for their right to openly carry on school property. It’s an issue that’s been making its way through the court system for years.

“The truth is we’ve had open carry in our schools for a long time. In our case the trial court originally ruled in our favor. Until the court of appeals ruled against us, there were many schools in the state that allowed open carry.”

Notice how Fletcher Spears III, starts his argument:

[marktwain]

People with Concealed Pistol Licenses in Michigan have a homicide rate lower than police officers.

[Reno89519]

The difference is open and concealed. Concealed, yes, always. But open carry, why? I'm not opposed to it per say, and could see doing so if I were to go to the school and present on gun safety, but otherwise, I think this is more of a political, in-your-face statement, than anything else. Concealed carry by anyone lawfully allowed to should be allowed, always and anywhere. Where there are places restricting it, they should be required to provide onsite security and appropriate check-in and storage of those weapons.

A bit off topic, but last week the Reno Aces baseball park banned and wands people from taking guns into the park. Fine, but doesn't address outside the part. The park should have means for people to go to the park securely, then check in and store the gun while there, so long as there is onsite security. But, since the park does not provide security outside the park, to and from it, they need to allow and provide for that. Else, provide secure parking lot so that visitors can store gun in car and never be outside their own or the park's immediate, live protection.

[ferret_airlift]

Because in Michigan if you have a cpl you can legally open carry in a school but not conceal carry

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[gibsonguy]

I agree. Open carry is a bit much in my view. Yes, technically is should be legal but in most situations it’s kinda of vulgar. It just freaks people out. Conceal fine but open carry just tends to be unnecessarily disruptive.

[blu]

But my grandkids’ schools prefer that I conceal,. Why would I want to draw attention and quite probably scare some kids,? I mean yeah some of them know whose granny I am but not all,,,.

I’m going through have to ch fo this out,..
Uhm, yeah. The back of my CPL says no carry in schools. More research (and on topic-I think it would be beyond stupid to open catty in a school)

[blu]

Ok, I found the deets.

Here is something I didn’t know. I think because my head is all about concealed and not printing and the right holster with the right dress I did not know....

MICHIGAN IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE!! Know why? Because we don’t have a law prohibiting it...and I guess I did know that from all the phone calls to the prosecutor about Joe Blow carrying his AK around in his yard and not behaving in a threating manner so no, we don’t need to involve the police. Duh!

And there’s this: “That’s right: While it’s not legal for someone to carry a concealed weapon inside a school in Michigan, the law does not prohibit a person who has a concealed pistol license (CPL) to carry a weapon out in the open inside a school. That means if you have a license to carry a concealed pistol you may carry it on your hip into a school, but it has to be in plain sight. “ (fromclickonDetroit).

But on the back of our CPLs, it clearly states that we are not allowed to conceal in a school, or about 8 other places. Whoops, I was supposed to get my priest’s permission to carry to church? Are you kidding me? That guy hears my confession, he wouldn’t go for that!!

I do not like this article. Not enough detail. Too much research.

[Blue Jays]

"...open carry..."

---

I can see the practicality of open carry if hiking in remote/desolate high areas of the Rocky Mountains or in Alaska someplace.
As for the rest of the time in typical spots and locales, who wishes to sacrifice the clear advantages of concealed carry?

[Hugh the Scot]

I disagree with you. I can’t think of any advantage in making your access to your weapon more difficult. I’m not stealthy. I have mine on me, and you can see it.

Having heard all of the fantasy scenarios where Mr bad guy shoots the fellow with the gun first, it’s been my experience that he’s quite respectful and just goes looking for a softer target.

[Lurker]

“But open carry, why?”

Because it’s a Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Right. That’s why.

“I think this is more of a political, in-your-face statement, than anything else.”

You’re damned right it is. If you’re too squeamish to fight just say so. Then sit the **** down, shut the **** up, and let better men and women than you carry your load.

L

[Blue Jays]

"...making your access to your weapon more difficult..."

---

Fair enough and a reasonable point.
My position is there can be scenarios where the lawful gunowner simply does not wish to be engaged or become involved.

Everyone has their viewpoint and it’s a free country.
In the example of a school, my thought is an armed teacher who keeps it meticulously covered maintains an advantage.

[Hugh the Scot]

Within the confines of that scenario, I’d agree.

[offduty]

As a retired LEO who lives in Michigan and serves on a school board, I can see both sides of the issue.

While concealed carry may be better tactically, the presence of open carry sends a clear and direct message that someone in the school is armed and may deter someone from carrying out a threat to a school.

We travel to Florida on a regular basis and stop at a little country store in south Georgia. Every time we stop, there is a lady in her mid-40’s that carries a very nice .380 on her hip. The holster looks pretty supple as if the weapon has been in and out of it numerous times. The first time I saw her, it gave me pause and I’ve been carrying most of my adult life. Her message was clear and unmistakable. While I’m sure it is quite possible someone MAY wish to challenge her, I bet the perp would rather drive down the road a little further and go for a softer target.

I can see that same deterrent happening in a school setting.

Also, I believe arming selective staff would be a DEFENSIVE position. The intent being the weapon would be used defensively and not for a staff member to become pseudo-law enforcement and seek out an active shooter. That’s where training and experience become invaluable.

Our district is still looking at formulating policy and the jury is still out. One thing for sure, if the Michigan Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the lower court and Ann Arbor and Clio school boards prevail, the rest of the state won’t have to worry about active shooters. The nuts will all gravitate to those two school districts as they can be assured there will be no guns on campus.

[Blue Jays]

We are absolutely reading from the same sheet of music!
Like you shared, I similarly see advatages/disadvantages to each approach.

[William Tell]

"The intent being the weapon would be used defensively and not for a staff member to become pseudo-law enforcement and seek out an active shooter. "

What kind of a nation have we become that we would discourage a well-meaning school staff member from seeking out and confronting a shooter who might otherwise kill 17 innocent students during the several minutes that law-enforcement might spend establishing a perimeter?

There's a reason that mass shootings rarely happen in police stations, banks, jewelry stores, and gun shows.

[trebb]

I usually cover up when inside establishments but often carry openly - I try to get folks used to the idea of armed citizens roaming around and not committing mayhem....

[Hot Tabasco]

I think it was 2001 when Michigan became a “shall issue” state but in return, the school gun free zones were created. Prior to that, a close friend who was a middle school vice principal as well as a number of other teachers always carried concealed weapons in the school.

[offduty]

A lot of the school shootings started in a common area and progressed into classrooms. My thoughts on this are two-fold. First, there is the issue of having an armed teacher leave a classroom in order to find a shooter. Teachers are not trained for this high stress situation. IF they confront a shooter then fine, but to leave a classroom to go looking for someone leaves the classroom vulnerable.

Second, you have the issue of the responding crews who now have to differentiate between who is the good guy with the gun and who is the bad guy. If you’ve ever been to a police range after annual qualifications you’ll know that a lot of the troops aren’t exactly Annie Oakley’s. You only have to see the skip traces and shot up A-pillars to know that most street crews don’t shoot enough and some are barely proficient.

Lastly, and unfortunately a sign of the times (PC) it may make it easier to make the case TO arm staff. And I am only talking about classroom instructional staff. Administrators, custodial, and support staff who normally roam the building could be armed as well. They could be the buildings “first-responders”.

As long as schools operate under the delusion that posting a sign proclaiming the building to be a “gun-free zone” these incidents will continue. And why not? What better to shoot up than a building/campus that proclaims itself to be gun-free.

And frankly, mass shootings don’t occur in “police stations, bank, jewelry stores, and gun shows” because the perp involved in these school shootings are usually deranged kids looking to get revenge rather than confrontation.

Banks and jewelry stores still get held-up on almost a daily basis, the perp in these incidents usually wants to get away with the goods rather than make a statement. No “Dog Day Afternoon” scenarios there. There is nothing of value in a police station that isn’t secured in either the armory or property room. And if robbery is the motive, you can hit a gun show during set-up or tear-down. So while I appreciate your analogy, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

One last comment.....and I understand where you’re coming from. “What kind of country have we become...” Unfortunately, this country no longer values hard-work, individualism, and American exceptionalism. If some were to have their way, they would trade borders for voters (power). Have cradle to grave government intervention, and take from the haves to fund the have-nots.

This is true of BOTH political parties. The people we sent to run our government are only looking to line their pockets. The Dems want power and don’t care how they achieve it, the Republicans don’t have a spine and refuse to make the difficult decisions this country needs to stop the slide.

I look back to the 60’s as the watershed for America. The “Great Society” was nothing more than an attempt to establish dependence on government for an entire race. It was designed to break-up the minority family by its insistence that government assistance was predicated on a single mom head of household. It awarded having kids out of wedlock by increasing monthly payments for each new arrival. The incentive to work was destroyed. Why work when you can get government assistance for food, housing, utilities and other necessities of life.

The removal of God, the Creator, from our schools and the new god of government was established and celebrated. Religious tolerance meant embracing everything other than the Judeo-Christian beliefs this country was founded on.

The military was looked down upon. Only those not smart enough to evade the draft were in the military. War strategy was formulated not on tactics, but by politics and polls. Commanders hands were tied by what Walter Cronkite and other liberal commentators reported on the nightly news.

We are now reaping what we sowed half a century ago. If we continue down this path we will surely lose this great land, which is why Trump is so vilified. For all his faults, and there are many, it appears he doesn’t prescribe to the political correctness that has overwhelmed America. Maybe those in Washington should take notice that the average American is more likely to identify with him than the Hollywood elite types.

Stepping down from the soapbox....