The Court of Appeals decision in Michigan Gun Owners v Ann Arbor Public Schools upheld the Ann Arbor Public School's position that it can prohibit people from carrying firearms even as state law specifically states people with concealed carry permits may open carry (only no concealed carry with the concealed carry permit mind you) in schools.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, without any irony whatsoever, was able to declare it the law inapplicable as they determined, with a straight face no less, that a local school district was not a local unit of government, unlike a library district in a previous case which had been found to be a local unit of government. This of course is an awfully outcome-determinative decision considering all those elections for school boards, and the rules and regulations they promulgate, not to mention the public funding for them.
The Court also determined, likely with a nod and a wink, that the law exhaustively allowing such did not specifically and entirely preempt the field of firearms regulation prohibiting the school district from banning carry in compliance with state law.
We'll see if this gets appealed to the State's Supreme Court as the Supreme Court tends to be less anti-gun than our Court of Appeals.
Or better yet, would the Republicans please send another bill to Snyder to get rid of the no carry zones and amend the law to say pistols may be carried concealed with a concealed permit in schools rather than the current stupid mix of only being able to carry openly with a concealed permit in schools and other listed places? That would likely get rid of the pearl-clutching craziness as if the Lefties don't see the pistols they won't be alarmed by it, and there won't be people out trolling and trying to cause them to become so alarmed so that we get to this situation in the first place.
3 comments:
I also live in MI, here on the lake. It has always made me scratch my head as well, when looking at the gun laws, and seeing this one. Seems almost as weird as the knife laws. If I understand them correctly, you can carry pretty much any legal knife, no daggers, dirks, switchblades, etc., as long as you are not doing so with the intent of using it to harm someone. How do they determine if you are intent on harming someone? Seems a little sci fi or something that is purposefully broad as to allow the courts the ability to control people that they want to control.
pigpen51: This weirdness of only being able to open carry with a concealed permit in an otherwise no carry zone is due to historical overlay of the laws. First open carry was ok except for specified zones. It also used to be only special people could get a carry permit and they could carry concealed anywhere, including in those zones or indeed if they had the permit they could open carry in those zones. Then when we went shall issue, the zones became no carry zones for all concealed carriers but the open carry with a concealed permit remained. The knife laws are also weird as you noted - switchblades, daggers, dirks are specifically banned, as are double edged knives and hunting knives. Hunting knives can be opened carried but only while hunting, then we have the larger than 3 inches is ok if you don't have intent bit which does cause lots of confusion. Generally for intent they ask someone why they're carrying it and often people will talk themselves into a conviction by saying what their intent is.
How do they decide what constitutes a hunting knife and what is simply a fixed blade knife? For example, I have a Mora knife, with a blade of around 4 inches. Fixed blade, full sheath, but is it a hunting knife, an all around field knife used for all manner of cutting chores, or what? As it is, I used to carry about 4 different knives, of various types, for different purposes. I have scaled back, but still have " more than one". I am guessing, which I know can get you into trouble, that most of this all depends upon the prosecutor and his discretion.
Post a Comment