Michigan Court Of Appeals Slaps Down Secretary Of State's Polling Place Carry Ban Appeal

That was quite an expedited denial of an appeal.

The Detroit Free Press: Michigan Court of Appeals denies Benson appeal, says open carry at polls is legal

It's pretty clear her edict banning carry at the polls was improper  and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Michigan Law.

Not content to lose badly twice, AG Nasty Nessel and Secretary Benson are vowing to appeal this to the Michigan Supreme Court.

In short, who you vote for as a judge matters, as the panel here were all Republican justices, and yes, these days that matters.

About That Open Carry Ban At The Polls

The local police and sheriffs are not happy with Secretary of State Benson's edict on open carry at the polls.

The Detroit News Michigan police chiefs' leader: Open carry ban at polling places not based in law

The head of the group that represents 385 Michigan police chiefs warned Monday that officers won't be able to enforce Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's ban on openly carrying firearms at polling places on Election Day because the edict is not based in law.

Well, they're right, because it's not based in law.

Arguably, the local Sheriffs and police can't legally enforce it even if they wanted to as that would likely violate Michigan's law on local preemption:

MCL 23.1102 Regulation of pistols, other firearms, pneumatic guns, or ammunition.

  A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

See the issue - while it is not a local regulation, local units of government cannot enforce anything but state and federal laws regarding firearms, and the Sec State's edict is not a state or federal law.

Quite a conundrum for local law enforcement, neh?

 So of course the Attorney General then announced the Michigan State Police would enforce the ban if the locals will not:

 The Detroit News: Nessel: State police will enforce voting laws on Election Day if sheriffs won't

Nice of her to double down like that.

She's of course spinning this as a ban on voter intimidation, but there's been no incidents of open carriers intimidating voters as they go vote at the polls, and if such a thing actually happened, there are lots of existing laws to handle such incidents. 

This ban is simply a smack at likely Republican-leaning voters and a bit of extra-judicial gun control thrown in for good measure to appease her base and anger the Republican base.

No They're Not Gun Advocates, They're Morons

Let's see how to even begin describing this example of sheer stupidity, that was almost permanently corrected.

In order to "exercise their rights", a dipstick wearing a ski-mask and sunglasses, body armor, and carrying a rifle across the front of his chest, followed by his buddy also armed and in body armor carrying a camera enter the Dearborn Police station to complain about a traffic ticket.

Yes, really.

The Detroit Free Press: Gun advocates arrested carrying rifle into Dearborn police station

Of course people with complaints about the police typically enter a police station wearing masks with body armor on and carry a rifle in an aggressive manner, right? Well no, no they actually don't and therein lies the problem.

Do watch the video embedded in the article - dipstick Baker starts off stating

"We're going to file a complaint because we were illegally pulled over," Baker says on the video. "We felt a little afraid we were pulled over, so we figured we better protect ourselves."

In other words they dressed and acted in a manner where they knowingly provoked a confrontation at the station, and they sure got one.

It ended luckily enough for them, without either James Baker nor Brandon Vreeland getting shot but both are now facing a bounty of misdemeanor charges. Interestingly enough, they kill the video part way into it leaving only the audio, which makes one wonder what was on the video of the disruptive duo for that portion of the encounter.

Michigan Open Carry was quick and correct to state that they do not support these kinds of shenanigans. Actions like this are likely to get legislators to end open carry and hose law-abiding gun owners due to morons like these fellows.

Dude, Stay The Heck Off My Side

As Tam has often said, and it bears repeating, there's a difference between carrying a gun and carrying a gun at someone.

It's even worse when you're an obnoxious jerk while carrying a gun at someone. Make the someone you're being an obnoxious jerk to law enforcement officers, and you're really not helping our side. Not. At. All.

The Detroit Free Press: Video: Gun rights advocate, Oakland deputies clash

Take a moment and watch the videos. This guy isn't just going about his business and incidentally open carrying. Instead, he's going places to deliberately provoke confrontations, complete with a hostile attitude to very basic and innocent questions from law enforcement. Not exactly a good ambassador for firearms rights.

Open carriers who support this guy - what exactly is the image you're trying to convey - that 1. Law abiding people can carry firearms without the average bystander really needing to worry that they'll go loco, or 2. That open carriers are obnoxious jerks with anger issues that wander around LEO parking lots and can't even have a civil conversation with a deputy doing their job?

If you're trying to go with 1, and I really hope you are, this guy is going full-bore on option 2 and is not helping you, and he's setting carry rights, including open carry rights backwards rather than forwards.

Do you want Deputies seeing open carriers and thinking "No problem, probably just a normal law abiding citizen exercising his rights" (which the deputy likely supports), or do you want them thinking "Yeesh, another loud-mouthed wacko that could go off any minute, I better investigate the heck outta this guy?".

Do you want law enforcement officers coming forward to the firearms ignorant and media spoon-fed public that private citizens lawfully carrying firearms are not a threat, or do you want them to walk away with a mindset that will cause them to announce that civilian open carriers are whackers that can't be trusted with carrying a firearm and may be a threat to law enforcement and the public?

If you open carry, you have an opportunity to portray yourself as an upright and law-abiding citizen and act as an ambassador for firearms rights.

While you have every right to be an obnoxious jerk on your own time, don't do it while carrying a firearm. It's not only really not helping advance your own rights (and potentially may lead you into legal trouble) but it's threatening every other law abiding person's firearms rights as well.

Choose and act wisely and responsibly.

Royal Oak / Arts Beats and Eats Festival Contract seeks to prohibit weapons

In the Detroit Free Press: Gun advocates take aim at Arts, Beats & Eats

A contract clause banning guns at a popular Detroit-area summer arts festival has drawn fire from gun advocates aiming to have it amended.

Police Chief Chris Jahnke said the contract between Royal Oak's inaugural Arts, Beats & Eats festival and the city about 10 miles north-northwest of Detroit prohibits weapons at the event.

But open-carry proponents told the City Commission Monday night that state law and the Second Amendment allow a person who is licensed to carry a holstered firearm that's within plain sight. They want the contract amended before the Labor Day weekend event begins.

Organizer Jon Witz said festival officials were open to contract revisions.

Now in its 13th year, the festival was previously held in nearby Pontiac.

Unfortunately, the article is a stellar example of a lack of clarity. Who drafted the contract with the clause in it? The City of Royal Oak or AB&E Organizers?

The clause is unenforceable by Royal Oak Police as the festival is taking place on public streets and it is pretty clear that Michigan state law pre-empts a municpality from regulating firearms in such a manner.

MCL 123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

So that pretty much rules out such a ban at least as far as firearms go on the public streets of Royal Oak.

The second bit of strangeness in the article is the statement

But open-carry proponents told the City Commission Monday night that state law and the Second Amendment allow a person who is licensed to carry a holstered firearm that's within plain sight.

There is no license required or indeed issued for someone to carry a pistol in plain sight as open carry, while not the smartest thing to do and a course of action not without its own leagl traps and pitfalls, is legal in Michigan with no permit required.

Of course, as soon as you step into a vehicle or cover the firearm in any way you then need a concealed pistol license.

In short, it doesn't look like this contract term could be legally enforced by Royal Oak Police on the public streets of Royal Oak.

However, it could be enforced by the organizers of the festival on private property such as if they were renting a restaurant or building for the events and posted a notice that carrying a weapon is prohibited in such a venue.

Then, it would be a violation of the property owners or organizers terms for entry onto the premises and would be a misdemeanor trespass and the police could certainly enforce a tresspass charge.

My bet - the contract gets amended as it is probably an outdated clause on a form and the parties will revise it to properly reflect Michigan law.