76shuvlinoff
Member
Agreed and right now Snyder is going to see cc-ing in a school as incomprehensible to his supporters. I would think he would see signing this as bad PR and it's all about the PR with a professional politician.
.02
Cc about to be legal in pfz's in michigan!!!
- Thread starter ezkl2230
- Start date
- Status
Agreed and right now Snyder is going to see cc-ing in a school as incomprehensible to his supporters. I would think he would see signing this as bad PR and it's all about the PR with a professional politician.
.02
smalls
Member
I'm fine with him not signing it. I don't like what the bill turned into. If he really doesn't sign it, and it is because of the Connecticut school shootings, then I don't agree with his reasoning. He also needs to realize that a ton of people are going to open carry into schools in protest, and he won't like that either.
Kaeto
Member
No gun signs for private property would have the same force of law that they do now. The Trespass Law. If you carry a gun on private property that is posted no guns you are trespassing plain and simple, the new bill doesn't change that. It simply states that the new bill doesn't prohibit private property owners from posting no gun signs.
smalls
Member
No, currently they must tell us to leave, and refusal would result in a trespass charge.
It's my understanding that the bill would cause it to be an automatic trespass charge if you are caught.
It's my understanding that the bill would cause it to be an automatic trespass charge if you are caught.
Kaeto
Member
This is from the SB59 H-4:
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNER FROM PROHIBITING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM CARRYING A PISTOL,
INCLUDING A PISTOL THAT IS OPENLY 1 DISPLAYED OR CARRIED IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (13), ON THE PREMISES OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1), AND ENFORCING THAT PROHIBITION UNDER SECTION 552 OF THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.552.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552. (1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by
the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the
owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without
the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary
element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process
of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951;¾Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNER FROM PROHIBITING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM CARRYING A PISTOL,
INCLUDING A PISTOL THAT IS OPENLY 1 DISPLAYED OR CARRIED IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (13), ON THE PREMISES OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1), AND ENFORCING THAT PROHIBITION UNDER SECTION 552 OF THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.552.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552. (1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by
the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the
owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without
the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary
element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process
of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951;¾Am. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008.
smalls
Member
Nowhere does it say businesses or other properties.
Kaeto
Member
Sec. 552. (1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
I think a sign qualifies as notice you are forbidden. And premises includes a buisness.
smalls
Member
Any sources of that interpretation meaning a sign?
Kaeto
Member
I'd say a sign saying no guns constitutes being forbidden under trespass law.
smalls
Member
Unless someone can show me an interpretation, case law or otherwise, I respectfully disagree.
Kaeto
Member
Enjoy your handcuffs after you trespass. And don't do it in Tenn. There if you go past a no trespassing sign the property owner is legally allowed to shoot you.
smalls
Member
If signs held force of law, it would have read "fenced or posted property", like section C states about farm property.
They also would not have had to state
They also would not have had to state
Because you would have already been trespassing. Whether you remain trespassing is irrelevant, you would have already committed the crime.
rodinal220
Member
CCW is big business now. Lots of folks making a living at it or good side money.This is what happens when you let the govt excessively regulate a right and treat it like a drivers license.You do not need a permit or license to carry a weapon.Gun laws have to be one of the most insane areas in law,they often defy all logic and reasoning.
You can have a concealed handgun,but if its carried openly you are now a criminal???Stupid and illogical.
You can have a concealed handgun,but if its carried openly you are now a criminal???Stupid and illogical.
smalls
Member
What?
USAF_Vet
Member
Open Carry without a license is still lawful in Michigan. The only places it was unlawful to open carry without a license are still unlawful to open carry without a license.
USAF_Vet
Member
Snyder vetoed it
Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59...
Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/governor-snyder-will-veto-concealed-weapons-expansion-121812
Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/governor-snyder-will-veto-concealed-weapons-expansion-121812
smalls
Member
Not surprised.
But, I'm actually glad he vetoed it. I was NOT happy about what the bill became.
But, I'm actually glad he vetoed it. I was NOT happy about what the bill became.
- Status
