I think MI law allows for CC by teachers already. Do you agree?

[bsf]

So, earlier today I was talking to a guy about some self defense related issues, and when I got home I double-checked some laws. It seems I was wrong in what I told him concerning Castle Doctrine and home invasion. I contacted the guy and told him so, but it still sucks to find I was acting the clichéd idiot know-it-all. However, it prompted me to reread some laws as a refresher.

I was re-reading 28.425o. Pay particular close attention to the red text.

28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation.

Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, “school” and “school property” mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.
(c) A sports arena or stadium.
(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that “This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons”. The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but shall not be required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL
436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.
(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.
(g) A hospital.
(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.

bla bla .................................

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
bla bla............................
(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity…………………………bla bla

So, according to Subsection 4b, as I understand it, gun free zones are not gun free for any gun free zone employee if the employer specifies that security and carrying are part of the job and the employee has a CPL. That being the case, why is David Agema’s HB 5162 (CC for teachers in schools) even needed? As far as I can tell, if school administrators wanted armed teachers they could do it right now. Am I missing something? Has the MEA effectively closed this route contractually?

 

[Car Knocker]

Sounds to me like an exemption for a person who's primary duty is providing security services.

 

[Sunray]

Teachers aren't there to provide security. Nor are school administrators the empolyer. In any case, it seems to me your Federal law disallows CCW in a school.

 

[bsf]

Teachers aren't there to provide security. Nor are school administrators the empolyer. In any case, it seems to me your Federal law disallows CCW in a school.

I am uncertain of your point when you say “Teachers aren’t there to provide security”. Are you saying you believe they should not be allowed armed, or that their contracts do not specify providing security as a job requirement? If you are saying teachers should not be allowed armed, please stay out of my thread and do not pester me about something that does not affect your province, or even your country.

Good point on who the "employer" is. Who is the employer? Does it differ between public and private schools?

Concerning US code of Law, read.

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 § 922. Unlawful acts (q) (2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

 

[Robert Hairless]

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

I don't mean to hijack your thread but Subparagraph (A) caught my eye and raises a question. My assumption is that a great many firearms moved in a school zone before that law was passed. Many military firearms, for example, were used in battles that moved in schools. Law enforcement officers called into situations like Virginia Tech or Columbine had firearms that moved in schools too. Of course every firearm at the Colorado School and other gunsmithing courses have moved in a school.

If a gunowner believes he has one of those firearms has he violated that law? Is there an indelible taint on firearms that have moved in schools at some time in their life?

I like this idea. We have "Gun Free School Zones." Why shouldn't we have "School Free Gun Zones" too.

 

[Sheldon J]

This is like the "Black Powder gun" issue, it is stated in MI law that they are not regulated but a previous AG decided otherwise, and we fought for a very long time to get a reversal on that point. One decision by Mike could fix this with out needing to pass additional legislation, all it takes is a legal type the ask it correctly.

 

[Barbara]

The problem with AG rulings is that they're only as good as the AG at the time..just like Cox is re-interpreting a lot of things Kelly did, doesn't mean the next person won't do the same thing.

Cox also doesn't seem inclined to do much on the silencer/SBR issue right now..despite asking for support from gun owners in '06.

 

[Geno]

Re: the silencers, isn't there a provision that so long as the local sheriff will sign off, you can buy one with a tax stamp? Of course, during the last election the Jokeland (ooops...Oakland) Co. sheriff was expressing that he had no intention of signing such waivers and then have that come back to haunt him in the election. Sad state of affairs when our Constituional rights become politicized. Doubtful that will change anytime soon.

 

[Barbara]

Nope, not in Michigan.

Sort of, anyway.

As far as I know, its the same situation we had with full auto stuff..there was an earlier interpretation of the law that banned both and SBRs..Cox released a new opinion on full autos, saying the law was in line with the NFA, but he didn't include silencers and SBRs in that opinion. There's at least two seperate requests to him for a ruling on the others but so far, in nearly two years, no decision has been given. Last time I purued it, last year, we were told it wasn't a high priority with the AG's office..oddly, that was after the election where Cox courted gun voters. Guess I should get an update.

 

[Barbara]

As far as the teacher thing, I know a lot of attorneys who have read that law and do not believe teachers are included. I can put you in touch with them, if you'd like..in fact, I know we have one or two Michigan attorneys who read this board and may weigh in.

 

[bsf]

As far as the teacher thing, I know a lot of attorneys who have read that law and do not believe teachers are included. I can put you in touch with them, if you'd like..in fact, I know we have one or two Michigan attorneys who read this board and may weigh in.

If they chime in, fine. It is not important enough to me to contact them directly and bother them w/ my questions, though.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Actually, read the law closer. You can open carry rather than conceal carry with a CPL to legally possess on school grounds.

 

[bsf]

Actually, read the law closer. You can open carry rather than conceal carry with a CPL to legally possess on school grounds.

I do not understand your statement.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Well, the question is whether or not CC is allowed in schools with a CPL.

The answer is no.

I offered an alternative. The only problem with using the alternative is that it's guaranteed to be a huge political issue in the next Legislative session.

 

[halfacop]

....... You can open carry rather than conceal carry with a CPL to legally possess on school grounds.

Show me a "open Carry" on school grounds and I'll show you a city, county, state wide response from the Police to your location!

You could force that hand - but I bet "someone" will trump that with the "disturbing the peace" card.

It would be a huge and costly headache to attempt such manuvers outside of your vehicle while on school grounds.

 

[Bezoar]

Any one can carry concealed inide an "educational institution" if they abide by the section in the school gun free zone that says "permission from person/staff inside the school". True thats for the college gun free zones but you can pass that back to primary schools as federal law supercedes state law.

Thus if a teacher r janitor wanted there snubby with them on school days they would need approval from the super intendent or school board. Although in michigan the schools are pure antigun.

 

[SteveS]

As far as I can tell, if school administrators wanted armed teachers they could do it right now. Am I missing something? Has the MEA effectively closed this route contractually?

I believe you are correct, but several things would have to happen:

1. The teacher would need a CPL.
2. The teacher would need the support of the administration and the school board.
3. The teacher would need the support of the local bargaining unit.

There would have to be some provision written into the teacher's job description that they were to provide security and that they would be required to carry a weapon. Teacher job descriptions are developed as a result of negotiation, so the board/administration and the local bargaining unit would have to agree on this. While possible, I would have to say that this is a cumbersome process. HB 5162 only requires approval of the administration and would remove the union from the equation.

Actually, read the law closer. You can open carry rather than conceal carry with a CPL to legally possess on school grounds.

Nope, you would still be in violation of the Fed. Gun Free School Act, which provides an exception for licensed carry. Since there is no "open carry" license, you would not be legal.

Additionally, there is the MI Gun Free School Act:

750.237a(4) and (5)

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who possesses a weapon in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.
(b) Community service for not more than 100 hours.
(c) A fine of not more than $2,000.00.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An individual employed by or contracted by a school if the possession of that weapon is to provide security services for
the school.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) An individual who possesses a weapon provided by a school or a school’s instructor on school property for purposes of
providing or receiving instruction in the use of that weapon.
(e) An individual who possesses a firearm on school property if that possession is with the permission of the school’s principal
or an agent of the school designated by the school’s principal or the school board.
(f) An individual who is 18 years of age or older who is not a student at the school and who possesses a firearm on school
property while transporting a student to or from the school if any of the following apply:
(i) The individual is carrying an antique firearm, completely unloaded, in a wrapper or container in the trunk of a vehicle
while en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area or function involving the exhibition, demonstration or sale of antique
firearms.
(ii) The individual is carrying a firearm unloaded in a wrapper or container in the trunk of the person’s vehicle, while in possession
of a valid Michigan hunting license or proof of valid membership in an organization having shooting range facilities,
and while en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(iii) The person is carrying a firearm unloaded in a wrapper or container in the trunk of the person’s vehicle from the place
of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business, or in
moving goods from one place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) The person is carrying an unloaded firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle that does not have a trunk, if the
person is otherwise complying with the requirements of subparagraph (ii) or (iii) and the wrapper or container is not readily
accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

Michigan law would allow open carry if you had the permission of the principal, but you would still be in violation of the federal law.

 

[Car Knocker]

True thats for the college gun free zones but you can pass that back to primary schools as federal law supercedes state law.

Not necessarily true. State law can be more restrictive than federal law. For example, some states require a FOID card (or the equivalent) to own firearms, even though there are no such federal requirements. Some states require a person to be 21 y.o. to buy a handgun from a private party; federal law has no such restriction. Federal law has no restriction on the number of firearms a person can buy in a month although several states do.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Nope, you would still be in violation of the Fed. Gun Free School Act, which provides an exception for licensed carry. Since there is no "open carry" license, you would not be legal.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm -

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

The possession of the license is what matters, not the method of carry.

 

[SteveS]

The possession of the license is what matters, not the method of carry.

That is not how I would interpret it. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any caselaw on this matter, but I would still say that the license exception would require that you carry in compliance with that license.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Your statement flies right in the face of the language of the law itself. There is no requirement that you carry in "compliance" with the license.

 

[SteveS]

I still contend that you are safer, from a legal standpoint, if you are carrying in compliance with your license, since the point of that exception was to allow states to regulate who could carry, with some requirements. This is a moot point because a school is a no carry zone.

AFAIK, there aren't any volunteers that want to open carry in a school to test this law. I would be interested in any case law on the federal law.