Michigan "Tavern" Off-Limits Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.

30 cal slob

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
2,091
Location
Location, Location!
Guys,

I'm headed back to SE Mi for the holidays (grew up there).

Even before MI went shall-issue a few years ago, I've been CCW'ing there with an out-of-state permit.

I'm still a little confused about the Bar/Tavern off-limits rule:

http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol on the following premises:



Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian

Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

Sports arena or stadium

A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises

Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons

An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

A hospital

A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university

A Casino

"Premises" does not include the parking areas of the places listed above in 1 through 8.

Okay, a "bar" is a no-brainer. No CCW even if you're not drinking in there.

But what about a restaurant that serves alcohol? Even more complicated: a sit-down restaurant that has a (separate) bar in it?

any thoughts appreciated.

thx.

-slob
 
30 cal slob said:
Okay, a "bar" is a no-brainer. No CCW even if you're not drinking in there.

But what about a restaurant that serves alcohol? Even more complicated: a sit-down restaurant that has a (separate) bar in it?

any thoughts appreciated.

thx

-slob
_________
I am aware of no case(s) setting precedent, AG opinions, or additional legislation clarifying this. Concealed means……
 
The lawyer that spoke at my CPL class said that if 51% of income is from alcohol, it's a no-carry zone.
You're guess about how to know that is as good as mine:confused:
He also said that the general consesus is that you should "know a bar when you see one!" :)
 
Many "taverns" have both a restaurant area, and then a bar area that is clearly "Off limits" to CCW. I carry all the time in the restaurant portion, where I know food is the primary source of income. It's pretty clear that in a bar, the opposite is true.
...I believe it is up to the owner of the establishment to post his property if he wishes it to be "CCW unfriendly".
If he does that, I walk back to my car and go somewhere else.
It's his property.
...BUT, it's my money.
 
It is this simple: 51% or more earnings from alcohol = no carry.

For my part, I am not going to ask. If it says "bar" or "pub" or "tavern", I won't do business there because I cannot carry. To me, it seems that they are advertising alcohol.

JMHO

Doc2005
 
the weird part is on the back of my MI ccw liscense it says that any "dining room" with a liquor liscense is off limits too.
 
If it is a bar that serves food then it is off limits. If it is a restaurant with a bar it is OK. If you are unsure don't conceal carry. Applebees is OK, Olive Garden is OK, Ricks tavern more then likely is not OK. Party stores are fine because it is not by the glass.

The law is any tavern that makes at least 50% of their income from the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises.
 
the weird part is on the back of my MI ccw liscense it says that any "dining room" with a liquor liscense is off limits too.

Hmm, good point. Mine says that too. I'm due to renew, wonder if they still say that? Anyone renew in the last couple years? Does it still have that statement on the back? I would hope that the actual law supersedes what is printed on the back of the license.
 
Wording on back of MI CPL

My current Michigan CPL (issued Aprill 2007) has the following verbage on the back:

"This license allows the licensee to carry a pistol on or about his
person anywhere in the state, except a licensee shall not carry a
concealed pistol at a school, on school property, day care
center, child placing agency, sports arena, stadium, bar or
tavern licensed to serve liquor, church, synagogue, mosque,
temple or other place of worship, entertainment facility seating
more than 2500 people, hospital, or dormitory or classroom of a
college or university or casino or as otherwise prohibited by law.
Consult the statute for complete wording of pistol free zones.
RI-13a "

That wording aside, both the local law enforcement officer that taught the legal aspects of the class I attended as well as the local sheriff at my county's gun board made it clear that if an establishment served meals, it was ok to carry a pistol. They did say that it is hard to know what percentage of an establishment's income is from alcohol versus food, so we should use our best judgment. For example, if you can sit down and have a meal (breakfast , lunch or dinner fare), it is ok. If the establishment just serves snacks, it would be best to avoid the place while carrying or leave it in the car.

One of the most important aspects of CPL (or CCW) is the word CONCEALED. Michigan is very touchy regarding "brandshing" a weapon. Make sure your concealment is adequate. Along with proper concealment, proper behavior is a must. If you are acting responsibly, no one will ever have need to question if you are carrying or not.

As with ALL legal wording, it will be open to judgment. I hope this is helpful.
 
Thanks drforsythe
So they changed "lounge or dining room" to "tavern". At the beginning mine also says "anywhere in the state, including a motor vehicle". Other than that looks the same. Oh and it looks like they addressed my comment above about the law superseding the back of the license by stating to consult the statute.
 
One of the most important aspects of CPL (or CCW) is the word CONCEALED. Michigan is very touchy regarding "brandshing" a weapon..

If you're trying to imply that open carry is illegal in a tavern with a CPL, it is not. If you have a CPL you can open carry in a bar or tavern legally, subject to the owner/proprietor's private property rights (he/she can throw you out).

See MCL 750.234d:
Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
 
2005-2006 CCW Annual Report lists 3 convictions for carrying a pistol concealed in a “pistol free zone”, statewide. I am not sure of the breakout into the specific zones. The uncertainty is annoying, for certain. Businesses are not required to post whether they are a “pistol free zone” as defined. In fact, I do not know if there has even been an attempt by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to develop a list as alluded to in the law.

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.

This whole issue is stupid. Similarly, is a small medical clinic (small town doctor’s office) a hospital? I called a county attorney’s office once to get clarification on whether a specific building was a “hospital” and all I received was condescension and chastisement. If that is what I wanted I would just get married. Geeez.
 
Open Carry

If you're trying to imply that open carry is illegal in a tavern with a CPL, it is not. If you have a CPL you can open carry in a bar or tavern legally, subject to the owner/proprietor's private property rights (he/she can throw you out).

The quickest way to cause extra attention to yourself in Michigan is to carry open. My class was warned of this, the gun board warned us of this and so were my friends who live in other counties of Michigan. Brandishing a loosely interpreted term here (dictionary says shake, wave or DISPLAY). The gun board made it a point that a pistol printed under a t-shirt is not brandishing. However, in the right areas, a shirt that has lifted over the weapon and shows it may be. It is similar to inciting a riot. It is all dependent upon the viewer and his/her beliefs.

The point was not to draw attention to yourself. Again, in Michigan it is a Concealed Pistol License.
 
The gun board made it a point that a pistol printed under a t-shirt is not brandishing.

I don't think this is true. Technically, there are at least 3 types of brandishing under MI law, if I'm not mistaken. There's a thing called "passive brandishing," which means that if anyone sees that you have a gun--even if it's just the outline of a gun under your T-shirt--AND if they feel frightened by it (a required clause), they can call police and get you charged with "passive brandishing". :barf: This is despite the fact that open carry is not, per se, illegal in MI.

However, if someone sees the print of your gun and does not feel frightened by it, then technically, you have not passively brandished your firearm. :banghead:

This was how it was explained to me during my CPL class not too long ago. I'm not sure how often it is enforced, but I got this from a very reliable and knowledgeable source.
 
Technically, there are at least 3 types of brandishing under MI law, if I'm not mistaken. There's a thing called "passive brandishing," which means that if anyone sees that you have a gun--even if it's just the outline of a gun under your T-shirt--AND if they feel frightened by it (a required clause), they can call police and get you charged with "passive brandishing".


Juna, where did you hear this? There is absolutely nothing in the Michigan Compiled Laws or any case, published or unpublished, I have ever seen to support this.
 
Nonsense!
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL



CRIMINAL LAW:

FIREARMS:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

PEACE OFFICERS:

POLICE:
Reserve police officer carrying exposed but holstered handgun is not brandishing firearm in violation of Michigan Penal Code


A reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.


Opinion No. 7101

February 6, 2002

Honorable Bill Bullard, Jr.
State Senator
The Capitol
Lansing, MI



You have asked if a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, violates section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.

The Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq, revises, consolidates, and codifies the state's criminal statutes. Section 234e(1) of the Code criminalizes1 the brandishing of a firearm in public as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

Subsection (2) of the same section states that "ubsection (1) does not apply to . . . [a] peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer."

The term "peace officer" refers to members of governmental police forces who have been given broad, general authority by law to enforce and preserve the public peace. People v Bissonette, 327 Mich 349, 356; 42 NW2d 113 (1950). Most governmental police officers, i.e., officers who are employed by the state or its political subdivisions, possess such authority and are, therefore, "peace officers." 1 OAG, 1955, No 1891, p 72 (February 24, 1955); 2 OAG, 1958, No 3212, p 60 (February 21, 1958). Conversely, police officers such as motor carrier enforcement officers who possess only restricted or special enforcement authority do not meet this standard and therefore do not qualify as "peace officers." People v Bissonette, supra; OAG, 1987-1988, No 6530, p 362 (August 5, 1988). Thus, a reserve police officer with limited law enforcement authority would not qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection 2 of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. A reserve police officer with general law enforcement authority who is regularly employed would qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection (2) of section 234e. See OAG, 1973-1974, No 4792, p 78 (August 27, 1973), and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5806, p 1055 (October 28, 1980).

Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases,2 none of the cases define the term.

In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.



JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General

1Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100, or both.

2 See, for example: People v Jones, 443 Mich 88, 90; 504 NW2d 158 (1993), People v Kreger, 214 Mich App 549, 552; 543 NW2d 55 (1995), and People v Stubbs, 15 Mich App 453, 455; 166 NW2d 477 (1968).


It appears that your understanding of Michigan's concealed pistol law is correct. I would summarize the issue this way: A CPL holder may carry a pistol concealed OR "open," and a non-CPL holder can only carry a pistol "open."
If you need more information, feel free to call or write me directly.
Sincerely,
Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441
 
Last edited:
Juna, where did you hear this? There is absolutely nothing in the Michigan Compiled Laws or any case, published or unpublished, I have ever seen to support this.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was told this in my CPL class, which was not too long ago. I thought it sounded pretty ridiculous, which is par for the course for most gun control laws. I also heard it from a member of a local county gun board. I have never seen anything in writing about it, though, but since I'm not a lawyer I probably wouldn't know where to look.
 
]I'm not a lawyer, but I was told this in my CPL class, which was not too long ago. I thought it sounded pretty ridiculous, which is par for the course for most gun control laws. I also heard it from a member of a local county gun board. I have never seen anything in writing about it, though, but since I'm not a lawyer I probably wouldn't know where to look.

You see, the problem here is that you have authorities, such as gun board members, and firearms instructors and other folks, running their mouths off saying this crap. As a Washingtonian, the people in my state have had to deal with this crap for nearly 35 years until Jim March and I went to Olympia and investigated the actual law that they were citing.

Michigan State Police released two legal updates earlier this year to clear up at least some of the confusion:

April 2007 MSP Legal Update

May 2007 MSP Legal Update

Even then they get it slightly wrong. The first update fails to take into account who is exempt from that particular law, as I pointed out earlier.
 
...I believe it is up to the owner of the establishment to post his property if he wishes it to be "CCW unfriendly".
If he does that, I walk back to my car and go somewhere else.
It's his property.
...BUT, it's my money.

The state of Michigan actually has an official sign for places that are more bar than restaurant now, but posting of it isn't required. A place I go to has one up. I asked why it was there years ago and the owner told me he just does it as a inside joke/reminder. A lot of the regulars when he first opened were gun guys (as is he), so he posts the official lingo just so there's no question as they also serve food there.

Not every place with an anti-CCW sign is anti-gun. Some just have them so customers know if they're not compliant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top