• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Guns, Signs and Trespass in Michigan

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Take a Look at This

http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

and tell me if your mind is changed.
 

Mosnar87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
118
Location
South Haven, Michigan, USA
http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

and tell me if your mind is changed.

: There are no specifications for “No Guns” or “No Weapons” signs in Michigan law. Under the law, there are two ways for a CPL holder to know that guns are not allowed in a specific location. The first is the list of “Pistol Free Zones” (often colloquially referred to as violent criminal empowerment zones) that we must all memorize, which is part of the CPL statute (Pistol Free Areas).

The second is when the owner or lessor of any real property communicates to us that our guns are not welcome there. That communication must be reasonable in order to be effective. By reasonable, I don’t mean polite. I mean that there is an effective means of communicating to us that we are not welcome so long as we are carrying our guns. This can be done with a sign, verbally, or in some kind of printed material.

For instance, if there is a reasonably-sized and located sign in a retail establishment indicating that guns or weapons are not allowed, that would constitute reasonable notice. If an employee of the same establishment actually tells you that you may not carry on the premises, that would constitute reasonable notice. If your employer has an employee handbook or some kind of printed guidelines, and includes a prohibition on guns and/or weapons, that would constitute reasonable notice.

If you choose to ignore any such reasonable notice, then you become a trespasser rather than a business invitee. Trespass can be punished as a crime and/or in civil court, and could affect your CPL licensing status.

Mr. Dulan makes the same point that I have been attempting to make. How is that supposed to change my mind?
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
You Seem to be a Bright Individual

Mr. Dulan makes the same point that I have been attempting to make. How is that supposed to change my mind?

Thus you should understand that the issue is not the adequacy of signs, that is a side or sub-issue. The change of mind is hoped for those who think "signs carry no legal weight" - ever.

I will respect, not ridicule those who admit that they were wrong. There may be one or two grown-ups who do so. Sadly, I expect most to hide in the corner while chanting their mantra - "Signs carry no legal weight...auuum...signs carry no legal weight....auuum...." It can be difficult to give up a fixed belief even in the face of facts to the contrary. But part of the function of this site and its forums is to learn. I know I have learned a lot including some ideas I believed to be fact were not. For instance, I thought a MI license functioned as a NICS alternative for purchase. While it does now, it didn't at the time the issue was raised. I also thought if a person is completely innocent, it was a form of civic duty to talk to a LEO. Not anymore.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
One possible defensive strategy if you were charged for trespass against a sign, would be to set up a video recorder of the entrance, and observe how many people walk through the door without ever reading, or even seen a sign at all. You would easily be able to show that at least the majority of people, if not all of them, never see it.

It has been my experience, and Im sure the experience of most of us here, that most people dont even notice our openly carried firearms, how are they therefore expected to notice and heed to a sign. Firearms are claimed by some to incite fear and terror into the hearts of men and mice just by the mere presence of them, so if people dont see those, then noticing a sign isnt very likely at all.
 
Last edited:

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
I think the problem you are fighting against is that there is no language in the law stating the fact you are trying to convince us of.

In some states, I believe Texas is one, there is CLEAR verbage about the sign, even going so far as stating the size and wording on the sign for it to carry weight of law. If the sign doesn't meet these requirements, then it does NOT carry the weight of law and can be ignored without penalty.

Since there is no clear verbage in the Michigan Law, your opinion is just that, an opinion. If there is an actual court case where someone was convicted for trespassing simply for not seeing or ignoring a no guns sign, then your opinion may carry more weight, and be more convincing.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I think the problem you are fighting against is that there is no language in the law stating the fact you are trying to convince us of.

In some states, I believe Texas is one, there is CLEAR verbage about the sign, even going so far as stating the size and wording on the sign for it to carry weight of law. If the sign doesn't meet these requirements, then it does NOT carry the weight of law and can be ignored without penalty.

Since there is no clear verbage in the Michigan Law, your opinion is just that, an opinion. If there is an actual court case where someone was convicted for trespassing simply for not seeing or ignoring a no guns sign, then your opinion may carry more weight, and be more convincing.
And we have a winner!

Until such time as the law, or case law, actually defines what constitutes legal "notification" then folks can go back and forth until doomsday with what they think constitutes being "notified".

But what someone thinks means absolutely nothing when faced with actual law and....

So far I've not seen any cites or links to any laws or case law that actually defines what legal "notification" is... nor have I seen any cites or links to any laws or case law that considers a "no guns" sign as the same notification as a "no trespassing" sign or that gives a "no guns" sign the same legal weight as a "no trespassing" sign....

And until such time as I see actual cites/links to laws/case law all the opinions in the world mean nothing since I have my own opinion that no one cares about (as it should be) and we are getting nowhere butting heads over opinions.

Cite or link or it isn't so.

Not trying to be difficult about this yet I'd sure like to have the assertions that a sign equals legal "notification"... or that a sign does not equal legal "notification"... proven or disproven ... simply because I'd like to know what the law itself says and not just folk's opinions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
And we have a winner!

Until such time as the law, or case law, actually defines what constitutes legal "notification" then folks can go back and forth until doomsday with what they think constitutes being "notified".

But what someone thinks means absolutely nothing when faced with actual law and....

So far I've not seen any cites or links to any laws or case law that actually defines what legal "notification" is... nor have I seen any cites or links to any laws or case law that considers a "no guns" sign as the same notification as a "no trespassing" sign or that gives a "no guns" sign the same legal weight as a "no trespassing" sign....

And until such time as I see actual cites/links to laws/case law all the opinions in the world mean nothing since I have my own opinion that no one cares about (as it should be) and we are getting nowhere butting heads over opinions.

Cite or link or it isn't so.

Not trying to be difficult about this yet I'd sure like to have the assertions that a sign equals legal "notification"... or that a sign does not equal legal "notification"... proven or disproven ... simply because I'd like to know what the law itself says and not just folk's opinions.
If I see a sign on a business that says "no guns",to me that means they do not sell guns or they're all out of guns!
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Is Reality that Painful to Deal With?

I provide an analysis by a pro-gun, Michigan attorney writing for the premier gun rights organization in the state that is identical to mine and it's not good enough. Ok. Some people have personality disorders that won't allow them to admit error. Not a problem. I know now that NOTHING I could have cited would have made a difference. Oh well, even Moses with the stone tablets had doubters. Ok, kiddies you may return to your mutual admiration society where none of those big, mean real world facts stress you out.
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
Is there a point to this rant apjonas?
His point is he can't stand to be wrong, so he argues a point, even once he has been proven wrong. He just keeps going and going and going, hoping that someone will eventually agree with him or everyone will just give up, because they are annoyed. Its either that, or he is a troll and he is just screwing with us, but I think its the first one.

He hopes that as long as he is the one in the room that yells the loudest he will be seen as the majority, even though he is standing alone. This is all obviously purely my personal opinion, and I do not know apjonas. I have formed this opinion by seeing his behavior, and how he acts here on OCDO, especially on the MI sub-forum, yelling above the rest.
http://rangerfirearminstruction.com/2011/05/16/weekly-mcrgo-update/

and tell me if your mind is changed.
[SARCASM]
Oh yes I have completely changed my mind now. Because some lawyer has decided to play the CYA game. Because lawyers NEVER play CYA when attorney/client privilege doesn't apply, and they are giving advice to the general public. Now that you have yet another persons OPINION, and still have yet to produce a single fact, my mind is completely changed. I mean, that cite, in your OP, that completely proved all of us right, and you wrong, means nothing, because you found 1 (yes one) other person that agrees with you. I bow to your superior intellect. I mean you come to a MI forum, make an assertion, you are corrected, on that assertion, and instead of taking it like a man, and admitting you were wrong. You do the RIGHT thing, and just make no since, and grasp at every straw available (which since we are on the internet are endless), and in doing so you have TRULY changed my mind. Even though ever single person in this thread disagrees with you, (yes every single one of them), and you have provided zero facts, this link you have provided that just offers another OPINION, has changed my mind! Thank you! I see the light!
[/SARCASM]

Umm, your on a MI forum, and every person from MI who has read the MI law (you cited) disagrees with you. Yet you in your infinite wisdom think that your smarter then everyone here combined. The people that have been studying every firearm law on the books in this state for years. We study these laws so not to visit the gray bar hotel.

Hey Guys/Gays, how many of you have gone to jail, because you read a MI law incorrectly? None? Okay, well apparently we are all just brain dead and just plain lucky, and apjonas, is here to save our day! Wooooooooo whoooooo!!! I think I may just pull out the GIANT dancing banana for this one!
largedancingbanana.gif


But seriously, your cite of the law, does nothing to prove your point, it actually proves ours. It mentions nothing about signs. It only talks about who can tell you to leave, and a sign is not one of those people authorized. It just isn't. It is time to roll up the mat, and call it a day pal. In states where signs do in fact carry the weight of the law, it says so, Texas, Arizona, Ohio, (coming soon) Wisconsin. Its just the facts of life. You can go to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ and click on the states for more details. But when you do, you have to do the actual research, and look up the actual laws yourself, because they wont be 100% correct 100% of the time. They are more for reference, but they are a darn good reference. Now I know I have given you a hard time, and mocked you publicly on the forum, but it wasn't personal, I did it because you made a mockery of this forum, the MI forum. By coming on here, and pretending to be better then the rest of us. If you want information, do it yourself, or ask for help, most of us are more than willing to help. But when your acting (or being I can't tell) extremely arrogant, your not going to get anywhere.
Good Luck with your endeavors.
God Bless.
 
Last edited:

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
I provide an analysis by a pro-gun, Michigan attorney writing for the premier gun rights organization in the state that is identical to mine and it's not good enough. Ok. Some people have personality disorders that won't allow them to admit error. Not a problem. I know now that NOTHING I could have cited would have made a difference. Oh well, even Moses with the stone tablets had doubters. Ok, kiddies you may return to your mutual admiration society where none of those big, mean real world facts stress you out.
(the post I am quoting is post #30 of this thread, it is NOT the only thread where this issue was discussed at length with apjonas).

Are you telling me, honestly, that you believe, that when you are the ONLY person on this forum that is on your side of the debate that your still the one that's got to be right? Mind you, your also the only one in this debate from another state, so have NO vested interest in this. WE are the ones with our butts on the line here, you don't think we have done our due diligent, and research on this topic? Do you think that we are all brainless, and just by pure coincidence somehow learned to mash together sentence structure on a keyboard after our parents or children turned on a desk top for us? I don't get it. I seriously don't understand the arrogance.
:banghead:

ETA: The title of your post that I quoted above is Is Reality That Painful To Deal With?

pot20kettle20black20by20john20takai20dreamstime.jpg


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
I provide an analysis by a pro-gun, Michigan attorney writing for the premier gun rights organization in the state that is identical to mine and it's not good enough. Ok. Some people have personality disorders that won't allow them to admit error. Not a problem. I know now that NOTHING I could have cited would have made a difference. Oh well, even Moses with the stone tablets had doubters. Ok, kiddies you may return to your mutual admiration society where none of those big, mean real world facts stress you out.
Moses had those tablets, you know... God's laws written in stone, to reference and show as proof. So far what I see is a bunch of opinion.....

Until I see the law/laws/case law you are basing your assertion on... and Mr. Dean based his learned analysis on then ... even though Mr. Dean is a very respected attorney... I still do not have any references to the actual laws.

But what you are missing Sir... is I am not saying you are wrong nor am I saying Mr. Dean is wrong... I'm saying show me the laws. You know... the written down real world facts called... the law.

I'm saying back up the assertion that a "no guns" sign meets the legal criteria for "notification" with real world facts.... such as MCL #'s and/or case #'s that I, and everyone else, can look up as references.

Why am I being so bullheaded about seeing the actual laws? Because in the end it is what the law says that counts... not your, my, or even Mr. Dean's... opinion of what the law says. And I would much prefer to obey the law and thereby stay out of trouble... not obey someone's opinion and find myself in a mess that the opinionated one surely won't help me get out of.

Oh... and there is no point in tossing around insults... just prove your assertion that "no gun" signage, in Michigan, constitutes legal "notification" in regards to trespass.
 

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
This has been beaten to death over 3 years ago at MGO.

The fact is (as said above) that to this day there is still no MCL or case law that supports a absolute final decision either way.

If you're bored, here's a few threads where the lawyers (Jim Simmons, KRB, Esq Stu, RS2) go back & forth on the topic:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=39680&highlight=sign

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=41170&highlight=sign

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=33390&highlight=sign

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14089&page=2

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=242737&postcount=48

I find KRB's arguments interesting as he seems to be the only one who tries to conclude that it is not trespassing until you are asked to leave.

My understanding of being charged with trespassing is that the jury would be instructed to determine whether a "reasonable person" would be on notice, taking into account the sign location, size, etc.... So until there is MCL or case law, anyone charged with trespassing is at the mercy of what 12 jurors consider "reasonable".
 

choover

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
287
Location
Belleville , michigan, ,
A no firearms sign on private property to me means to conceal and make sure I don't print. To me the protection of myself and family trumps all and the only reason they would ever find out I am carrying is if I had to use it...in which case they would be happy I had it.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
What choover said.

If I see a sign on a business that says "no guns",to me that means they do not sell guns or they're all out of guns!

lol

I provide an analysis by a pro-gun, Michigan attorney writing for the premier gun rights organization in the state that is identical to mine and it's not good enough. Ok. Some people have personality disorders that won't allow them to admit error. Not a problem. I know now that NOTHING I could have cited would have made a difference. Oh well, even Moses with the stone tablets had doubters. Ok, kiddies you may return to your mutual admiration society where none of those big, mean real world facts stress you out.

Its not about personality disorders, they look for those before giving CPLs in this state.

I spoke with Steve about OC in schools, and he said that despite the written laws, that you would need a case law to be able to do it legally without fear. Although I have a great deal of respect for the man, I disagree with this perception, the law is the law. I have the conversation recorded if anyone wants to get a better understanding of it. The audio is really screwed up, you'll have to basically ignore the first minute, its barely audible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7q13TUUIRU
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
A no firearms sign on private property to me means to conceal and make sure I don't print. To me the protection of myself and family trumps all and the only reason they would ever find out I am carrying is if I had to use it...in which case they would be happy I had it.

there is a distinct difference between private property and public accommodations.
private property = not open to the public, set your own rules, it's your castle.
public accommodation = you allow people to walk in off the street and you accept all the rules that go along with that ie non-discrimination
 
Last edited:

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
Ok, kiddies you may return to your mutual admiration society where none of those big, mean real world facts stress you out.

Ouch...I'm gonna go home and cry to my mommy about the mean old man...:) LOL

You haven't stated any facts, only opinion.

I know now that NOTHING I could have cited would have made a difference.

We've been asking for cites throughout the thread! Are you afraid that maybe YOU are wrong? I would FULLY admit that I was wrong if you could produce ONE case where someone was convicted of trespassing with a weapon based on a "no gun" sign alone.
 
Last edited:

kubel

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
285
Location
, ,
If I walk into a business that has a sign that says "No Weapons" or that has a revolver with an X through it, walking in does not mean I'm trespassing. It's really just as simple as that. If there's a "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" sign, you aren't going to be arrested for walking in bare footed. You CAN be arrested if you are told to leave and don't.
 
Top