Guns, Signs and Trespass in Michigan

[apjonas]

Probable Final Comment

I. I was born in Michigan, spent my first 24 years in Michigan, own property in Michigan and have a lot of family in Michigan. I don’t think that I am out of line to comment in the Michigan forum. I am not from Wisconsin but since I have family there, I have an interest in what goes on. Nobody has enhanced status simply because he lives in Michigan at the moment.

II. My goal was not to prove that I am right or that someone else is wrong per se. It is to argue for an interpretation of the law or point of view that I believe is correct. I read the trespass law. I performed a reasonable analysis of what it said in view of everything I have experienced. A respected attorney holds the same view. Could we be wrong? Of course. It is always possible for a court to interpret a law otherwise. But to insist on a court decision to support my particular take on the law is rather one-sided. Those who argue “signs have no legal weight” are not asked to provide case law to back up their view. It is as if I said "telling a person orally" has no legal weight because "telling" and "orally" don't appear in the statute. I don’t have access to a database that has Michigan decisions but I would venture that there isn’t a case directly on point. Even if there were, anything short of a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court decision probably wouldn’t be accepted by the naysayers. Do any of them concede that their interpretation could be incorrect if and when a court looked at a case? Most of the time judges do not agree, at least on some aspect of a case.

III. I have read many posts in various forums (fora?) and folks often seem to think that whatever the words in the statute say is all you need to know and if something is not explicitly stated then it doesn’t exist or cannot be considered. I pointed out before that the statute contains the words “forbid” and “notice” (or some variation thereof). To understand what the statute means, we need to know at a minimum what the words mean. Absent a court case interpreting the words, typically we use the common meaning. Here again is the text:

MCL 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.

History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951

Somebody please explain what “having been forbidden” means.
Somebody please explain what “being notified to depart” means.

In both cases, provide support for your interpretation and why my interpretation fails. Merely stating a conclusion like “signs carry no legal weight” is doing what you accuse me of having done. I am at least holding one lawyer in my hand of cards. You should show what you have. If you want to argue some constitutional point or the difference between a private residence and a private business, provide some support for your position.

IV. I admit that my writing style can be abrasive but it is not meant to insult anyone. For those times where I did say something unflattering towards anybody, I apologize. Doing so was tacky and such behavior never advances an argument. I was quite frustrated that some of those who responded hadn't even bothered to read my posts (in their entirety) and/or simply fell back on bumpsticker quotes.

V. This difference in opinions is probably all an academic exercise anyway. I believe and think that most would agree (if they held the same opinion on the law/signs as I do) that it would never come to arrest or lawsuit. A person who trespassed (however you think that might be done) would likely be asked to leave (repeatedly) before law enforcement were summoned. The only exception might be if there was property damage, physical injury or another criminal act involved. Business owners don’t like disruption and seek to resolve issues as quickly and quietly as possible.

Even if you believe that my position has no value, it might be worth considering if you intend to enter a business that has a “No Guns” sign while OC’ing and there is a LEO standing in the entrance. Would you take that chance?

Thank you for your attention. This will be my last input on the matter unless asked a question or somebody posts a misinterpretation of what I have written.

 

[apjonas]

Thank You for the Links

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".

I wish I had know about this forum earlier. Apparently other (Michigan) people see the issue as I do and some not. Mr. Simmons is an attorney. I now have two Michigan attorneys with me. KRB, as mentioned, is the leader of the other team. I do not know if he is an attorney or not. For what it's worth, Mr. Simmons says:

KRB, you ask a good question, and you've found the correct statutory citation.

Trespass (in these circumstances) means going onto another's property after you've been told not to. Whether it's by a sign, or by verbal direction to leave. And it is not just "you can come in, you can't." It also includes conditions of entrance. You can come into my house as long as you don't use foul language around my kid. You can come into my mall as long as you comply with the posted rules. You can come into my house or business as long as you don't carry a firearm.

The key is whether you've been placed on notice that the owner or its agent doesn't want weapons on the premises. If there's a sign, you're on notice. If you claim that you didn't see the sign, then it becomes a jury question. Do they believe that you didn't see the sign? Did you have other notice? (That's why I opposed creating a list of no carry businesses on here. Someone who frequents this list could be construed as being on notice.) And was the sign of a type and size that would put a "reasonable person" on notice? If a jury decides that a person was on notice and carried there anyway, they can convict of trespass.

As a practical matter, however, LEOs won't usually arrest, even if a property owner says "I have asked him to leave and he won't." They'll first ask the person to leave, and if he doesn't, then they'll arrest. Two reasons: first, if he leaves, the objective is accomplished and LEO isn't stuck with 2 hours of paperwork for a pissy little misdemeanor arrest. Second, if the person doesn't leave, LEO writes in his report "there were signs; Mr. Smith said he asked Mr. Jones to leave and Mr. Jones refused; and this officer directed Mr. Jones to leave and Mr. Jones refused." Three different, solid pieces of evidence that Jones was on notice and refused to leave. A lock solid case.

 

[mastiff69]

No firearms sign to me just means = we don't wish to do business with law abiding persons,

I will take my money to a safe store,

I will NOT disarm, or give up my freedom for a pop. food, gas, or anything else...

I want you to put that sign up that way i know you are anti Constituation...

 

[autosurgeon]

I wish I had know about this forum earlier. Apparently other (Michigan) people see the issue as I do and some not. Mr. Simmons is an attorney. I now have two Michigan attorneys with me. KRB, as mentioned, is the leader of the other team. I do not know if he is an attorney or not. For what it's worth, Mr. Simmons says:

KRB, you ask a good question, and you've found the correct statutory citation.

Trespass (in these circumstances) means going onto another's property after you've been told not to. Whether it's by a sign, or by verbal direction to leave. And it is not just "you can come in, you can't." It also includes conditions of entrance. You can come into my house as long as you don't use foul language around my kid. You can come into my mall as long as you comply with the posted rules. You can come into my house or business as long as you don't carry a firearm.

The key is whether you've been placed on notice that the owner or its agent doesn't want weapons on the premises. If there's a sign, you're on notice. If you claim that you didn't see the sign, then it becomes a jury question. Do they believe that you didn't see the sign? Did you have other notice? (That's why I opposed creating a list of no carry businesses on here. Someone who frequents this list could be construed as being on notice.) And was the sign of a type and size that would put a "reasonable person" on notice? If a jury decides that a person was on notice and carried there anyway, they can convict of trespass.

As a practical matter, however, LEOs won't usually arrest, even if a property owner says "I have asked him to leave and he won't." They'll first ask the person to leave, and if he doesn't, then they'll arrest. Two reasons: first, if he leaves, the objective is accomplished and LEO isn't stuck with 2 hours of paperwork for a pissy little misdemeanor arrest. Second, if the person doesn't leave, LEO writes in his report "there were signs; Mr. Smith said he asked Mr. Jones to leave and Mr. Jones refused; and this officer directed Mr. Jones to leave and Mr. Jones refused." Three different, solid pieces of evidence that Jones was on notice and refused to leave. A lock solid case.

Be aware that Mr. Simmons has a back story and a hatred for OC and OCers.... and has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. That said until there is Case Law it is still just opinions.

Finally I do agree with Jim in that having a list of places on this or any other site could be used by the prosecution as a tool to say well if they didn't see the sign then what about this list on this forum they are registered with. Is it notification? Who knows as just as with signs in MI we have no Case Law and the various MCL's are ambiguous at best.

I tend to feel this issue is right up there with you will go directly to jail if you carry Hand Loaded ammunition. NO case law backing it up and opinions all over the map!

 

[eastmeyers]

I. I was born in Michigan, spent my first 24 years in Michigan, own property in Michigan and have a lot of family in Michigan. I don’t think that I am out of line to comment in the Michigan forum. I am not from Wisconsin but since I have family there, I have an interest in what goes on. Nobody has enhanced status simply because he lives in Michigan at the moment.

II. My goal was not to prove that I am right or that someone else is wrong per se. It is to argue for an interpretation of the law or point of view that I believe is correct. I read the trespass law. I performed a reasonable analysis of what it said in view of everything I have experienced. A respected attorney holds the same view. Could we be wrong? Of course. It is always possible for a court to interpret a law otherwise. But to insist on a court decision to support my particular take on the law is rather one-sided. Those who argue “signs have no legal weight” are not asked to provide case law to back up their view. It is as if I said "telling a person orally" has no legal weight because "telling" and "orally" don't appear in the statute. I don’t have access to a database that has Michigan decisions but I would venture that there isn’t a case directly on point. Even if there were, anything short of a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court decision probably wouldn’t be accepted by the naysayers. Do any of them concede that their interpretation could be incorrect if and when a court looked at a case? Most of the time judges do not agree, at least on some aspect of a case.

III. I have read many posts in various forums (fora?) and folks often seem to think that whatever the words in the statute say is all you need to know and if something is not explicitly stated then it doesn’t exist or cannot be considered. I pointed out before that the statute contains the words “forbid” and “notice” (or some variation thereof). To understand what the statute means, we need to know at a minimum what the words mean. Absent a court case interpreting the words, typically we use the common meaning. Here again is the text:

MCL 750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.

History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951

Somebody please explain what “having been forbidden” means.
Somebody please explain what “being notified to depart” means.

In both cases, provide support for your interpretation and why my interpretation fails. Merely stating a conclusion like “signs carry no legal weight” is doing what you accuse me of having done. I am at least holding one lawyer in my hand of cards. You should show what you have. If you want to argue some constitutional point or the difference between a private residence and a private business, provide some support for your position.

IV. I admit that my writing style can be abrasive but it is not meant to insult anyone. For those times where I did say something unflattering towards anybody, I apologize. Doing so was tacky and such behavior never advances an argument. I was quite frustrated that some of those who responded hadn't even bothered to read my posts (in their entirety) and/or simply fell back on bumpsticker quotes.

V. This difference in opinions is probably all an academic exercise anyway. I believe and think that most would agree (if they held the same opinion on the law/signs as I do) that it would never come to arrest or lawsuit. A person who trespassed (however you think that might be done) would likely be asked to leave (repeatedly) before law enforcement were summoned. The only exception might be if there was property damage, physical injury or another criminal act involved. Business owners don’t like disruption and seek to resolve issues as quickly and quietly as possible.

Even if you believe that my position has no value, it might be worth considering if you intend to enter a business that has a “No Guns” sign while OC’ing and there is a LEO standing in the entrance. Would you take that chance?

Thank you for your attention. This will be my last input on the matter unless asked a question or somebody posts a misinterpretation of what I have written.

^^^THIS^^^

I wish you would have started out with a post like this, it would have won over a lot more harts, than how you played it from the beginning. This way starts a discussion, and not an argument. That being said, I personally am going to go off of the law itself, unless (and until) there is a court ruling, saying different. The plain reading of the law, (IMHO, ***IANAL***) says that you must be told by the owner or their agent to leave. As is a place that is open to the public, you can not be "pre-banned" from someplace, only "post-banned", as in you can be asked to leave (even not be allowed to return), a place open to the public (on private property), but you can not be pre-dis-positioned, to not be allowed allowed to enter. If once you enter and they tell you to leave you must, if you don't you are then trespassing (again IMHO ***IANAL***).

But I do like the post earlier by someone, who said, that they believe a no-firearm sign means they don't sell firearms, or they are currently sold out. It made me laugh.

 

[stainless1911]

As is a place that is open to the public, you can not be "pre-banned" from someplace, only "post-banned",

This is exactly what has happened in the Waterford School district. Jim Beavers secratary told Army74 that they will trespass anyone who lawfully carries there.

 

[eastmeyers]

This is exactly what has happened in the Waterford School district. Jim Beavers secratary told Army74 that they will trespass anyone who lawfully carries there.

Not legally however, they can't really trespass anyways, seeing as they are public property. But this is a whole other discussion, and off topic, we already have a thread for the WPS topic.

 

[DrTodd]

Another attorneys opinion can be completely different. Still waiting for a court case to prove your point...

by: Clifford H. Bloom
Law, Weathers & Richardson, P.C.
Bridgewater Place
333 Bridge Street, N.W., Suite 800
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504-5360 E-Mail: CliffBloom@lwr.com

"Trespass" is the venturing onto the lands of another without permission...

There are two types of trespass and related legal remedies - criminal trespass and civil trespass. Criminal trespass is what most lay people think of when they consider pursuing legal action against someone for trespass.
There are potentially three laws available whereby a trespasser can be prosecuted. First, under state law, trespass is illegal pursuant to several statutes. MCLA 750.552 is the general state statute for trespass. This statute prevents anyone from trespassing upon the premises of another after having been forbidden to do so. Violation of the statute is a criminal misdemeanor offence, punishable by a fine of up to $50.00 and 30 days in jail or both.
There are also several statutes which make it illegal to trespass and to damage property, cut trees, destroy or take crops, etc. Under such statutes, someone who is found guilty of entering the Land of another without permission and destroying property is potentially liable for actual damages, and in some cases, even double or triple damages. See MCLA 600.2919,750.546 and 750.547. Second, some local municipalities (ie. cities, villages or townships) have their own trespass ordinances. Finally, the Michigan Recreational Trespass Act (MCLA 324.73101 et seq.) ("RTA") covers trespass involving recreational uses. Depending upon the statute under which a trespasser is prosecuted, conviction can either constitute a criminal misdemeanor or civil infraction offense. The RTA was also amended recently to add "teeth," such that the penalties have been beefed up significantly.

... many police agencies (i.e. county sheriff departments, city police officers, etc.) and prosecuting officials (i.e. county prosecutors, city or township attorneys, the Michigan Attorney General's office, etc.) are reluctant to prosecute trespassers—it is simply not a high priority in most jurisdictions. Many law enforcement officials will tell a complaining property owner that they cannot prosecute a trespasser until the offender trespasses a second time. Although under most laws it is not technically true that someone has to trespass a second time before they can be prosecuted, it is true that most laws require some type of prior notice. For example, MCLA 750.552 requires that the trespass occur after the trespasser has been "forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant" or that the trespasser neglects or refuses to leave when requested by the owner or occupant .... Some local ordinances do not require any prior notice at all.
There are other reasons why law enforcement agencies are... reluctant to prosecute trespassers.
...such disputes often involve one person's word against another's - the offender claims that he or she was given permission to be on the property while the owner denies that such permission was given. Such disputes are often viewed as more civil law matters with which law enforcement should not become involved.

The other remedy for trespass is a civil lawsuit. In such cases, law enforcement agencies are not involved and the individual property owner must file a lawsuit against a trespasser at his or her own expense.

In most civil lawsuits for trespass, however, damages are rarely awarded, and the goal of the property owner is to obtain a court order precluding the offender from trespassing again under pain of contempt of court and possibly jail.


If you are dealing with a relatively small lot,... either you or your attorney should send a warning letter to whomever has been a trespasser in the past warning that person not to trespass or you will take appropriate legal action. Obviously, you should keep a copy of the letter in your file and preferably send it by registered mail to the potential trespasser so you can later prove that he or she had prior notice if court action should be necessary.

The Michigan Riparian
FEBRUARY 2000

-----------------------------------------------------------

There won't be a court case. I have spoken to an acquaintance who is a District court judge and to 2 private attorneys (personally involved/two different cases) and all have stated the same thing as above: Especially in regards to a business where the general public is allowed to enter (Read: Permission), without both clear and convincing PRIOR notice, a prosecution is highly unlikely; notice and KNOWINGLY violating the notice is a requirement for prosecution.

Although TECHNICALLY Apjonas is correct, most likely only IF

1) a person entered with a firearm, ("Suspect")
2) the police were called,
3) the "suspect" agreed to wait, if forced it could be considered either false arrest or kidnapping (security guards/ owners can't "arrest" for misdemeanor),
4) the police actually came out (no damage to store, may be unlikely),
5) while the police were there the suspect stated that they saw the signage and that the suspect understood that entering with a firearm would be considered trespass
6) the officer MIGHT write a ticket to appear in court;

my guess is the typical person would leave and then it becomes a he said/ she said issue.

 

[apjonas]

Thanks for the Input

Considering the root of this thread, we have gone far afield. The issue was (and remains) does a "No Guns" sign carry legal weight? I suppose it depends on your definition of legal weight. I see it as whether or not such a sign would be relevant or perhaps essential to a trespass case. When somebody says "no legal weight" - I interpret that as you can ignore the sign with impunity and suffer no legal sanction for doing so. If a person ignores a speed limit sign or one way street sign and doesn't get caught, I guess you could say that the sign had "no legal weight." Inadequate signs, constitutional theories and law enforcement priorities are interesting to discuss but really don't bear on the real issue. Let me wrap up with this hypothetical scenario.

You are open carrying. You approach Fred's Bookstore which has a large, visible "No Guns" sign at the only entrance. You stop and read the sign and have your friend take a photo of you standing next to it. You then enter Fred's Bookstore, walk up to Fred and say "Your sign has no legal weight." Fred says nothing to you but beckons to the LEO who was standing behind you listening to your statement and says "This man is trespassing and I wish to complain." Does the LEO:

a. cite you for trespassing?
b. tell Fred it isn't trespassing since you weren't asked to leave?
c. tell Fred he is too busy looking through the Personal Growth Section to bother with you?
d. tell Fred that his sign is unconstitutional?
e. something else?

Now repeat the scenario but instead of you OC'ing, the story involves a friend who is black and a sign that says "No Minorities."

 

[Bikenut]

Considering the root of this thread, we have gone far afield. The issue was (and remains) does a "No Guns" sign carry legal weight? I suppose it depends on your definition of legal weight. I see it as whether or not such a sign would be relevant or perhaps essential to a trespass case. When somebody says "no legal weight" - I interpret that as you can ignore the sign with impunity and suffer no legal sanction for doing so. If a person ignores a speed limit sign or one way street sign and doesn't get caught, I guess you could say that the sign had "no legal weight." Inadequate signs, constitutional theories and law enforcement priorities are interesting to discuss but really don't bear on the real issue. Let me wrap up with this hypothetical scenario.

You are open carrying. You approach Fred's Bookstore which has a large, visible "No Guns" sign at the only entrance. You stop and read the sign and have your friend take a photo of you standing next to it. You then enter Fred's Bookstore, walk up to Fred and say "Your sign has no legal weight." Fred says nothing to you but beckons to the LEO who was standing behind you listening to your statement and says "This man is trespassing and I wish to complain." Does the LEO:

a. cite you for trespassing?
b. tell Fred it isn't trespassing since you weren't asked to leave?
c. tell Fred he is too busy looking through the Personal Growth Section to bother with you?
d. tell Fred that his sign is unconstitutional?
e. something else?

Now repeat the scenario but instead of you OC'ing, the story involves a friend who is black and a sign that says "No Minorities."

How about we stick to the pertinent laws/case law concerning "no guns" signs being legally equal to "no trespassing" signs instead of going off into hypothetical situations that might result in creating case law that no one can cite or link to yet.... or throwing in the red herring of a completely illegal "no minorities" sign since minorities are a legally protected class of people when it comes to business policies.

Check here for a few laws about discrimination:

http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/title7/protclas.htm

and as much as I prefer not to quote Wikipedia there are many links to actual law here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Now... back to the topic of whether or not "no guns" signs constitute legal "notification"... there isn't any point in discussing this any further since it has already been established that, at the present time, there is not any actual legal language (law) or a settled court case (case law) that defines and/or specifies what constitutes as "notification" in relation to any "no guns" signage.

Actually it is my "opinion" that any business that has policies that deny the right to bear arms is engaging in a discriminatory practice. But then... that is my opinion and there are no laws, local/State/Federal/case law, that actually supports my opinion as fact. Hence my opinion is not law and has as much legal weight as .... your opinion about "no gun" signage.

 

[DrTodd]

Since people can't easily change the color of their skin, the "No Minorities" sign would be illegal. Also, in some areas the term "minorities" could include just about anyone, I would argue it is vague, but for argument's sake, I'll let that go.
However, since it just takes a few seconds to remove my firearm, the state says that the "No Guns" sign would be legal... except, it seems in Wisconsin if the only reason such a sign is posted is only to exclude firearms (I could be wrong, though. Perhaps Apjonas knows if my understanding is correct.)

Also, we have preemption in MI so a NO FIREARMS sign may be legally non-enforceable. My fear with reading the Wisconsin newspapers and other reports is that by specifically stating anything about signage in the law, more people are going to post than without that wording.

In Michigan, I've carried openly and concealed for the last ten years; I have only seen 2 signs in areas not already a prohibited area.
One of the signs was at the GRPD which would make it a non-issue as we have preemption... they know and don't care.
I also have seen one at the mall... but was specifically informed that CC was OK.
Since I have only seen the two signs, this is nothing more than a purely academic discussion.
Hopefully, Wisconsin businesses also choose to not post... but again, with it placed specifically in the law, I think there may be a much higher probability that they will post their premises... only time will tell, though.

 

[stainless1911]

Academic sure, but AI think it stemmed from a discussion on MGO about a real sign at ALDI grocery stores where the writing on the sign was apparently very small.

 

[DrTodd]

Academic sure, but AI think it stemmed from a discussion on MGO about a real sign at ALDI grocery stores where the writing on the sign was apparently very small.

I would make one small change to the statement from Mr. Dulan. He states it would be for a jury to decide... I think it wouldn't even get that far. Yes, ultimately a jury is the final decision maker, but along the way, many other people's opinions matter... the business owner's, the LEO that shows up, and the prosecutor's.

Also, in looking specifically at Michigan law as interpreted by the courts, the issue of trespass being committed by a person wearing a firearm is null if some may have a firearm and others may not... unless it specifically states the exceptions on the sign. I found a list of about five or six Michigan court cases, along with a MI Supreme Court ruling, that agents of the government are not exempt from trespass charges even if they are acting in the line of duty. So it appears if the place allows LEO's to carry, barring others would not be an issue of Trespass. When I return home in a few days, I'll post links to that information.

 

[Big Gay Al]

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.

Sad to say, but MCRGO has not been "the premier" gun rights org in this state since they appointed their current Executive Director, who bullied several former members of their board of directors, forcing several to resign, and stopping at least one from doing her job on the BoD. At least, in my own personal opinion. This resulted in a law suit, that MCRGO lost, by the way.

With regard to signage, I have OCed into several stores with, shall we say, less than obvious signage. I've not been asked to leave or take my weapon out of the stores, yet.

I get the feeling that even the employees don't know the signs are there. Most of them know me as a regular customer, who has been shopping there for several years. So who knows, maybe that's part of it too.

But, I've always been told, until you're TOLD by a live person, in Michigan, that sign has no weight of law. Since there are no statutes defining size and wording, people make them up to suit their needs. So, unless it's a large neon sign, flashing the words, "NO GUNS," all they can do is come up and tell you when they notice.

 

[stainless1911]

I'll walk right past a sign as well, if they tell me I cant carry there, I will ask them if they are sure about the decision because I wont come back.

 

[Bronson]

with it placed specifically in the law, I think there may be a much higher probability that they will post their premises... only time will tell, though.

Occasionally my company will send me to Lincoln, NE. The concealed law in NE gives private businessess the power to prohibit the concealed carry of firearms through signage. These signs are EVERYWHERE in downtown Lincoln. Nearly every shop or restaurant that I went into the last time I was there had some type of "no firearms" sign on the door.

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2441

(2) If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permitholder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permitholder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permitholder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.

http://omaha.peoplespresscollective...a-concealed-carry-law-needs-signage-revision/

Bronson

 

[stainless1911]

CC must be very popular there. I bet they sell lots of those tiny little p shooters too.

 

[apjonas]

But to Focus on the Issue

I would make one small change to the statement from Mr. Dulan. He states it would be for a jury to decide... I think it wouldn't even get that far. Yes, ultimately a jury is the final decision maker, but along the way, many other people's opinions matter... the business owner's, the LEO that shows up, and the prosecutor's.

I agree and I think Attorney Dulan stated the same. But the question isn't whether or not such a trespass would be prosecuted it is whether or not a trespass occured at all

Also, in looking specifically at Michigan law as interpreted by the courts, the issue of trespass being committed by a person wearing a firearm is null if some may have a firearm and others may not... unless it specifically states the exceptions on the sign.

I would like to read the cases, please post cites if you have them. But it comes down to the wishes of the owner. A business is by default open to everybody. An owner who posts "No Guns" has removed gun carriers from the population of invitees (except for people like LEO's who are otherwise authorized by law). An owner may then exclude certain people from those forbidden to enter. As long as he is not violating another law, e.g. "No Guns - except White People" - he is able to do so. This is not a trespass issue as it is a discrimination issue. Some types of discrimination are lawful, some are not.

I found a list of about five or six Michigan court cases, along with a MI Supreme Court ruling, that agents of the government are not exempt from trespass charges even if they are acting in the line of duty. So it appears if the place allows LEO's to carry, barring others would not be an issue of Trespass. When I return home in a few days, I'll post links to that information.

That would be surprising and silly. It would permit any property owner to post out LEO's regardless of what is occuring on the property.

 

[apjonas]

WI just a little different

Since people can't easily change the color of their skin, the "No Minorities" sign would be illegal. Also, in some areas the term "minorities" could include just about anyone, I would argue it is vague, but for argument's sake, I'll let that go.
However, since it just takes a few seconds to remove my firearm, the state says that the "No Guns" sign would be legal... except, it seems in Wisconsin if the only reason such a sign is posted is only to exclude firearms (I could be wrong, though. Perhaps Apjonas knows if my understanding is correct.)

That is how I understand the new law, although I think that provision will lose in court. To be clear the "gun bias" exception applies only to licensees and then if the goal is to prevent carry. The sign would still keep an unlicensed (open) carrier out. If the land owner wanted to keep everybody out (or at least claimed that), a licensee would be barred.

Also, we have preemption in MI so a NO FIREARMS sign may be legally non-enforceable. My fear with reading the Wisconsin newspapers and other reports is that by specifically stating anything about signage in the law, more people are going to post than without that wording.

WI has preemption but it applies to governmental levels below the state, not private entitites. Without the inclusion as to what constitutes sufficient notice, there couldn't be posting provisions at all.

In Michigan, I've carried openly and concealed for the last ten years; I have only seen 2 signs in areas not already a prohibited area. One of the signs was at the GRPD which would make it a non-issue as we have preemption... they know and don't care.
I also have seen one at the mall... but was specifically informed that CC was OK.
Since I have only seen the two signs, this is nothing more than a purely academic discussion.
Hopefully, Wisconsin businesses also choose to not post... but again, with it placed specifically in the law, I think there may be a much higher probability that they will post their premises... only time will tell, though.

Wisconsin's version of PFZ does not require posting - you simply have to know what they are. Are you saying that in MI the PFZ's must post and are given specific instructions? If a business choses to post, is there no description of what the notice must look like?

 

[apjonas]

I Hadn't Heard

Sad to say, but MCRGO has not been "the premier" gun rights org in this state since they appointed their current Executive Director, who bullied several former members of their board of directors, forcing several to resign, and stopping at least one from doing her job on the BoD. At least, in my own personal opinion. This resulted in a law suit, that MCRGO lost, by the way.

With regard to signage, I have OCed into several stores with, shall we say, less than obvious signage. I've not been asked to leave or take my weapon out of the stores, yet.

I get the feeling that even the employees don't know the signs are there. Most of them know me as a regular customer, who has been shopping there for several years. So who knows, maybe that's part of it too.

There are probably a lot of business that post for some reason (customer relations, insurance...) but really don't care if customers carry. And as discussed elsewhere, even if the owner has banned carry in general, he can allow people to carry on a case by case basis, as long as he is not engaging in illegal discrimination (race, sex, religion,....)

But, I've always been told, until you're TOLD by a live person, in Michigan, that sign has no weight of law. Since there are no statutes defining size and wording, people make them up to suit their needs. So, unless it's a large neon sign, flashing the words, "NO GUNS," all they can do is come up and tell you when they notice.

Part of the ordeal I went through is because people get told by a buddy, Uncle Fred, etc. that is what the law requires. This flows from the common practice of not charging somebody for ignoring the notice provided by the sign. It is better for everybody just to ask the person to leave (and hope for compliance). This practice does not mean that the person did not commit a trespass, just that he won't be sanctioned for it.