Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

[Grapeshot]

A lot of conflicting signals here. :uhoh:

 

[dukenukum]

Indeed it seems I was mistaken in My zeal but I still would like to see the company welcome lawful carry.

 

[TheQ]

I OC at that store regularly -- even CC sometimes. I'll continue to shop.

 

[Grapeshot]

I think to what stanless1911 refers, is that those in Arlington did not survive. You misjudge his reply.

 

[stainless1911]

Right. I was also saying that it takes all kinds of people to fight for our freedoms. Soldiers who paid the price, all the way to potheads who become a statistic and the butt of jokes and insults.

 

[HKcarrier]

I wonder if the caller knew the difference between OCer and this guy who was acting all buggy... in and out... fiddling around... this and that... where as OCer loads up, walks in (not waltzes) and goes about business... ????

 

[DrTodd]

Yes, he did. It just has to go through high courts, (as DrTodd correctly pointed out), in order to bring it to a resolution.

Although I don't believe Stainless1911 is misrepresenting what I stated, I do need to clarify: I did NOT say the officer broke the law. I believe Stainless1911 is attempting to say that SCOTUS/MI Supreme Court, etc. could decide, someday, that this officer's actions were "illegal".

 

[stainless1911]

Yes, and possibly say that a CPL is also not required to exercise a right.

 

[DrTodd]

They have already done it, not only with smoking, but guns too, in churches, businesses and in schools. Some are public, some private, and some constitutionally protected. It makes no difference whose rights the legislature or the police violate.

They are trying. That's part of my point.

According to 425o, I can exercise my second amendment at church, but only with permission, and only with a CPL. Despite the fact that it violates the right to freedom of religion, as bearing an arm is part of the Christian doctrine. 425o also dictates how and where the RKBA can be exercised at a public and private school. It already dictates how and where the right can be exercised within the private property of a hospital, a stadium, a bar, and at a college dorm, where btw, a person should have their tenants rights as in any other rented dwelling. 234d also dictates how and where the right can be exercised, nevermind the feelings of the owners of the establishment, or the rights of the people who may visit these establishments. A person who owns or operates such a business cannot grant a permission to carry openly or concealed, yet they can deny it without cause or thought. A person also cannot give another permission to CC in his or her own home, and that is supposed to be the most protected area of all the private property rights.

The .gov is already dictating where and how a person can or cannot do this or that, even in his or her own home.

I think stainless1911 brings up a very important point here, but first I need to say: In regards to the OP, we don't know if Meijer stores would have allowed the person to possess/conceal the firearm. Why? Because the State of Michigan has interfered with the ability of the property owner to control his private property. The discussion here about the constitutionality of whether an owner can or can't prohibit activities related to the 2nd Amendment is really immaterial to the whole event. Meijer stores did not press for Trespass here... so we don't know how they felt. Rather, it is the State of Michigan who has decided who can/can't carry a firearm at this store.

Now, back to stainless1911's point: the State of Michigan(SOM) has decided all of the restrictions... the individual property owner/organization has not. We hear of all of this opposition by hospitals, colleges, etc regarding the idea of allowing CERTAIN CPL holders to carry concealed in the areas prohibited in MCL 28.425o (SB 59). What these people fail to realize is that they COULD still ban firearms from their premises*. The argument that I believe that stainless1911 is making is that we should get the SOM out of the equation.

*Unless prohibited by PA 319 of 1990 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-319-of-1990

 

[Armiger]

The man is charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He is expected to be arraigned Monday in Lansing District Court.


CCW is a felony. Why is he being arraigned in District Court versus circuit?

A District Court arraignment is the first court appearance for anyone charged with a misdemeanor or felony. For more information see: http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/Process.htm .