search
top

Lawsuit Against Michigan Open Carry

Interesting to read the actual lawsuit here. The problem is that MOC isn’t really a traditional membership organization, but more like a means to facilitate communication between like minded individuals. What if I, someone who’s never posted on MOC at all, go into the library with a gun? What if even someone who is active on MOC does it, but does not have any official ties to the organization? Is MOC liable for contempt of court for violating the injunction, even though they really don’t have any control over their members?

Could a lawsuit be opened against PAFOA? Calguns.net? The High Road? Or even this blog? These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms. That’s really an understatement. A method like this could be used to stifle and shut down activism and communication that our community has come to rely on.

75 Responses to “Lawsuit Against Michigan Open Carry”

  1. Dannytheman says:

    “These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms.”

    Quote of the day!!!

  2. Robb Allen says:

    Doubtful this is anything. IANAL but from what I’ve read, this lawsuit will fail. Period. This is what the MOC members were aiming for albeit in a clumsy, hamfisted manner that could have had the tables turned with the lawsuit against the Library rather than this way. Dorks…

    The thing is, the library cannot arbitrarily make up its own laws. I mean, the *police* couldn’t arrest the people for crimes, that should tell you the shaky leg the library is standing on.

    That, and if what you are positing is feasible, we’d have seen this line of attack a long time ago. To say you can start suing nebulous organizations to shut them up is reaching pretty far.

    AGAIN so we don’t rehash this portion – I think their tactics were stupid and unnecessary. But I also believe the fallout is overblown.

  3. mike says:

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha (gasp) hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (gasp)
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (gasp)

    Ok, I think that about covers it.

  4. Jujube says:

    It’s an interesting lawsuit but I believe it will fail too. However, after failure, they can appeal on up the chain to other courts and eventually get a new statewide law passed, and I think that is probably their goal. By filing the lawsuit, they bring attention to their problem.

  5. Bob S. says:

    Wow Sebastian –

    These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms

    The ink isn’t even dry on the request for a restraining order and you are throwing people under the bus.

    Maybe any time you or someone else lobbying for a change makes a less than stellar play we should start calling you a fool, eh?

    I realize you don’t agree with their decision but when does it stop becoming a tear apart our own session?

  6. Bob S. says:

    By the way…Is it a law suit or a motion for a TRO? Is there a difference?

  7. Sebastian says:

    It’s a TRO, but it’s because they intend to sue, and this means that the courts view there is a high likelihood of them winning.

    And Bob, they walked into a public library carrying a shotgun. There’s making a mistake, and being a fucking idiot. This is the latter category.

  8. David says:

    “These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms”

    It’s not about whether they will win or lose the lawsuit. It’s about bankrupting MI Open Carry and putting a hurt on the activists. This is what happens when misguided armed activism takes hold. If the library wins, get ready for more and more of the suits to pop up.

  9. Bob S. says:

    Sebastian,

    So the world of gun owners has to conform to your standard of decision making or they are Effing idiots.

    Okay, I get it. You don’t like their decision making process. Heck the NRA didn’t like the Heller case and its associated decision making process but that still came out a win.

    I’m not asking you to agree with their decision making process. I’m asking when you stop beating people up for making decisions you don’t agree with?

  10. Sebastian says:

    It would seem, based on the backlash, that even blogs that have been very supportive of open carry, hell, even the ones that raked me over the coals for not being supportive of open carry, think these guys are way way out of line.

  11. Sebastian says:

    And I would note that if the theory that this TRO and lawsuit is based on prevails, it will be a very serious blow to organizations like I mentioned above. When your actions jeopardize the whole movement, yes, I’m going to call you a fool, if I’m feeling nice, and a jackass if I’m not.

  12. David says:

    I love post #3 on MOC’s forums:

    “All MOC members and affiliates?
    WTF did I do? I’ve never even been there.
    NOW I’m thinking about going up there to cause a fuss…”

  13. MKEgal says:

    I can’t believe a judge signed that TRO.
    Since Michigan has preemption which prevents any gov’t entity (including the library authority) from regulating the carry, etc., of guns, the library should have been laughed out of court with a stern warning about stopping their illegal actions.

    No, carrying a shotgun probably was not the best choice, but it wasn’t a crime. The library, on the other hand, is working itself into a federal civil rights suit because of its ongoing insistance on committing civil rights violations.

  14. Bob S. says:

    Sebastian,

    Again…so what?

    Everyone thinks they are out of line, great. Say it and move on.

    Why on God’s green earth are you continuing to beat up the advocates who did something?

    The court case hasn’t been won yet, the TRO hasn’t even been granted yet, public opinion hasn’t swung wildly against gun rights, it isn’t even making news in Texas.

    But here you are calling them fools for an action you disagree with.

    You talk about activists not giving the antis any ammunition to work with and here it seems you are loading magazines for them!

    When do you stop beating them up?

  15. Sebastian says:

    Because if you don’t speak out against stupidity, it has a habit of growing. I’m not going to sit idly by and watch people jeopardize everything else the rest of us have achieved.

  16. Sebastian says:

    Since Michigan has preemption which prevents any gov’t entity (including the library authority) from regulating the carry, etc., of guns, the library should have been laughed out of court with a stern warning about stopping their illegal actions.

    The library is making a plausible claim it is not a governmental entity that is covered by preemption. In the TRO they note that in other parts of the Michigan Statutes, their type of structure is specifically defined, and distinctively from the local government. I think they have a good argument here. The libraries may be able to exercise rights as a property holder outside state and local governments. They may not be preempted.

  17. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    Hello all, Im a member of MOC and would like to clear up some of the misconceptions I have read here.
    NO member of MOC carried a shotgun into the Lansing Library.
    This was done last December by a an 18 yr old who by michigan law is not eligable to obtaine a concealed pistol permit.
    His only method of carry option is to carry open. That day it was extremly windy out and he was affraid if his winter coat
    had blown over and covered his sidearm, He could be arrested for carrying a concealled weapon. so he chose to carry the shotgun slung over his shoulder. ( thats not the option I myself would have chose) but it was his,and it is Legal here in Michigan

  18. Bob S. says:

    I’m finding the claim of the library a little hard to swallow.

    An entity formed by one or more branches of governmental authorities isn’t a governmental authority?

  19. mike says:

    “That day it was extremly windy out and he was affraid if his winter coat had blown over and covered his sidearm, He could be arrested for carrying a concealled weapon. so he chose to carry the shotgun slung over his shoulder.”

    That doesn’t pass the sniff test. Give me a break. Are people that disconnected from reality that they think people will believe this stuff? I think this 18 year old demonstrated his ineligibility for a concealed pistol permit, much less a pistol.

    “An entity formed by one or more branches of governmental authorities isn’t a governmental authority?”

    Don’t tell that do Fannie Mae and friends..

  20. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    Half of the articals or blogs that are being written out there
    are missing key facts, or state false facts altogether.

    Our own local news people can`t even get the story right for peet sake.
    We are not Idiots, that like to go around scaring people to promote gun rights. In fact we are the complete opposite of that. We hold free training seminars,and promote gun safety here. After the Non MOC member carried the shotgun into the library,The Library board voted to make a No weapons policy in the Library. Thats when MOC got involved and tried to get this Illegal policy changed so that legal gun owners could be able to carry there.after a few attempts of
    diplomacy ie. going to board meetings,attending City Council meetings, The library was not budging,thats when a couple of members went to the library just before a council meeting. they went in,sat down,and worked on the computer while researching information regarding the Council meeting. They left without incident and the temp. restraining order came a few days later.

  21. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    “That doesn’t pass the sniff test. Give me a break. Are people that disconnected from reality that they think people will believe this stuff? I think this 18 year old demonstrated his ineligibility for a concealed pistol permit, much less a pistol.”

    Well Im sorry it doesn`t pass your “sniff test” Mike
    But thats what happened according to the actual people that were there. I don`t like to get the facts second or third hand. I asked them directly to that person. Right from the horses mouth. If Tyler says thats why he carried the shotgun that day
    I have no reason to doubt him.

  22. 1 of Madison Culvers 5 says:

    If you believe those members were wrong in there actions. That is your right to your opinion. They believe and have justifiable reasoning for their actions. They shouldn’t be degraded and called names for their actions. Bottom line is they are standing up for their inalienable right as human beings to carry a means to protect themselves. Sometimes we just do what we believe to be right and those with a gift of authority wish to squash those rights. It’s our duty to stand up to those unlawful acts. If people didn’t stand up and defend our rights, then we would not be allowed to exercise any of them. But in the end, usually a lot of education comes out of these larger cases. That knowledge makes a large difference on how people act and respond toward Open Carriers. I know from my personal experience since my incident. Many people now know the perfectly legal aspect of carrying and producing ID’s and now criticize the Police Department for their unlawful and Department Policy violations. As a result of that knowledge, there are less looks, and no problems from the general population.

  23. mike says:

    “If Tyler says thats why he carried the shotgun that day
    I have no reason to doubt him.”

    Well it’s laughable. He’s young, so perhaps his naivety can be forgiven. But if grown adults are falling for this, then I think they need to reflect a bit. Seriously. “I brought my shotgun because it was windy.” Either people are truly, truly naive, or they’re pretending to believe it because they think they’ve found some kind of legal loophole. But to the rest of us, it looks like typical fringe crazy talk.

  24. These are the sort of situations that give me little hope for the survival of the American Republic. The deeper I read into the causes of the collapse of the Roman Repubilc, the more apparent that it is we are heading down the same path.

  25. Sebastian says:

    I’m starting to agree with you Clayton, and I tend to be an optimist.

  26. Sebastian says:

    I should also note that crap like this is what turned me from an OC supporter to an OC opponents (though I have always believed it’s a right and should remain legal). Because cooler heads in the movement seemingly were prevailed, I mellowed a bit and switch to just being indifferent about it.

    This is convincing me to go back and become an opponent again. Not because I think it’s fundamentally flawed, wrong, or immoral, but because there’s a minority out there that seem to be attracted to OC activism for all the wrong reasons. If a certain method of activism attracts a disproportionate number of bozos to other methods, I’m inclined to believe that method is less desirable than alternatives.

  27. The bit that I find ridiculous is that they are afraid that in notifying the defendant that they are seeking injunctive relief and a TRO they will “accelerate it’s violation of the Weapons Policy and endanger library patrons”. In other words that MOC will go postal. The TRO magically will prevent that. I doubt that MOC will go postal in any event, but TRO’s don’t prevent that, just ask any number of battered women.

    I hate stupidity, in any form. And frankly, I don’t think what they did was necessarily stupid. Sometimes, “in your face” is exactly what people need. We need to stand WITH them on this, if for no other reason than we could be next. Unite, or die. Defend to the death their rights now, and we can squabble amongst ourselves over which is better OC or CCW later, AFTER we win this with a UNITED front.

  28. Sebastian says:

    I’ll stand with them on the lawsuit, and on not needing any new laws restricting open carry.

    I’m not standing with them on their actions being smart, because if I have to take a break from doing activism that moves to ball forward to deal with issues that didn’t need to be brought up, I’m not going to be happy.

    OC is legal in Michigan. Libraries are arguably not preempted by the law. You didn’t need to push this. You did… without doing your homework… likely without consulting with an attorney. That’s foolish in my book.

  29. Bob S. says:

    So Sebastian,

    Again I’m confused — who exactly are making up the ‘disproportionate number of bozos’?

    One 19 year old with a shotgun?

    What I find incredulous is how you and many others are missing the opportunity to point out the lack of commonsense in the laws.

    The 19 year old can vote, can operate a car, enter a contract, enlist in the military, etc but if he wants to legally carry a means of defense – his best way to avoid arrest and prosecution is to Openly Carry a shotgun.

    How is that commonsense?

    Instead you are trying to beat him about the head and shoulders — repeatedly!!! — for doing a method of activism you disagree with.

    Instead of pointing out over and over again how problematic it would be to allow each agency, governmental, non-governmental quasi-governmental, etc to preempt state law; you repeatedly attack the activists for their decision making.

    No one is asking you to commend their decision making process but are you doing the RKBA more harm by making the same arguments antis make?

    You say “they are fools for open carrying in a library”.
    The antis say anyone is a fool to carry — and see even the gunnies think there are normal every day places people shouldn’t carry firearms.

    When do you stop beating them up for an action you don’t agree with and start actively defending their right with the same vigor?

  30. mike says:

    “What I find incredulous is how you and many others are missing the opportunity to point out the lack of commonsense in the laws.”

    “How is that commonsense?”

    Where, exactly, is the “common sense” in bringing a shotgun to a library? Or having an OC rally there for that matter.

    You can tell we’re in looney land when people are unconvinced that maybe it’s a bad idea to bring a shotgun to a library, or to have an OC sit-in there. Is the MOC also advocating legalized marijuana or something? There’s got to be something I’m missing that makes sense of all of this.

  31. Bob S. says:

    Mike,

    Read what I said carefully because you are putting words in my mouth.

    I never said that it was commonsense to bring a shotgun to the library.

    I’m saying it is not commonsense to make that his only option.

    You are proving my point exactly.

    You can tell we’re in looney land when people are unconvinced that maybe it’s a bad idea to bring a pistol to a library, or to have an OC sit-in there

    You can tell we’re in looney land when people are unconvinced that maybe it’s a bad idea to bring a concealed pistol to a library, or to have an CCW sit-in there

    IF not the library where?

    Could you put together a list of places where we won’t offend someone, anyone and exercise our rights in an advocacy mode?

    I would love to see more statements along the lines of “I wouldn’t carry a shotgun there but it is his right. Now lets talk about WHY he resorted to carrying a shotgun. Do you know the Michigan state laws are so screwy”?

    That is what I’m not seeing. And I’m asking why not?

  32. Sebastian says:

    One 19 year old with a shotgun?

    As if this was the only incident of people involved with open carry being jackasses. This is a regular fucking occurrence, and I’m sick to death of it. OC is legal in most states. That’s going to quickly change if these idiots keep doing what they are doing.

  33. mike says:

    “I would love to see more statements along the lines of “I wouldn’t carry a shotgun there but it is his right. Now lets talk about WHY he resorted to carrying a shotgun. Do you know the Michigan state laws are so screwy”?”

    As is demonstrated on this very website (and in many other places every time someone pulls one of these stunts), bringing a shotgun into the library doesn’t focus the energy on the silly laws he’s trying to highlight, it focuses the energy on the silly person(s) pulling the stunt.

    Newsflash: this isn’t going to change. Ever. So this is a poor form of advocacy. I’ll stand with you guys, the moment you do something that doesn’t make me cringe. If I had my kids at the local library and someone showed up with a shotgun, my first thought is “Protect my kids from potential madman with shotgun” – whereas you think it should be “Gee, perhaps I should try and understand his motivations.” Naivety doesn’t even begin do describe that line of thinking.

    This nonsense hurts gun rights, even if you’re determined to believe otherwise. Hopefully this will turn into a lawsuit that makes these nearsighted fringe members think twice about pulling this crap again. Or maybe it’ll embolden them to do something even dumber.

  34. John says:

    Wow, reading this I am realizing what gun snobs I am surrounded by. It is really interesting to me that we all seem to know everything, better than each other.

    There appears to be a complete disconnect between you concealed carry only guys and the open carry guys. I wish we could carry here in New Jersey, period. It doesn’t matter what you carry, or how. The right of armed self defense is what matters. The rest is personal preference. It sounds to me that some of you are not really all that comfortable around guns. At least not comfortable around anything that you personally would not carry.

    I also find it completely ridiculous on the comment section of this blog how quickly one can be deemed unworthy or unfit to carry. I am starting to think that some of you are pretenders who support the rights of their friends and the rights they want to exercise, but leave others on the side of the road. I suppose that comes from my own form of gun snobbery. I know that I have been examining my own views in the past year, some have changed drastically, others have not. Some of you may want to do the same.

  35. mike says:

    “I also find it completely ridiculous on the comment section of this blog how quickly one can be deemed unworthy or unfit to carry.”

    From what was said above, the guy who started all of this brought a shotgun to the library because it was windy. If that’s the case, then in my very humble opinion, that young man very literally needs to get his head examined. If people think bringing a shotgun to the library because it’s windy is perfectly reasonable, then I believe they also need to get their heads examined. Literally. I cannot imagine a universe where I would believe otherwise, or where a little wind would be a good justification for bringing a shotgun to a library.

  36. John says:

    Just a quick note on the linked document:

    So Sebastian, you are saying it is a good argument that a government unit can partner with another government unit to create a new entity, that has powers not vested in either of the entities creating it. That doesn’t pass my smell test.

  37. Bob S. says:

    Mike,

    Either you are deliberately being provocative or are missing major points.

    He didn’t carry a shotgun just because it was windy.

    He carried it because state law does not allow him to obtain a concealed pistol permit.

    He carried a shotgun because allowing a pistol to become momentarily concealed is an arrestable event.

    He carried a shotgun because he wants to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without being arrested.

    Do you think he needs his head examined for wanting to do that?

    He carried the shotgun because the firearm isn’t a danger in the hands of a responsible and law abiding citizen.

    You may disagree with his decision, fine — but you are making the same argument many anti rights advocates make.

    That is it unreasonable to carry a firearm to a particular location.

    The man — and 19 is a man — carried a firearm and he happened to go to the library.

    Isn’t that the argument we make for concealed carry?

    That we don’t carry a firearm TO the library but we carry a firearm as we go about our daily lives.

    If it is unreasonable to carry a shotgun to the library, why isn’t it unreasonable to carry a pistol?

  38. Garrett Lee says:

    “I cannot imagine a universe where I would believe otherwise, or where a little wind would be a good justification for bringing a shotgun to a library.”

    I can imagine such a universe. However, it involves the wind causing something to make noise that attracts zombies. In this scenario, carrying a shotgun is perfectly understandable and sensible. In most others, not so much.

  39. John says:

    Mike, I realize that there are differences in culture in different parts of the world, or even one country. I grew up with guns, and do not fear the possession of a shotgun by someone who is not threatening anyone. The idea that the mere presence of a firearm is in some way threatening is foreign to me. If that gun is in the hands of a person pointing it at me, it is a very different reaction. I realize that my view is somewhat skewed from others in that I grew up with firearms, and served in an Marine infantry unit. I am comfortable around guns. Some people are not. While you may not understand it, these open carry guys are just trying to say, “Hey, having a gun is no big deal, we can prove it.”

    The funniest part of this is that it used to be reversed from how it is now. In our country’s early history, those hiding their guns were thought to be suspicious. Now the guys that don’t are considered “Looney.”

  40. Garrett Lee says:

    “If it is unreasonable to carry a shotgun to the library, why isn’t it unreasonable to carry a pistol?”

    The normal answer to this question is that a long gun is carried for the expected threats, while a pistol is carried for the unexpected threats. The idea is that if you are expecting trouble (maybe you really pissed off the mafia or something), why are you going to an area where the potential for collateral damage would be very high?

    Personally, were I expecting trouble, I would be going to the machine shop to begin work on a Gatling gun in 7.92×57. (Although I might have to stop by the library first to get a book on how to properly make a rifling jig.)

    End result: Long guns tell people you are carrying for a very specific purpose – and the idea of that purpose splashing onto others unnerves people. In some cases, this can be good – but in most, it is not.

  41. John says:

    Bob, I think you made this argument far better than I was.

  42. Robb Allen says:

    Sebastian, for once I’m going to be rude to you.

    Reach down and pull hard until you hear a popping sound of your head dislodging from your ass. Have Bitter help you if you need it.

    You, out of all people, should understand the echo effects of our line of work. You and I live and breathe guns, gun activism, news, etc. We immerse ourselves in it. Right now we’re pushing 40 and 50 comment threads per blog post on this. We’ve got a combined readership in the thousands.

    And it ain’t .00001% of the whole damned country.

    This “happening all the time” line is a load of bullshit. We’re a country of over 300,000,000 million people, things happen because of the numbers. More CCW holders will commit crimes this week than OC idjits will carry a shotgun to church this year. japete and mikeb90120 are constantly finding news stories of gun owners doing stupid stuff and you’re the first one to point out the fact that it’s statistical noise.

    Why are you running with the same logic?

    3 states are Constitutional Carry. Arizona got that because open carry proved to not be an issue. Several more have bills pending for ConCar. Florida is going to pass Open Carry. If as many OC’ers did stupid shit like this as often as you make it seem, none of this would be going our way.

    I’m NOT saying the shotgun stunt was a great plan. Neither are the OC dinners where some idiot announces they’re carrying to the entire Sizzler. But you and I hear this more because we’re paying attention for it. We’re seeking it out.

    I pointed out that I’ve been watching a bunch of Michigan news sites. The vast majority of them have already buried the story deep within the searches. Another 3 days and something shiny will come along and distract the populace.

    You complain about OC zealots, and I’m sure there are plenty of them, but I see a larger percentage of people who are assholes with just plain ol’ gun owners.

    Doesn’t mean I’m ready to give up on them. One would hope you won’t either.

    This is the one area you and I disagree on the most. But I’ll be damned if I’m just going to say “These people are being assholes” and split thing up. You just posted about not throwing anyone out of the lifeboat and yet here you are, angry at a *fraction* of a percent of certain gun owners, talking like you’re ready to drop your support.

  43. mike says:

    “The idea that the mere presence of a firearm is in some way threatening is foreign to me.”

    Nor me. Unless it’s a shotgun (not a “firearm” – which people keep swapping in place of “shotgun”) in a library. That is entirely unacceptable. That’s the line, and it was crossed. The fringe refuses to acknowledge that, yet John Q. Public can spot it a mile away, and even fellow gun owners are unsettled by it. Ibid.

    This nonsense is making me that much more convinced that OC restrictions are needed, whereas if these fringe activists hadn’t pulled these stunts I would have been right beside you fighting for OC rights. Good job, guys. Losing hearts and minds one at a time.

  44. Sebastian says:

    This whole topic shows why I’ve gotten wary of the OC issue. I totally support OC being legal, without restriction. That isn’t going to change no matter what people do. We have to draw the line at using government to enforce our own personal preferences on others.

    But every time someone goes too far, I can’t seem to make arguments that convince anyone. So it’s a fucking waste of my time, to be honest. I’m done with it. The OC people can do what they want. If we end up fighting major battles on OC, I’ll be more outspoken, but if someone in Michigan wants to carry a shotgun into a library, knock yourself out. It’s a state battle in a state I’ve never lived in or visited. It’s your battle, not mine.

  45. Bob S. says:

    Sebastian,

    The problem I have with your argument is you are sitting some arbitrary and personal line as “too far”.

    Did either the 19 year old or the MOC break the law?

    Did either of them carry where people wouldn’t carry a firearm?

    No, they carried in a place you wouldn’t so you are throwing them under the bus and calling them names.

  46. Sebastian says:

    Mike,

    I can’t really go as far as your position. No way I could really. If you believe keeping and bearing arms is a right, there can be no room for legal prohibitions on the practice. None. I’m not being diplomatic about that. I think that’s a fundamental bedrock principle. For various reasons about our constitutional history in this country, OC may very well be more protected than CC.

    That’s a separate issue from OC as activism.

  47. mike says:

    Hey, I think it’s a wonderful idea to outlaw bringing shotguns into libraries. This way, if I’m at the library with my kids and someone shows up with a shotgun, I know I’d better either get out or come up with a plan in case I need to defend myself and my loved ones. It’s not reasonable to bring a shotgun to the library, wind or no wind.

    Your rights stop at the point I have to worry about whether you’re going to kill my children with a shotgun at the library. Or at least they should, because apparently people aren’t bright enough to avoid doing things that make people wonder if the guy in the library with the shotgun will try to kill them.

  48. Sebastian says:

    They won’t stop at libraries, mike, nor at shotguns, and victories enable them.

  49. mike says:

    Then maybe these OC fringe activists should stop converting people like me into supporters of OC restrictions..

  50. Sebastian says:

    Did either of them carry where people wouldn’t carry a firearm?

    Yes, they did, and that’s why everyone is talking about it.

  51. Robb Allen says:

    *sniff*

    Anyone else smell a troll?

    Sebastian, there’s nothing wrong with deciding that your efforts are better spent elsewhere. I respect that. I can’t actively fight for knife rights because I’m too busy trying to get gun rights stuff done. I support it insofar as I’ll write my congress critters if any bills show up, but I’m not going to go out of my way to do actual activism work on it. This doesn’t mean I don’t support their rights, I’m just not active in that support.

    I fault no one for that decision. And in that way, these stunts *do* hurt us when we lose people who would *actively* help us switch to “I’ll fight if they want to take it away, but screw you if you think I’m going to help you with your PR disaster”. I don’t think they hurt us with the public at large because the media portrays even the best of us as borderline criminals. One more negative story is just lost in the noise.

    I still think you’re overstating the effect and number of these events, but at least you’re on board with the fact that you fight for all the rights because there’s no way to secure just the stuff you like while sacrificing those you don’t.

  52. Robb Allen says:

    Yes, they did, and that’s why everyone is talking about it.

    You mean .00001% of the populace, most of which seem to be us gunnies. That’s hardly everyone.

  53. SPQR says:

    I really think that we should be focused on getting Arizona style permitless concealed carry adopted. These OC in your face stunts are the wrong direction and poor PR.

    And now because I believe that I have people lying about me, calling me “anti-OC” in comment threads.

    Which push me farther from supporting the OC activists.

    Brilliant work by not-so-brilliant drama queens.

  54. Robb Allen says:

    I really think that we should be focused on getting Arizona style permitless concealed carry adopted

    From my Arizona readers, this happened primarily because open carry was a non-issue. Once they realize OC carried with it no more baggage than any other movement, it only made sense.

    Won’t happen though if we’re infighting this much.

    P.S. – My organization’s goal is eventually to push for ConCar. We gotta get OC out first though.You can’t have the former without the latter.

  55. SPQR says:

    Robb, I have followed your events and think you are doing good work. But you are trying to get OC in a state with almost none. The things we are decrying above are people with an OC law that they don’t need to be drawing inappropriate attention to. Stuff like the Michigan event at a library is going to get Michigan lawmakers to cut back on OC in reaction.

  56. Sebastian says:

    I think SPQR speaks for my position as well.

  57. Chas says:

    I don’t think I’d carry my ’03 in a library. Unless I had my 16″ bayonet on it. Overly imaginative librarians may quail at the sight of a gun, but it’s the thought of cold steel slithering through their gizzards that really makes them faint.
    Where can I get a repro bazooka? I might even go for a howitzer, though it would have to be affordable, and small enough to be able to wheel it through the library door without assistance, since I don’t think the librarians would be inclined to be helpful, what with them being passed out from fright, and hiding behind their desks and all. A howitzer with a bayonet on it would be even better.

  58. Bob S. says:

    SPQR,

    So Robb’s events trying to expand Open Carry rights are ok but MOC’ events trying to expand or protect Open Carry rights aren’t?

    And the difference is? what?

    Location?

    Would you carry a firearm in a library?

    Everyone gets that many don’t think it was good strategy to carry in a library.
    But they did.

    So we have a choice in how we react.

    1.) We can beat up and castigate ad nauseum those who made a decision differing from ours — therefore providing blog fodder and ammunition to the antis.

    or

    2.) We can admit that the strategy wasn’t the best but look the their reasoning and point out the inane laws they exposed.

    I hear terms like inappropriate places and inappropriate attention flung about often in this discussion.

    So is the library an inappropriate place to carry a firearm?
    Or do you just think that it should be “that type of firearm” carried?

    Inappropriate attention is another. Robb has pointed out several times that the brouhaha has already died down in the news media in the area. So what a bill was introduced to roll back some of our rights — those bills are introduced every session.

    Each and every one of us have a choice to make – and frankly some of you are making the choice to beat up the advocates instead of beating up on Michigan’s cockamamie laws.

    Really makes me wonder if I’m going to be the next one under the bus unless I do everything exactly according to the Rules or Hoyle or Sebastian or Mike Or any one the others condemning the activists.

  59. John says:

    What is the point of a right that you can’t exercise? Based o. The explanation we get from the guy closest to it shows that this was not a calculated move by an organization, when the guy with a shotgun entered. It appears that they may have been moved to activism when the library adopted their no weapons policy. But no one seems to have been acting threateningly. To lend credence to the argument against these guys is misguided. It is as though you agree that the presence of a firearm is a threat. The same argument the anti’s use.

  60. Sage Thrasher says:

    My local library is well within 1,000 feet of a school, so there are even more reasons locally not to follow the Michigan example unless you want to be a test case for even more laws.

  61. dustydog says:

    The library’s claim of being a separate government authority will fail, because the state constitution expressly forbids it. The state legislature doesn’t have the authority to create a government authority separate from state, county, or city government.

    It would be fun to see a judge dissolve the library because the law creating it was unconstitutional.

  62. Sebastian says:

    It didn’t create a governmental authority. It created a 501(c)(3) non-profit, apparently. This would be similar to how states have created their university system.

  63. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    @Sage thrasher “My local library is well within 1,000 feet of a school, so there are even more reasons locally not to follow the Michigan example unless you want to be a test case for even more laws.”

    Sage, here in Michigan we can Open carry in (Gun Free School Zones) if we have a CPL

  64. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    @ Dusty Dog “The library’s claim of being a separate government authority will fail, because the state constitution expressly forbids it. The state legislature doesn’t have the authority to create a government authority separate from state, county, or city government.

    It would be fun to see a judge dissolve the library because the law creating it was unconstitutional.”

    Actually their claim of being a seperate authority is valid, Because they are made up from two seperate entities. The City of Lansing& the County of Ingham . But the thing is, this new body or Authority, should not be able to posses powers greater then any one of the original local bodies of government.

  65. David says:

    I just love all the armchair lawyering going on here. I wonder how long it will be till the Joyce foundation takes up funding these tactics.

  66. Matthew Carberry says:

    To beat the horse, and I said this over at Robb’s.

    Why can’t people keep their protests on narrow single point?

    That’s all I’m asking. Do just enough to give you standing to take legal action or raise awareness on one precise issue at a time in the least “scary” way, and then explain that legal action will be forthcoming if the policy isn’t changed.

    The kid who wants to carry at 19? Great, I support him, but he could pick a better time, place and manner to make that point than at a library. Remember, he has already won on one issue, OC at 19 is legal. “I need CC because what if my jacket flops down”, is a pretty spurious basis for the challenge in any event.

    Regardless of his justification, the children’s section of a library with an f-ing shotgun was the most asinine possible place he could have chosen to make his point. Why not a public street, not right outside an actual school or other “what about the children” area? All he needed was a cop to ask him what he was doing to have legal/moral standing to raise the issue of “that’s all the law leaves me with”.

    Only an absolute idiot or deliberate attention whore couldn’t or wouldn’t think far enough ahead to realize that making parents fear for their children in a library was going to cloud the issue and make his convincing the undecided middle -harder-.

    That’s what I’m against. Unnecessary or, worse, deliberately stupid actions in public.

  67. David says:

    “Only an absolute idiot or deliberate attention whore couldn’t or wouldn’t think far enough ahead to realize that making parents fear for their children in a library was going to cloud the issue and make his convincing the undecided middle -harder-.”

    Or a misguided 19 year old.

  68. Matthew Carberry says:

    David,

    Not meaning to sound snarky but which is he?

    A young yet mature and rational legal adult who deserves the same carry rights as 21+ year olds or a misguided 19 year old (kid) who has shown he makes bad or at least odd decisions involving carry?

    We can’t have it both ways. Regardless of the fact we are “right” morally, ethically and factually (statistically speaking) that carry in any manner by non-prohibited adults isn’t dangerous regardless of permitting or formal training or even calendar age; we harm, or at least do no favors for, our own position by actions, based on that “rightness”, that end up with us having to explain ourselves or falling back on our absolute, in our eyes, RKBA.

  69. He carried a shotgun because allowing a pistol to become momentarily concealed is an arrestable event.

    External shoulder holster. Leg holster. Both solve the problem–and if you are carrying a very small pistol, many people may not even notice it unless they get very close. A black or blue Walther PPK in such a rig would give him the opportunity to defend himself without any risk of running afoul of the concealed carry law. I’m not entirely sure that OC is a wise tactical move from a political standpoint, but it is utterly brilliant compared to carrying any long gun in a public setting.

  70. MiOpenCarryGuy says:

    “1.Matthew Carberry Said,
    February 19th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    To beat the horse, and I said this over at Robb’s.

    Why can’t people keep their protests on narrow single point?

    That’s all I’m asking. Do just enough to give you standing to take legal action or raise awareness on one precise issue at a time in the least “scary” way, and then explain that legal action will be forthcoming if the policy isn’t changed.

    The kid who wants to carry at 19? Great, I support him, but he could pick a better time, place and manner to make that point than at a library”

    Matthew, The 19 yr old didn`t carry at the library to make a point,or to demonstrate anything. He was there just checking out a book as part of his everyday routine. He often carries his shotgun while walking through lansing. The lansing police have seen him many times before and never hassled him for it. Right now he only owns 3 weapons. a shotgun,and ruger 10/22 w/folding stock(in MI.thats a pistol), and a BBgun. He doesn`t have a arsenal to choose from.

  71. Kubel says:

    Member of MOC here. I’m under the restraining order and I’ve never stepped foot into a CADL library in my life. Meanwhile, someone who is not a member (or agent, or affiliated with, etc…) can still walk in and open carry. How can a judge sign a TRO so unequally and unfairly like this?

  72. Matthew Carberry says:

    That puts a better spin on it I guess, though if he had gone -into the library- carrying a shotgun before as part of his “normal routine” is there any indication why the staff chose this particular trip to make a big deal?

    When he was asked to leave did he do so, explaining that their action was illegal and that he would like the chance, perhaps at a later time, to speak with the policy makers?

    That’s the issue that keeps getting ignored. Where OC is already legal there’s a big difference between OC-ing and dealing rationally with infringements and being confrontational about it.

    99% of the people who you will be confronting can’t do anything about the policy, you’re arguing a “no” given by someone who can’t say “yes” if they want to.

    The best move is to comply in the moment and take it up with those who have real authority later. It’s an inconvenience perhaps but it has fewer potential negatives in the long run. It’s not “spinelessness” or Fudd-ism, it’s being smarter than the other guy in order to win, thinking strategically not tactically. Long-term positive change not short-term gratification .

  73. MKEgal says:

    “their claim of being a seperate authority is valid, Because they are made up from two seperate entities. The City of Lansing& the County of Ingham”

    Huh? How can 2 governmental agencies create a non-governmental agency?
    If the city is their mother & the county is their father, they’re a gov’t agency. Both parents are gov’t agencies, they can’t be anything else. They’re defined in many places in MI law as a gov’t agency – they point it out themselves in their legal papers!

  74. matthew carberry says:

    How can two governmental bodies create a “non-governmental agency”?

    Simple, the agency in question is not already defined in statute as included in the list of defined “governmental agencies”. In so far as it is not, it becomes “arguably so” in the eyes of the law.

top