“The ruling today does not come as a surprise, the law is the law. Now that Clio Area Schools have heard the ruling, read the laws and the Court of Appeals case law has been explained to them, I (hope) they stop burning through tax dollars fighting the law and common sense.” – Kenneth Herman in Judge’s ruling allows open carry guns in elementary school [at mlive.com]
Make individual parties personally liable for court costs and attorney fees for frivolous lawsuits in obvious violation of explicit statutes, and I bet they’ll suddenly develop an appreciation for the rule of law.
Bingo!!!
You want to have lawmakers make a law that will leave them liable for court cases to overturn their own laws that are illegal/unconstitutional.
It’s brilliant, so it’ll never happen
It is actually written into at least a few state firearms preemption statutes: any municipal (or other non-state) violators can be fined, and must pay court costs/lawyer fees, when challenged in court for violating state preemption.
Note: the request was for *personal* liability; what you described is public liability; more using tax dollars to pay for stupid, obviously invalid, laws.
‘It is actually written into at least a few state firearms preemption statutes: any municipal (or other non-state) violators can be fined, and must pay court costs/lawyer fees, when challenged in court for violating state preemption.’
I believe Florida has that, Chip.
And It’s working beautifully.
Ahhh…..but burning through tax dollars is their specialty!
This superintendent Spears has only been in the job since April 2014, having replaced the incumbent who was removed from office and reassigned elsewhere in the district under indeterminate circumstances. Well.
As a result, the district has a new superintendent, but is still paying the former superintendent for the remaining two years on his contract at $167,000/year.
Call it one for the price of two, or a super onefer deal.
Lawyers and legislators (both one and the same in most cases) would be out of business if they had to factor in the cost of losing when deciding to take up a case. Fewer cases, less income…yeah, never going to happen. Excellent idea in theory, but unlikely to make it into practice.
Another “win”.
So can the school prevent teachers’ from practicing open carry? And why did Michigan ban discreet carry in schools? Indeed, why do people make a fuss over how you carry your firearm? Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
In Michigan any employer can prohibited an employee from carrying at work as a condition of employment so long as it clearly communicated to the employee (generally via the employee handbook).
I still think the disparity between the two pistol free zones lists is a bug rather than a feature, but I’ll take it….
Always remember those are tax dollars and they will spend our money any way they see fit. Spit
Lol, those pussy school officials have their panties in a wad.
I kind of wince at the idea of open carry at elementary schools. I do believe firearms should be allowed. However what does it say about us that firearms in elementary schools are needed? Hell just arm everyone 18 and over. The stupid and homicidal will get themselves killed within a year. The suicidal will do them self off faster. Then we will be a safer nation I think. 🙂
@Frank: Anyone old enough should be able to carry a weapon. It is their choice but should not be forced on them if they don’t feel they can handle that responsibility. Your remark about suicides makes NO sense. A person hardly needs a gun to commit suicide. There are many other effective ways to do that. Also note that this decision allows the person that filed the lawsuit to carry on the school grounds because he has a CPL. It does not allow everyone to open carry there. Theoretically he has been vetted and it was determined that it is OK for him to carry a firearm. So, why make him take it off to pick up his child ? Too bad the law in that state does not allow him to carry concealed on the school grounds. If it did then some people would not get so freaked out when he arrives to pick up his child.
“…However what does it say about us that firearms in elementary schools are needed? ”
Again with the needs….. you don’t get to determine what I need in any situation.
Maybe I won’t need my firearm at the elementary school, but I am going several other places before or after where I might want my firearm. Why should I be expected to disarm here at the school but no where else. Am I supposed to do my errands, go home and disarm, go to the school, go home to tool up and continue with my day?
Firearms shouldn’t be needed on elementary schools, agreed, but they are needed. It’s not unheard of for an elementary school to be the target of criminal violence, after all.
Your basic quarrel is with reality, not the policy. Implementing a gun ban merely to make ourselves more comfortable with an abhorrent reality, not only does not eliminate that reality, but leaves us even more vulnerable to the risks.
This is a tertiary issue, anyway. The primary issue is that this man has the right to keep and bear arms, a right which this school district has infringed. The secondary issue is that authority for setting this sort of policy rests with the legislature and governor. The school district clearly, illegally, flagrantly even, acted beyond its authority in implementing this total firearms ban.
This…
“what does it say about us that firearms in elementary schools are needed?”
It says that we are prepared do deal with the evil that we know exists. It says that we’re prepared to stop another Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. etc.
“Hell just arm everyone 18 and over.”
No. It’s not the government’s job to arm anyone other than the military. The government’s only responsibility is to not infringe on our right to defend ourselves.
And this.
If you read the article it was actually the guy that was open carrying and has a CPL permit that allows him to do so in a school zone that brought the lawsuit. However, I agree that the School District wasted the court’s time and taxpayer money by fighting the lawsuit. The main problem was that the School District thought they could make up their own laws in this area but the judge said “NO YOU CAN’T”. Quote from the article follows:
“But, Hayman sided with Herman and Michigan Open Carry’s argument that the ability to create local weapon policies is beyond the legal authority of the school district and its attempt to do so intrudes upon the lawmaking authority of the state, which has created laws to allow open carry of firearms on school grounds for some people.”
This decision only allows open carry in a school zone for someone that holds a valid CPL permit in that state. It does not allow anyone to openly carry a firearm into a school zone. The lawsuit was started by a parent that open carries his weapon and did not think he should have to take it off or leave it in his vehicle when he picked up his child at the school. Wonder if this decision could help to eliminate other GFZs that were created by bureaucrats that overstepped their authority ?
Sweet! The back to school sales should be awesome now!
If you can’t trust someone to carry with a CCW on school property, you shouldn’t trust them to carry with a CCW off school property. If you can’t trust them to carry with a CCW off school property, why was it issued in the first place? Crossing imaginary boundaries doesn’t change behavior.
If they can’t be trusted with two pounds of metal and explosives on their hip, then they certainly shouldn’t be trusted behind the wheel of 3,500 pounds of metal and explosives. Yet, nobody’s banning automobiles from school property. Curious, that.
Close. If you cannot be trusted to carry a firearm, you can’t be trusted to live among the rest of us.
Too many people make simple things difficult. Glad to see a Judge set things straight.
Teeth to the preemption law won’t make a difference. School boards as not “local units of government”. They are in many states, but not in Michigan.
We do have field preemption via judicial ruling CADL v Michigan Open Carry.
Did anyone else catch the link to the article published the next day?
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/08/clio_school_open_carry_gun_loc.html#incart_story_package
The title of the next article is: “Guns will still cause school lockdowns despite court ruling, officials say.”
The important quote is, “Spears said the district would follow Hayman’s ruling, but he said school administrators will continue to lock down buildings once a firearm is spotted on the property in order to determine the motivation of the armed individual.”
The plaintiff Kenneth Herman is clearly known by the school district, but I wonder if they intend to put the building into lock down every time he shows up.
Comments are closed.