backenj
Regular Member
I can't post the picture from my phone right now, but there is a no gun/weapons sign at the Department of Human Services building in Muskegon. Is it legal?
DHS is a child placement agency, making it akin to a sports stadium as far as CC/OC goes.
So I can OC with a CPL?
It's akin to a bar/sports stadium, etc.
To say you can OC with a CPL over-simplifies the matter. See People v Watkins.
Actually, I think they consider it more like a day care center or something. But I might be wrong.
What one? I found a few and most are in regards to marijuana. One was about MSU, one was about a fight.
Department of Human Services is a political subdivision of the executive branch of the State.
They are not preempted by the legislature.
So, are you saying the sign is legal? Thanks Q, I will read it after work.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=136331
Enjoy!
Please note, ultimately Thea case set no new binding precedent one way or another.
OK. Shorter article then I thought. That has to do with a sports arena. This is a state facility. Not the same.
I'm saying that since they're not preempted by the state (since they *are* the state), they may be able to be more restrictive than state law on premises they control.
And that's regardless of whether they're a daycare facility or not.
No, not for that reason. I've been in the DHS office in Lansing, they have, or at least had a "day care" type area where parents who were there to see a case worker could leave their children under adult supervision. Usually some grandmotherly type person.You can't consider the numerous adults, who are dependent on the state for most of their life for food and shelter, who often act immature, And hang out there for the better part of the day to be "children".
It seems that know body knows for sure. Thanks every one.
Zig was right, they are not preempted. Because DHS is a child placement agency(having nothing to do with the fact there is an area to have kids babysat) it places it firmly in the 28.425o CC restrictions. That leaves OC w/CPL. So, can a state agency ban firearm carry on it's property? Absent a law to stop them(like preemption), I can't see why they wouldn't. Then there is Q's thought that they somehow have to have the power to regulate firearms written somewhere. I suppose that could have merit. So, who is suing the state to find out?