Michigan –-(Ammoland.com)- MOC’s corporate counsel, Dean Greenblatt, officially appealed on our behalf to the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse the appellate ruling against us in MOC\Herman v. Clio Area Schools.
The entire scope of preemption in Michigan is at stake. If you would like to support our efforts, please consider donating to our Legal Fund.
Last month, a 3 judge panel ruled against us and said that public schools in Michigan are not Local Units of Government for the purposes of preempting firearm regulation. Their ruling allows schools to make their own policies, even if those policies contradict state law.
We believe the Court of Appeals erred in many ways, but most notably in their excessive and perhaps purposeful confusion of express preemption vs. implied/field preemption.
Express preemption is where the Legislature expressly says X entity is preempted. Implied/field preemption is when the Legislator so heavily regulates an area, it leaves nothing left for a lower unit of government to regulate. In CADL v. MOC (2012) the Court of Appeals ruled:
“The library is a quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of preemption when it attempts to regulate subject matter that is regulated by the Legislature. The Legislature, through MCL 123.1102, has expressly prohibited local government regulation of firearms and ammunition generally in cities, villages, townships, and counties, including in their libraries. Although a district library is not a local unit of government as defined by MCL 123.1101(a), legislative history, the pervasiveness of the Legislature’s regulation of firearms, and the need for exclusive, uniform state regulation of firearm possession as compared to a patchwork of inconsistent local regulations indicate that the Legislature has completely occupied the field that CADL seeks to enter.”
It is notable that the lone dissenting judge in CADL was part of the majority against us in the Clio ruling. In looking to explain how the Clio Court got it wrong, a footnote from the CADL ruling sums it up best, which we were sure to include in our appeal.
“With all due respect to our learned colleague in dissent, her analysis fails to acknowledge the fact that Llewellyn is binding precedent, which we as an intermediate court may not choose to disregard or rebuff. As such, the dissent; avoids the required application and analysis of field preemption. It is a tautology to say that because the Legislature did not expressly include district libraries in its definition of local units of government as set forth in MCL 123.1101(a), it must have specifically intended not to occupy the field of gun regulation when it comes to the presence of guns in district libraries. While cases often rise and fall on the plain language of a statute, because this matter entails regulation by a lower-level governmental entity in an area that is regulated by the state, it is not a statutory-interpretation case. Such a simplistic analysis would render the doctrine of field preemption a nullity, which it is not.”
If you would like to read our full brief, you may find it here BRIEF, along with a rather lengthy supplemental appendix here APPENDIX.
I cannot say it enough – the entire scope of preemption in Michigan is at stake, including our previous win in CADL v. MOC. Fighting a case all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court is not cheap and we can use every bit of help we can get.
Won’t you please consider donating to our Legal Fund today? Even the cost of a box of ammo will go a long way towards defending your rights!
Michigan Open Carry, Inc is a Not-For-Profit organization that depends on our dues paying members to continue our operation. We are an all-volunteer organization. As such, no one is paid a salary and very few of the personal expenses of our officers are reimbursed. Won’t you consider joining us or renewing as a dues paying member today? If you need technical help with the process, please email [email protected].
I feel sorry for the law abiding citizens of your state,law makers don’t care about your safety nor LEO agencies. They rather have a criminal carrying a weapon under there jacket,and most law abiding people with CCW Permits would care open. If the state will allow it. When I worked I LE, my firearm is out of my level 3 holster with every other officer on seen. Until deem the situation would warrant to holster them. We always wanted to access to the weapon and if open carry gets passed most criminals will not open carry,because LE will engage you… Read more »