Guess I have to disarm then.. (according to website, what if no signs?)

[xfourellsx]

I live in Toledo, Ohio (I OC & CC) and my better half lives in Wyandotte MI. I go to see her every weekend so I'm learning the MI laws. I'm finally ready to start OC'ing in MI now. I've been CC since we met while I study the MI laws on OC.

Pretty soon we are going to the Henry Ford museum for the Halloween setup they have going on with her mother. I've never met her mother. Her mother has no idea that I CC/OC.

On the website HFM states that "Carrying weapons or dangerous objects while visiting The Henry Ford properties is prohibited." Source: Rules and regulations sub 2: Legal Information

So, Because I do care for my GF plus her mother is coming and the tickets already being bought I guess I have to disarm. Sad day as I don't like to support businesses that don't support our 2nd.

That does bring up my actual question.. Can a website notice hold up if there are no signs on the doors? Is a website notice enough to get someone into trouble?

Any and all responses are greatly appreciated.

 

[topgun47]

Corporate policies and websites are meaningless unless the establishment is posted with an obvious sign at the entrance. Even with a sign posted, if you CC and are asked to leave because they notice it, you must do so under threat of misdemeanor trespass charges.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I encourage breaking any laws, but you can interpret my advice anyway you choose.

 

[ezkl2230]

Corporate policies and websites are meaningless unless the establishment is posted with an obvious sign at the entrance.

Incorrect. Michigan does not require businesses to post their gun free policy as a condition of enforcing it. In Michigan, a business is required only to make a "reasonable effort" to communicate their policy. That can be a sign, a notification on a web site, a note in the employee handbook, or an employee speaking to your personally to communicate the policy. If they have communicated their policy in any way, shape, or form, they have met the legal requirement under Michigan law and you are, theoretically, obligated to comply with it or face a misdemeanor charge of trespass if they discover that you are carrying and refuse to secure your firearm in your vehicle upon request. This also assumes that the place of business allows you to secure your firearm in your vehicle while parked in their parking lot. Since a business is "private property", they can post their parking lots off-limits as well at this time; legislation that would have changed that has been stuck in committee for over a year.

In this case, the web site notification satisfies Michigan's "reasonable effort" requirement.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Incorrect. Michigan does not require businesses to post their gun free policy as a condition of enforcing it. In Michigan, a business is required only to make a "reasonable effort" to communicate their policy. That can be a sign, a notification on a web site, a note in the employee handbook, or an employee speaking to your personally to communicate the policy. If they have communicated their policy in any way, shape, or form, they have met the legal requirement under Michigan law and you are, theoretically, obligated to comply with it or face a misdemeanor charge of trespass if they discover that you are carrying and refuse to secure your firearm in your vehicle upon request.

In this case, the web site notification satisfies Michigan's "reasonable effort" requirement.

Do you have any factual basis such as statutory language or case law behind your statement that web site notification satisfies Michigan's "reasonable effort" requirement? Can it be reasonably expected that a person would go to a company's website before doing business with them? It would be reasonable to expect a person to see a sign posted at the entrance. It would be reasonable to expect an employee to read the employee handbook. It would be reasonable to expect a person to be notified if an employee notified them verbally. I don't think there is any reasonableness at all to expect a person to be notified by a website.

 

[ezkl2230]

Since Michigan doesn't have a law requiring particular signage, MCL 750.115 (Breaking and entering or entering without breaking; buildings, tents, boats, railroad cars; entering public buildings when expressly denied) is the applicable black letter law. It states:

(1) Any person who breaks and enters or enters without breaking, any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, barn, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, or any cottage, clubhouse, boat house, hunting or fishing lodge, garage or the out-buildings belonging thereto, any ice shanty with a value of $100.00 or more, or any other structure, whether occupied or unoccupied, without first obtaining permission to enter from the owner or occupant, agent, or person having immediate control thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entering without breaking, any place which at the time of the entry was open to the public, unless the entry was expressly denied. Subsection (1) does not apply if the breaking and entering or entering without breaking was committed by a peace officer or an individual under the peace officer's direction in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a peace officer.

Michigan Legislature - Section 750.115

Subsection 2) is the applicable part of this law when it speaks of entering a building that is otherwise open to the public unless "… entry was expressly denied." This has been interpreted by MI courts and the MI State Police that the owner/lessee of the premises has, by expressly denying entrance, either orally or in writing (a notification on an organizational web site constitutes setting the policy forth in writing), reasonably communicated their policy in a manner that is easily understood (it is "reasonable"). The HFM has communicated on their web site (and probably in their brochures or on the premises as well, I'm guessing) that entry is permitted UNLESS you are carrying "weapons or dangerous objects." As interpreted by the powers that be in Michigan, this means that HFM has, in writing, "expressly denied" entrance to a firearms carrier.

One other thing you have to keep in mind where Michigan is concerned: Michigan is run by the state Chamber of Commerce. The COC tells legislators to leave it up to businesses how they will implement this law, and the legislators toe the line. It is a mantra in the state legislature: we don't want to "burden" businesses with any more regulations than we have to, or the COC will start screaming.

 

[NavyLCDR]

This has been interpreted by MI courts and the MI State Police that the owner/lessee of the premises has, by expressly denying entrance, either orally or in writing (and a notification on an organizational web site constitutes setting the policy forth in writing), reasonably communicated their policy in a manner that is easily understood (it is "reasonable").

Awesome, so you will be able to provide citations to the MI State Police and MI Court interpretations that a website provides reasonable notification? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it? The idea that Joe Consumer would have to go to a corporation's website to determine if firearms were allowed before entering the establishment which is already open to the public is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[whodat2710]

Subsection 2) is the applicable part of this law when it speaks of entering a building that is otherwise open to the public unless "… entry was expressly denied." This has been interpreted by MI courts and the MI State Police that the owner/lessee of the premises has, by expressly denying entrance, either orally or in writing (a notification on an organizational web site constitutes setting the policy forth in writing), reasonably communicated their policy in a manner that is easily understood (it is "reasonable"). The HFM has communicated on their web site (and probably in their brochures or on the premises as well, I'm guessing) that entry is permitted UNLESS you are carrying "weapons or dangerous objects." As interpreted by the powers that be in Michigan, this means that HFM has, in writing, "expressly denied" entrance to a firearms carrier.

You are missing the point, and I would like to see a case where a judge has specifically upheld that a website notice is sufficient. You are "probably...guessing..." about them having other forms of notification. If they do not, and I did not check the website, how can that meet the intent of the law?

 

[ezkl2230]

You are missing the point, and I would like to see a case where a judge has specifically upheld that a website notice is sufficient. You are "probably...guessing..." about them having other forms of notification. If they do not, and I did not check the website, how can that meet the intent of the law?

No, YOU'RE missing the point. You're demanding something that doesn't exist at this time. The state simply says they have to put it in writing somewhere or tell people about it - and to do it in the manner that places the least "burden" on the business as per the wishes of the state chamber of commerce. End of story. That's why the state hasn't gone out of its way to mandate what the notifications have to look like. It doesn't say where, or designate how the notification takes place, just as long as the business can point to it and say, "See, we made an effort to communicate the policy and we used small words so that it is 'reasonable.'" The burden of being aware of the policy is on the customer or employee. Since Michigan doesn't actually require POSTING the policy, I'm not aware that there have been ANY court cases affirming or rejecting ANY method of notification in Michigan; it hasn't been challenged as of yet. So until someone PROVES otherwise, the museum is in compliance with the law. They have put it in writing as per the MCL to which I referred.

And quite frankly, even though I would like to know in advance whether a company has a no guns policy, the fact that a company doesn't have anything posted on the doors where they can be readily seen, and I haven't been to a web site or had a conversation with an employee that tells me otherwise, means that I can carry until THEY TELL ME otherwise.

 

[xfourellsx]

Well this turned into an interesting conversation above..

That weekend at the Henry Ford came and went. I was going in armed in the darkness utilizing my ability to CC!!! Wooot! No signs were posted as we approached (that I saw). I was thinking that I was home free! I wasn't even going to ask if it was permitted or not. Why would I? That's just silly. I'm good to go in here!

But, I got guilt tripped into disarming for this event by my girlfriend. Apparently her mother would have never gone if she knew I was armed. Which got me thinking how would she know if I was CC? would my GF betray me? Yep, she would have. Which is why I had to disarm before we even picked up her mother. Granted I prefer to OC but in this case I think CC would have been more appropriate.

I'll take away from all this that not everyone has the internet to look up such info. I'll look for signs posted before making a final decision from that. I could have went in armed and no one would have known especially when I was going to go in CC.. The only two that should know is myself and my GF.. The only other way anyone would know would be if I had to use it..

Carry on you guys on the above conversation as it is some great reading.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No, YOU'RE missing the point. You're demanding something that doesn't exist at this time.

But, ezkl2230 you previously claimed that it DID exist!

This has been interpreted by MI courts and the MI State Police that the owner/lessee of the premises has, by expressly denying entrance, either orally or in writing (a notification on an organizational web site constitutes setting the policy forth in writing), reasonably communicated their policy in a manner that is easily understood (it is "reasonable").

According to you, Mom and Pop Gas Station can have a website, Link Removed. And on that website they can state, "Firearms are strictly prohibited on the premises and in the building of Mom and Pop Convenience Store." Then when Joe Citizen from across the state stops at Mom and Pop Gas Station and enters with his firearm during normal business hours to buy a candy bar, he is now violating MCL 550.115 immediately, without further notice, because on the website, Link Removed was a statement that firearms are prohibited.

Personally, I think you are just making crap up as you go along. What we are asking you to do is provide the citation to the interpretation by the MI courts and MI State Police that a notification on an organizational website is sufficient to fulfill the requirement to expressly prohibit someone from entering which you claimed to exist. Hell, according to YOUR interpretation, mom and pop gas station could post on their website that no one had permission to enter the building, and thus any member of the public who entered the store would be violating MCL 550.115 and if Mom or Pop didn't like the orange crocks on your feet they could call the police and have you arrested because their website said that nobody had permission to enter their store and that anyone who would choose to enter was given reasonable notification of that by a statement on a website.

 

[whodat2710]

No, YOU'RE missing the point. You're demanding something that doesn't exist at this time. The state simply says they have to put it in writing somewhere or tell people about it - and to do it in the manner that places the least "burden" on the business as per the wishes of the state chamber of commerce. End of story. That's why the state hasn't gone out of its way to mandate what the notifications have to look like. It doesn't say where, or designate how the notification takes place, just as long as the business can point to it and say, "See, we made an effort to communicate the policy and we used small words so that it is 'reasonable.'" The burden of being aware of the policy is on the customer or employee. Since Michigan doesn't actually require POSTING the policy, I'm not aware that there have been ANY court cases affirming or rejecting ANY method of notification in Michigan; it hasn't been challenged as of yet. So until someone PROVES otherwise, the museum is in compliance with the law. They have put it in writing as per the MCL to which I referred.

And quite frankly, even though I would like to know in advance whether a company has a no guns policy, the fact that a company doesn't have anything posted on the doors where they can be readily seen, and I haven't been to a web site or had a conversation with an employee that tells me otherwise, means that I can carry until THEY TELL ME otherwise.

You are a piece of work. You say all they have to do is post it on a website and they have made the effort, then in the same post you reaffirm what the rest of us has been saying. I am saying that if they can't be bothered to put some sort of signage ON THE PREMISES of the place where they want me to go unarmed, they can pack sand. I would also win any court case that tried to prosecute me for carrying into a place that a reasonable person could not identify as anti-gun.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Navy LCDR's legalistic posturing is always good for a chuckle or two.

I must admit, I do feel like the clown performing at a kindergarten birthday party....

 

[apvbguy]

That does bring up my actual question.. Can a website notice hold up if there are no signs on the doors? Is a website notice enough to get someone into trouble?

Any and all responses are greatly appreciated.

how do you know that there aren't any signs posted?

 

[topgun47]

Awesome, so you will be able to provide citations to the MI State Police and MI Court interpretations that a website provides reasonable notification? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it? The idea that Joe Consumer would have to go to a corporation's website to determine if firearms were allowed before entering the establishment which is already open to the public is absolutely ludicrous.

Your right, I think ezkl2230 is over-reaching in his interpretation of MI law. The Michigan LEO's that I shoot with on Tuesdays and Thursdays have had this discussion many times, and they all agree with how I worded it in post #2. That's how it is enforced here anyway.

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I feel like a broken record, you are legal to CC/OP in Mich right? then keep your weapon WELL concealed, go look at the cars, and shut the ***K up about it, god forbid if something did happen and the rent a cop at the museum started hearing voices and started shooting, I would like to think the mom and most of the others would glad you were armed, hopefully nothing happens your gun STAYS IN ITS HOLSTER, you go have dinner after and everythings cool, and YOU STAYED ARMED

 

[xfourellsx]

I feel like a broken record, you are legal to CC/OP in Mich right? then keep your weapon WELL concealed, go look at the cars, and shut the ***K up about it, god forbid if something did happen and the rent a cop at the museum started hearing voices and started shooting, I would like to think the mom and most of the others would glad you were armed, hopefully nothing happens your gun STAYS IN ITS HOLSTER, you go have dinner after and everything's cool, and YOU STAYED ARMED

Relax Rocketgeezer.. If you paid attention to the thread.. Then you see that the conversation was not with me and the others who were discussing the topic itself. It looks like you got pissed at me when you said "Go look at the cars, and shut the ***k up about it". Read my other post regarding the topic as this is over and done with. That was aimed at me and not at the other posters discussing the laws or possible laws or probably laws regarding question I had posted.

As some of us know it is not legal to CC in Michigan without a CPL. You can open carry in Michigan if you follow their laws on it. I am legal to CC in Michigan because I have an Ohio CCW which holds up in MI as they have Reciprocity and honor them as said forth by law. I can also OC anywhere in MI unless said establishments are posted, ask me to leave or disarm. I don't have to register my firearm with MI since my residence is in Ohio. (to my knowledge, correct me if wrong)

By the request of my GF, and the story of why it would be better that I went in disarmed, I left my firearm in the vehicle while visiting the Henry ford village for the Halloween event.

What it came down to was me asking myself questions.. Was I comfortable unarmed at the Henry Ford event? Yes. Did I think that something bad would happen? No. Was it wrong to think that any of us are safe? yes. Am I paranoid? No. Why? Because I am not a psychic and no one can predict the actions of others.

The conversation is pretty much over and gone beyond what it should have been. I have my answer to my OP question and I will CC during the winter Christmas event which I hear is amazing!! No signs posted on the premises so carry on and carry safe. No one will know but me and my woman.

Mods can please lock this topic.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Mods can please lock this topic.

Link Removed

Now that's just funny right there, I don't care who you are! A locked thread on USACarry! Stop it, please, my sides hurt!

 

[Leader]

Since Michigan doesn't have a law requiring particular signage, MCL 750.115 (Breaking and entering or entering without breaking; buildings, tents, boats, railroad cars; entering public buildings when expressly denied) is the applicable black letter law. It states:



Subsection 2) is the applicable part of this law when it speaks of entering a building that is otherwise open to the public unless "… entry was expressly denied." This has been interpreted by MI courts and the MI State Police that the owner/lessee of the premises has, by expressly denying entrance, either orally or in writing (a notification on an organizational web site constitutes setting the policy forth in writing), reasonably communicated their policy in a manner that is easily understood (it is "reasonable"). The HFM has communicated on their web site (and probably in their brochures or on the premises as well, I'm guessing) that entry is permitted UNLESS you are carrying "weapons or dangerous objects." As interpreted by the powers that be in Michigan, this means that HFM has, in writing, "expressly denied" entrance to a firearms carrier.

One other thing you have to keep in mind where Michigan is concerned: Michigan is run by the state Chamber of Commerce. The COC tells legislators to leave it up to businesses how they will implement this law, and the legislators toe the line. It is a mantra in the state legislature: we don't want to "burden" businesses with any more regulations than we have to, or the COC will start screaming.

Could you please site one case where someone was charged under this law?

The ONLY thing I have ever heard or seen was a charge of trespassing if you didn't leave AFTER you were personally informed by someone with the authority to do so.

 

[nogods]

So, Because I do care for my GF plus her mother is coming and the tickets already being bought I guess I have to disarm.
Any and all responses are greatly appreciated.

As Ben Franklin said, anyone who would trade safety for money and sex doesn't deserve any of them.