Following the links on the above story, if one reads the PDF file on Michigan carry laws, it is clear that if the man (as claimed in some of the other comments) had a CPL, he violated no state or federal laws. He was not arrested, but it was stated that the police would "consider" issuing a warrant. If they consulted their DA and read the statutes, they likely have decided against it. It is a no-win case. Open carry with a CPL is allowed in a school zone. To say the man was stupid for purposely demonstrating a known constitutional and statutory right is saying anyone who open carries in a "demonstration" is stupid. He knew what he was doing. Whether he made others aware of their rights or has stirred anti-gunners to "plugging" the loop holes, he has certainly brought the issue of open carry to the forefront in Michigan.
"But the district spokesman says state law does not allow people with concealed carry permits to take them to properties like schools and churches. Helmholdt says schools are also legal gun-free zones.
Helmholdt says the Kent County Prosecutor's Office is reviewing the case, but he expects the man to be charged with a misdemeanor for violating the gun-free school law."
Once again, the ignorance of some is astounding. Michigan law only addresses concealed carry with reference to schools. This site from Michigan Open Carry is informative:
Michigan Open Carry's Statement on Lawful Carry of a Handgun into a School
Here is additional information, including a opinion rendered by a former Michigan AG: First, schools are covered under the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA). The GFSZA contains the following exemption: "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;" Per a letter written by the ATF (posted at
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf), "The law provides certain exceptions to the general ban on possession of firearms in school zones. One exception is where the individual possessing the firearm "is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State. . ." See 18 D.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). A license qualifies as an exception only if the law of the State or political subdivision requires law enforcement authorities to verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." Michigan CPL guidelines require that the MSP make such a verification, therefore exempting CPL holders under the exception contained in the GFSZA. In fact, it is a stated frustration of law enforcement officers that, in this particular instance, CPL holders have more rights to carry on school property than off-duty officers (unless they also possess a CPL).
Now, the problem in Michigan is this - Michigan law doesn't permit CONCEALED carry on school property - but it does allow OPEN carry. In a letter dated June 28, 2002, written by then-AG Jennifer Granholm to Sen. Gary Peters, the following opinion was rendered (and is still in force at this time) regarding open carry:
"A plain reading of section 5o(1) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act discloses, however, that its prohibition applies only to the carrying of pistols that are "concealed." A holstered pistol carried openly and in plain view is not "concealed" and therefore does not violate the prohibition contained in that section….The carrying of firearms in public is also restricted by the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. Section 234d of the Penal Code identifies certain "gun free zones" similar to those enumerated in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act; within those specified zones, the possession of firearms is strictly prohibited, subject to limited exceptions. Specifically, section 234d(1) of the Penal Code provides that:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
This language is significantly broader than that employed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. By its express terms, section 234d(1) of the Penal Code applies to firearms generally, not merely to pistols, and applies to firearms whether concealed or not. Subsection (2) of this provision creates several specific exceptions to this prohibition, two of which are germane to your inquiry. It provides, in pertinent part that:
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A PERSON LICENSED BY THIS STATE OR ANOTHER STATE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON.
Similarly, section 237a(4) of the Penal Code prohibits possession of a firearm in a weapon free school zone, a term defined in section 237a(6)(d) as "school property and a vehicle used by a school to transport students to or from school property." LIKE SECTION 234D(2), THE PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSING FIREARMS IN A SCHOOL ZONE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PEACE OFFICER OR TO A PERSON LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON. Section 237a(5)..." (bolding added).
So under the terms of the GFSZA, the CPL must have been issued by the state in which the school is located - in this case, Michigan. A person so licensed is, therefore exempt from the GFSZA. And while Michigan law does not permit CONCEALED carry in a school zone, the opinion rendered by the AG clearly states that a person who holds a CPL may carry OPENLY on school property.
