So, earlier today I was talking to a guy about some self defense related issues, and when I got home I double-checked some laws. It seems I was wrong in what I told him concerning Castle Doctrine and home invasion. I contacted the guy and told him so, but it still sucks to find I was acting the clichéd idiot know-it-all. However, it prompted me to reread some laws as a refresher.
I was re-reading 28.425o. Pay particular close attention to the red text.
So, according to Subsection 4b, as I understand it, gun free zones are not gun free for any gun free zone employee if the employer specifies that security and carrying are part of the job and the employee has a CPL. That being the case, why is David Agema’s HB 5162 (CC for teachers in schools) even needed? As far as I can tell, if school administrators wanted armed teachers they could do it right now. Am I missing something? Has the MEA effectively closed this route contractually?
I was re-reading 28.425o. Pay particular close attention to the red text.
28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation.
Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, “school” and “school property” mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.
(c) A sports arena or stadium.
(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that “This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons”. The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but shall not be required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL
436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.
(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.
(g) A hospital.
(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
bla bla .................................
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
bla bla............................
(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity…………………………bla bla
So, according to Subsection 4b, as I understand it, gun free zones are not gun free for any gun free zone employee if the employer specifies that security and carrying are part of the job and the employee has a CPL. That being the case, why is David Agema’s HB 5162 (CC for teachers in schools) even needed? As far as I can tell, if school administrators wanted armed teachers they could do it right now. Am I missing something? Has the MEA effectively closed this route contractually?