Michigan School: We [Still] Go Into Lockdown for Open Carry

Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 10.13.39 AM

This AM we ran a Quote Of The Day from a Milford High School Michigan teacher who was outraged about open carry on campus. Last night, the school board held a hearing. “It was a packed house at Milford High School Monday night as the Huron Valley [Michigan] school board invited an open discussion on Michigan’s open carry law and how the district should handle weapons on campus,” wxyz.com reports.[Click on link for video.]  Excellent! A discussion on weapons handling on campus – the difference between cover and concealment, the importance of communication between armed defenders, etc. – is a great idea! Only you know that’s not what they discussed . . .

The issue recently came to a head when a father wore his gun to two of the district’s building after hours. While state law prohibits concealed firearms in public school buildings, anyone with a concealed pistol license can ‘open carry.

In fact, current school policy mandates a precautionary lockdown if anyone strolls in with a gat. So which one’s gonna go: the lockdown policy of Michiganders’ right to open carry on campus?

Gun rights advocates from across metro Detroit came out in force Monday to express their opinions during the public comment portion of the meeting. They want school district leaders to re-think their current emergency plan – to go into lockdown every time anyone brings a weapon on campus during school hours.

A written statement issued by Rebecca Walsh, Huron Valley school board president, states:

“Any visitor who brings a gun will be treated the same and the police will be summoned. This is essential because the District has no way to know who is violating the law and who first into the exception.”

Who first into the exception? Either that’s a misprint of Ms. Walsh should be focusing her mind on her own education rather than scaring the bejesus out of the entire school when a parent exercises their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on campus. In any case, Ms. Walsh should be denied permission to play the edumacator card. Ditto Ms. Masson.

Retired Huron Valley teacher Sherri Masson told board members, “After years of studying data on gun violence I’ve come to understand that the presence of firearms does not make us safer.”

Years, I tell you! Years! Years of study which somehow didn’t contemplate the simple truth of NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre’s post-Newtown pronouncement: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would a gun in the hands of a defender make Ms. Masson’s alma mater safer in the case of an armed attack? Yes. Yes it would.

Needless to say, Huron Valley school board president Rebecca Walsh was unmoved by pro-gun remonstrations of common sense, logic and reason (“Many people likened the lockdown emergency plan to crying wolf, and pointed out that such false alarms can disrupt learning time”). Nor will the fact that there are some 1600 comments on the Click on Detroit Facebook page supporting open carry at Milford.

Rebecca Walsh said, “They brought up some interesting points we’re taking notes about what everybody is saying.”

Walsh said the administration will evaluate the district’s emergency plan and study whether it needs any amendments. She said the board expects to have a revised resolution by the end of the month.

Banning open carry on school district property, of course. Wait, can they do that? Not legally. But as the post-Newtown gun control surge tells us, where there’s ill will there’s a way. [h/t JS and unccomn_sense]

comments

  1. avatar fishydude says:

    Just change the law allowing CCW holder to CC instead of forcing OC on campus. Then the bad guys don’t know who has guns and those who flip out at the mere site of a gun due to years of propaganda won’t freak out and get an innocent person killed.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      If only ‘common sense’ was more ‘common’.

      ‘Course you know, if that change in the law was made, the first concealed carrier to be seen ‘printing’ by some anti-gun school employee would give cause for another effort…to ban *all* carry, which is the ultimate goal of these anti-gun types. Emotin’ and dogma seems to trump all logical thought when it comes to educational venues at any level.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Nah, the *ultimate* goal is no ownership/possession, “no carry” is just a waypoint.

        1. avatar Fred says:

          Makes me think of anything the teacher doesn’t want in their class and the famous line, “if I see it it’s mine”. In this case they have no power to confiscate so they want to do the next best thing. They’re nothing but feeble power pushers.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Just change the law allowing CCW holder to CC

      Hell no! That would be forcing people to exercise a privilege in place of a right. Now, if anyone could conceal without a license in a school then it might be a marginally acceptable solution. Would you agree that only those people with press credentials could utter a word at schools? Of course not! Why would you expect people to take a license in order to exercise a right?

    3. avatar Gregolas says:

      I second fishydude.

    4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Just change the law allowing CCW holder to CC instead of forcing OC on campus.

      We tried. The Michigan Senate and House passed a bill allowing school CC so people wouldn’t be forced to OC, but the (R) governor Snyder vetoed it.

      1. avatar Jared says:

        We sure did.

        I was at the Milford meeting last night and I spoke. I told them that if the governor allowed CCW in schools like 10 other states do, then this issue would be a non-issue.

      2. avatar Fed Up says:

        R= RINO who prefers Bloomberg’s needs over those of Republican voters.
        I’ll have to send his office an email explaining why I voted Buzuma today after voting Snyder four years ago.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    So what do they do for all the people who may be concealing their guns? They far outnumber the few who openly carry them.

    Oh, it’s against the law? So then nobody does it I guess because we all know nobody does anything that’s against the law.

    If these people want to be crazy and irrational lets see them go all in. Half-measure insanity is getting boring. I want to see off the wall irrational madness. Siren blaring, SWAT swarming hysterical lock-downs for everyone who enters. They could be concealing a weapon, carrying ebola, could be a pedo, might even be a hostile alien creature taking human form. Freak out for the children!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “They could be concealing a weapon, carrying ebola …”

      The educators and gun grabbers never seem to grasp this. Every single person — I repeat — every single person who walks through the doors of a school could have a concealed firearm, bomb, sword, matches and gasoline, and/or a highly contagious and dangerous disease. Furthermore, no one at the school knows the state of mind of any such person walking through the doors.

      School staff reaction to a firearm being visible on a person who is calm and non-threatening simply reveals that their reaction is hysteria, plain and simple.

      Remember, attackers kill more people every year with their bare hands and feet than they do with rifles and shotguns. Why are our schools failing to institute a lockdown every time someone walks to the doors with hands and feet?

  3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    More bullying. If you exercise your legal rights, we’ll make your life miserable. Just leave your evil gun at home and we won’t have to make your life miserable. You don’t want your life to be miserable, do you?

  4. avatar DonS says:

    “Who first into the exception? Either that’s a misprint of Ms. Walsh should be focusing her mind on her own education”

    Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

    That’s at least the second instance of of where or would’ve fit better.

    “So which one’s gonna go: the lockdown policy of Michiganders’ right to open carry on campus?”

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Yep. I noticed that also. Spellcheck can’t substitute for proofreading.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Doncha just hate it when that happens?

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      That’s why you just [sic] em, and move on. Let the reader draw the inference.

  5. avatar GarrettM says:

    The parents should continue to exercise their right to carry. Pretty sure the police will get tired of daily frivolous 911 calls quite quickly.

    1. avatar danthemann5 says:

      I was thinking the same thing, just troll their policy until they give it up. Troll for the children!

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. Their flawed ’emergency’ policy would get changed in short order if enough did that.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Would it? Or would parents first get tired of being cited for disorderly conduct , being barred from school property, and having their carry licenses suspended? In wars of wills, the State, with all day every day to devote to this and a willingness to spend every last one of your tax dollars to do it, generally has the advantage.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          No doubt the State has the advantage. However, we’ve (as in myself included; personally) been very successful at getting the State to flinch. Between RKBA advocacy, Cop Blocking, and generally being a pain in the ass to the State… they usually give up when we ride into the storm. It takes dedication and an earnest belief in “Give me Liberty or give me death.”

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, et al require evidence of intent in order to charge, and SCOTUS has held that mere exercise of RKBA in a lawful manner, in the conduct of otherwise lawful activities, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of any unlawful activity.

          I have a feeling that there are plenty of Michiganders in that school district who would be more than willing to have that fight, and to fight back with lawsuits against the school district and police department.

        3. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

          Except in this case, they weight of the State is behind the gun carriers not the school district.

          If it was a private school on private property, then it would be the property owner’s choice to set policy and the visitor’s choice whether to abide or take their business elsewhere.

          However this is a public location where the right to OC is explicitly protected by law. I’d wonder if her “threat” could fall into the category of intentionally calling in false 911 emergencies? Especially if it becomes a repeat situation. How is this different than yelling “Fire!” in a theater?

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      If the law says it’s legal the police should simply refuse to make anything of it. Observe if need be, but let the school administrators deal with it themselves.They can lock themselves up all day if they feel the need.

  6. avatar JasonM says:

    “After years of studying data on gun violence I’ve come to understand that the presence of firearms does not make us safer.”

    Man, it took me less than an hour to prove that they do. Hopefully she didn’t teach statistics or critical thinking…wait what am I saying? She was a public school teacher, none of them teach critical thinking.

    Or maybe this is a case of those who can’t, teaching.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      The best response to something like that is: “OK. Could you lay out the basic arguments and summarize the relevant data?”

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Response:

      2. avatar John M. says:

        Nah, just ask her who it is she thinks would come if she called 911 from her fainting couch after she spots a holstered gun, and what kinds of equipment she thinks they will bring.

    2. avatar James says:

      I noticed the article didn’t say what the retired K through 12 teacher taught. Are we to believe that a probable english or art or music teacher did actual research, crunched data, found trends and did detail analysis? More likely, the person’s personal feelings about gun was the research. What sloppy lazy journalism.

    3. avatar DGM says:

      “After years of studying data on gun violence I’ve come to understand that the presence of firearms does not make us safer.”

      People with such sentiments have obviously not seen any documentaries on the Bloods, Crips, MS-13, Hell’s Angels, the Mongols or Las Zetas. How many times does someone have a flat tire and be left stranded on the side of the highway/road before they purchase a spare, tire iron and car jack? How many times does a mom with a newborn go out and about without taking along the diaper bag? People usually don’t see any sense in having something that they don’t think they need until they find themselves in a situation where they would benefit from having the thing they didn’t think they’d need. After being in that situation, take your pick scenario wise, I bet they went out and got whatever it was they needed in that moment and they make sure they have access to it should the moment arise. I had a buddy who was dating a girl and they were having some trouble. Both would cheat and then accuse the other of infidelity. The girls father told my bud to stay away from his daughter and if he saw my bud again, he’d kick his ass. Well, during this time my friend was heavily involved in weight lifting and anabolic steroids. My buddy saw this girls father pumping gas at a gas station and cut across 4 lanes of traffic to pull up into the gas station’s parking lot and confront the guy. The girls father was petrified and all he tried to do was run away. My friend tried to antagonize him into a fight. Wasn’t happening so my friend let this girls dad go. Several days later the girl calls my friend and tells him her dad bought a gun because of the incident.

      I know this was lengthy and all and more than likely by now, if not earlier, you’re asking yourself or screaming at me through the computer screen, “SOO WHHHAT!!”

      This girl and her family are democrat and are staunchly in favor of gun control and essentially civilian disarmament.

      Heh heh!

      1. avatar Fred says:

        They really can’t see through statistical bias. They subscribe to the myth that any statistic is evenly distributed among all people, completely ignoring reality. Guns are dangerous and aid crime; guns in the hands of criminals that is. I guess there isn’t a study that shows criminals don’t follow the law so academics and bureaucrats don’t get it.

        Because of these biases and self-imposed mental blocks this is a matter you either get or don’t. No amount of reality will help.

        1. avatar DGM says:

          “They really can’t see through statistical bias.”

          “Because of these biases and self-imposed mental blocks this is a matter you either get or don’t. No amount of reality will help.”

          Based on my observations and purposely limited encounters with people of the mind which we’re discussing, I am of the belief that they operate entirely in the ‘idea’ zone and are indeed woefully ignorant of reality. They would comprise the ‘in theory’ component of the ‘in theory and in practice’ model. It’s interesting really, the devil is in the details. You have a frame of mind that is backed by the current administration and thus their cohorts, and then you have a frame of mind that emanates from the people themselves. Interesting when you think that at one time the hierarchy was people, state, federal government. Now it’s federal government, state, people. A reminder that shit rolls down hill and not up.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Reality scared some sense into him. 😀

        1. avatar DGM says:

          “Reality scared some sense into him.”

          Indeed! Now he has more than before! As I stated to another commentator, those kinds of people are idealists rather than realists. They stay that way until they find reality conflicting with their ideology. “Oh shit, the practice doesn’t match my theory!”

    4. avatar scoutino says:

      Also, she should dedicate some more years to study of data on ALL violence. It may convince her that presence of guns in right hands actualy does make us safer. Why is gun violence so special anyway?

  7. avatar LongPurple says:

    “While state law prohibits concealed firearms in public school buildings, anyone with a concealed pistol license can ‘open carry.”

    State law ? How about that Federal “Gun Free School Zone Act”, that trumps state law? What about violations of that law? Of course, the Feds don’t mind having state laws that generally duplicate their laws, but not in the case of immigration laws — they told Arizona to “butt out”. Strangely, they have ignored state laws that legitimize marijuana in direct violation of Federal law.
    Is there any consistency to be found here?

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Yeah, I was wondering about the preemption issue. If it’s still against a (stupid and unconstitutional but upheld by 9 in robes) federal law, then it’s still against the law.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      The GFSZA spefically gives the states the authority to create exemptions like that.

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        I don’t see where the states are “given authority” to grant any “exemption”. It is the feds who do the “granting”, on THEIR terms, with THEIR stipulations, after they poked their nose into the entire question of “GUNS IN SCHOOL”. It was a matter of gangbangers bringing guns into urban schools, and the Feds jumped in to assure “proper punishment” of a year suspension of a gun bearing student (some punishment — give the little hoodlum a year of no school to disrupt his time on the street mugging, robbing, dope dealing, and gangbanging), with Fed funds to schools being forfeit for any school system that did not obey.
        Then the gungrabbers seized the “legislative opportunity”, and added the whole nonsense of declaring a CCW null and void within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Maybe you should read more before you post, then. The act exempts state permit holders from its restrictions. States are free to impose their own restrictions under state law (as many do).

        2. avatar LongPurple says:

          Maybe you should think more before you offer your advice.

          “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.”

          Do you think that is an invitation to the states to supplement the GFSZA with additional, parallel laws, as I do?
          Do you think that it makes much sense for a Federal law to permit states to enact laws that contravene that Federal law?

          “The GFSZA spefically[sic] gives the states the authority to create exemptions like that.”

          ” States are free to impose their own restrictions under state law (as many do).”

          Do you think “create exemptions” to the law is the same as “impose their own restrictions”?

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Plenty of these people are consistently inconsistent.

    4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      How about that Federal “Gun Free School Zone Act”, that trumps state law?

      Federal law grants exemptions for those licensed in the state of the school. So carrying a gun at a school is legal under federal law if you have a carry license.

    5. avatar LongPurple says:

      The only “exemptions” I found in the “loosened” version of the GFSZA was to allow people with CCWs issued by the state in which the school zone was located to be on school grounds (NOT in the school building) with a gun. Note that out-of-state permits, even if honored by the state within whose borders the school is located by reciprocity agreement, do NOT qualify the holder of that “foreign” CCW for a Federal exemption.
      Note also that not all state issued permits will qualify for “exemption”. The Feds require that before that CCW is issued, a law enforcement authority must review the application to determine the fitness of the applicant, otherwise there is no “exemption”. That would appear to rule out Florida CCWs, since they are issued through the Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services. Apparently, the Feds think that only Law Enforcement is capable of getting a set of fingerprints checked.
      Finally, There was no exception that I found for an armed, off-duty police officer to lawfully be on school grounds, unless he ALSO held a valid, fed-acceptable CCW in addition to his badge and police ID. I doubt if any police officer thinks he needs anything in addition to his badge to prove he is lawfully armed.

  8. avatar detroiter says:

    I’ve wondered when this would come to a head. I’m impressed there was actually an attempt at sane discussion.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was flabbergasted at the apparently unanimous support for parents carrying openly in schools in the posts below the story in Facebook. You really have to read them.

  9. avatar Skyler says:

    If that were the case of my local school, I would make it a point to visit every day until they changed their policy.

    Unless it is still contrary to federal law, of course.

    1. avatar Bob101 says:

      Get a bunch of volunteers. Coordinate the visits so that the school remains in lockdown every day. For emphasis, do it right before school is out.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    For all of you concerned about federal law and school zones (areas within 1000 feet of a school):

    18 U.S. Code § 922
    (q)
    (2)
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm … at a … school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located … and the law of the State … requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State … verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Re-posted from above.

      The only “exemptions” I found in the “loosened” version of the GFSZA was to allow people with CCWs issued by the state in which the school zone was located to be on school grounds (NOT in the school building) with a gun. Note that out-of-state permits, even if honored by the state within whose borders the school is located by reciprocity agreement, do NOT qualify the holder of that “foreign” CCW for a Federal exemption.
      Note also that not all state issued permits will qualify for “exemption”. The Feds require that before that CCW is issued, a law enforcement authority must review the application to determine the fitness of the applicant, otherwise there is no “exemption”. That would appear to rule out Florida CCWs, since they are issued through the Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services. Apparently, the Feds think that only Law Enforcement is capable of getting a set of fingerprints checked.
      Finally, There was no exception that I found for an armed, off-duty police officer to lawfully be on school grounds, unless he ALSO held a valid, fed-acceptable CCW in addition to his badge and police ID. I doubt if any police officer thinks he needs anything in addition to his badge to prove he is lawfully armed.

  11. avatar Flyboy says:

    I would have this question to ask. If the presence of firearms does not make us safer, why do the police carry them???

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Police carry guns for their own safety, not ours. But don’t tell anyone … it’s their dirty little secret.

    2. avatar Fred says:

      Police don’t count as they only exist for the good of the people and have the Police Department to keep them in line.

      That’s another logical loophole they convince themselves of as police have immunity in most cases of clear wrongdoing and as we know usually get paid vacation time until the issue disappears from the headlines.

  12. avatar JimmyDelta says:

    I’m wondering how many school shooters have walked into schools, pistol properly holstered, saying they’re there to take Billy to the dentist – and then started shooting.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      None I’ve heard of. Anybody heard different?

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Three choices here. Home school, private school, or moving van.

  14. avatar meadowsr says:

    Perhaps every parent who supports on-campus carry should deliver their kids’ lunch, “forgotten” homework, medications (“littleJohnny has a headache”), and notes every single frickin’ day. Whilst OCing, of course.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email