Campus Carry Goes to the Michigan Supreme Court

This Week in Gun Rights is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal, legislative and other news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights.

Michigan to decide if students may bear arms on public college campuses

University of Michigan

Shutterstock

After nearly three and a half years, the Michigan Supreme Court will finally hear an appeal of a lower court’s decision to uphold a ban on the possession of firearms on University of Michigan’s campus. Unfortunately, the conditions for hearing the case are off to a bad start.

Per the order issued by the state supreme court, the party appealing the lower court’s decision must address “whether intermediate or strict judicial scrutiny applies in this case” and whether the University of Michigan’s anti-gun policy “reflects historical or traditional firearm restrictions within a university setting.”

What makes this case particularly interesting from a legal perspective is the obvious misinterpretation of SCOTUS precedent and clearly desired outcome implied by the court’s order. By asking if the university’s policy reflects the history and tradition of firearms restrictions solely within the context of a university setting, the court is attempting to reframe the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case the High Court laid out the appropriate standard of review for determining whether gun laws are constitutional — whether text, history, and tradition exist and support the law in question.

The problem with the Michigan Supreme Court’s position is that the “text, history, and tradition” standard requires an examination of history and tradition preceding the nation’s founding. It has nothing to do with regulating carry on college campuses. There is no history or tradition of banning carry on campuses in colonial America, so the rule, like all restrictions on firearms possession on school properties across the nation, is blatantly unconstitutional and should be struck down. 

North Carolina county refuses to process gun permit applications . . . again.

Coronavirus Covid 19 Infected Patient, Man Wearing Mask And Coug

Bigstock

From behind the skirts of Harnett County Health Director Josh Rouse, Sheriff Wayne Coats announced earlier this week that his office would be suspending fingerprinting services, an essential component of firearms permit applications, for two weeks, or at least until November 23. The local CBS station provided the county’s infection rate, totaling about 2.4% of its population, apparently to provide some context justifying the sheriff’s decision.

Nobody is arguing that infection concerns are illegitimate, but there’s no reason to suspend access to a service required to gain permission to exercise a constitutional right. If the county is so concerned about the spread of COVID, it should take reasonable steps to mitigate the probability of exposure.

Sheriff Coats said that his office would continue to provide other services from the door of his office. Perhaps it’s time to install a service window for walkup services. If some Plexiglass panes, gloves, and masks are good enough for fast food and other retail workers — people who face a constant risk of viral infection — I’m sure it would be fine for sheriff’s office staffers as well.

The obligation of the sheriff is to enforce the laws, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land – it’s time for Harnett County to remember that and get back to work.

Delawareans brace for more gun control proposals

Delaware gun control

Shutterstock

Following this year’s election, Delawareans may suffer further setbacks to their gun rights. Democrats, led by recently reelected Governor John Carney, have been leading a push for more anti-gun legislation over the last several years.

In 2018 they passed bills copying existing federal statutes and a red flag law, and in 2019 they advanced bills banning assault weapons, banning high capacity magazines, and criminalizing “unsafe” firearms storage. After this election, Democrats hold a supermajority in the state senate and a near-supermajority in the state general assembly.

The bills proposed in 2019 were met with a high degree of resistance. Anti-gun legislators were met by opposition from union members and protesters outnumbered supporters roughly 3 to 1. One of the most significant changes was the replacement of the senate president pro tempore, Marie Pinkney, who ousted the previous holder of that seat says that one of her top priorities for the next session will be gun control.

Despite the lack of popular support for anti-gun bills, many now fear that the legislative majority will disregard the desires of their constituents and advance the same bills that failed in 2019, and then some. Delaware may be the second-smallest state in the union, but we’ll definitely be following their legislature this next session.

Miss USA opposes gun bans, or something

Asya Branch Miss USA

(AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

Generally speaking, I think it’s best to listen to people who are well-versed in public policy. You know, consult the experts before pulling the trigger (so to speak) on anything. After all, you wouldn’t want to sign off on a surgery before speaking to a doctor about it. The same rule applies to people like Asya Branch, the current Miss USA. During the pageant, Asya was asked about gun laws. This was her response:

“I think it’s important that we not ban guns because, obviously, people will find a way to get what they want anyway,” Branch, who represented Mississippi, said onstage as she stood among the final five contestants on Monday night. “But I think it’s our Second Amendment right, and I think we just need more safety surrounding that.”

Not exactly the pro-human rights response I was looking for. Good thing I wasn’t one of the judges. But it gets worse. According to Miss Asya, “AK-47s and other guns along those lines should be left to our military,” and “[t]here’s no reason for civilians to have those types of weapons.”

Biden and ATF conspiring already, are you surprised?

Joe Biden

(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

And so it begins. Joe Biden is already talking to Regina Lombardo, the Acting Director of the ATF to decide how to move forward with more extra-legislative administrative gun control the moment he enters the Oval Office in January. According to an anonymous source, Biden’s transition team contacted the executive staff – Lombardo and her Associate Deputy Directors, Marvin Richardson and Curtis Gilbert – to determine the organization’s top anti-gun priorities.

Lombardo, Richardson, and Gilbert have been champing at the bit to take action on banning pistol braces but have lacked the political capital to do so over the last several years. The other two items in their sights are pistol braces and 80% lower receivers.

If you’ve been following the ATF’s abuse of the administrative process for a while, I’m sure that you’re well aware that they intend to do the same kind of thing that they did at the beginning of President Trump’s administration — abuse executive power to redefine these items as subject to ATF regulation, items which were never considered (and didn’t exist) when the legislature passed the  and redefine things which were clearly never intended to be included under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

As it stands, even if anti-gun politicians are unable to secure a majority in the Senate, we have to remain ever vigilant. There will always be someone poised to use their power to subvert the legislature and turn an innumerable number of gun owners into felons simply for possessing materials that can’t shoot bullets and braces intended to make the operation of firearms easier. 

comments

  1. avatar FedUp says:

    Michigan’s last chance at Supreme Court victory for the 2A before the court flips Dem in January. (which it might have done even without the Dem election fraud)

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      The MI SC flopped Dem years ago. It used to be 4-3 liberal, in 2018 it became 5-2 liberal. We’re doomed.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        So they aren’t total partisan hacks like Breyer and Sotomayor?
        They didn’t put up with much illegal crap from Heil Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel this year.

      2. avatar Dan from Detroit says:

        Fingers crossed, but they’ve not exactly been gun friendly – to the point of totally ignoring the main argument of a recent case in favor of social concerns.. I’m not familiar with the attorney on this case – there are only 2 or 3 who are regularly involved in the big cases, especially in that part of michigan. I’m hoping he’s joined by the others.

        I know all too well that universities in MI are very anti-gun and will try to railroad you if you don’t roll in with a team of lawyers. good luck Mr. Wade.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Clio?
          https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/2016/329418.html

          Marxists and Demoncrats (but I repeat myself) have never been fans of crime victims defending themselves. But to have a Demon dominated court tell HeilWhitler “you silly slut, the law doesn’t say you can do that” makes them not total partisan hacks in my book.

  2. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    Public college campuses with public money through tax should be a easy answer..

    https://ourgunfreedoms.com/the-new-miss-usa-says-she-doesnt-support-banning-guns-but-believes-ak-47s-are-better-left-to-the-military/

    Miss Asya does not understand guns or the 2nd amendment!

    I guess if she spoke the truth & said IDK or i am not a expert she would of gotten negative points..but, would of been honest!

    However, not being experts does NOT stop millions of morons from commenting about guns….& 2nd Amendment!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Perfect example,Slow Joe and the Hoe,cluless Marxist’s opining on something they know nothing of.

  3. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    The misunderstood AK-47 that so many think is some full auto machine gun only for the Military….not realizing its just like a semi-auto hunting rifle…that ballistically the 7.62×39 is much like the 30-30 round.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    If the justices first duty is to the constitution of the state of Michagan,it should be found constitutional.

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    (Permission to exercise a Constitutional Right)
    I never knew that you have to have permission to exercise a Constitutional Right…(must be a echo in here.)
    I’m willing to bet that Michigan being Michigan (there it is again), will deny the students rights, that’s what Democrat majority states do, deny the American Constitution.
    Take it to the U S Supreme Court, better chance of a win there.
    “”” FREE KYLE”””

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “Permission to exercise a Constitutional Right)”

      Each and every gun control law is un constitutional, the only permit needed is the one the entire nation already haste 2 nd. amendment, it just needs to be enforced.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Make Tyrants Afraid Again

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “…text, history, and tradition…”

    Pointed out during Kavanaugh’s hearings that this concept was a snake that would endlessly bite us in the ass-umptions.

  7. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Phi8lly has also stopped processing LTCF applications until sometime in December. Josh Prince is already on it.

    https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/11/19/philadelphia-gun-permit-unit-closed-due-to-covid/

  8. avatar Pete says:

    So, would Michigan be cool with other historical gun control laws? Like the Negro Codes.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      The 1920s handgun registration law, still on the books although the permit to purchase is mostly gone now, was IMO instituted as a way to allow the sheriffs to prevent people of the ‘wrong color’ from owning handguns. I believe it was the racists in Lansing’s answer to Dr. Ossian Sweet.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet

  9. avatar President Elect Lifesavor says:

    When I am finally inaugurated, I will issue an Executive Order that all schools receiving Federal funds MUST off firearms safety and training classes.

    I am also going to push for legislation that allows criminal and civil suits against judges who clearly substitute their own prejudices in place of the State and Federal Constitutions

  10. avatar adverse6 says:

    College students should not be allowed sharp pencils, much less a firearm.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      When I attended Michigan State University, my four year old daughter often sat behind me in class drawing and coloring. I don’t think she understood the calculus, deterministic systems, or other topics. I was happy that both her and I were allowed sharp pencils, though.

      I also wore an openly carried firearm on campus outside of the classroom. There are probably people in this very forum that would deny that’s possible. They are wrong.

      Now we could have another conversation…

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “College students should not be allowed sharp pencils, much less a firearm.”

      Well, now there you go, posing a proposition that is extrememly difficult to dispute.

      Thanks for nothing.

  11. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    I wrote this as an answer to someone’s snarky comment, but I am going to copy it here as a new post because people need to see it. It’ll get lost in the reply.

    When I attended Michigan State University, my four year old daughter often sat behind me in class drawing and coloring. I don’t think she understood the calculus, deterministic systems, or other topics. I was happy that both her and I were allowed sharp pencils, though.

    I also wore an openly carried firearm on campus outside of the classroom. There are probably people in this very forum that would deny that’s possible. They are wrong.

    Now we could have another conversation…

    To carry this further, there was at least one administrator who threatened to have OCers arrested. Yes, we have contacted them. I’ve been OCing for over fifteen years. Maybe twenty.
    Hasn’t happened yet.

    1. avatar adverse6 says:

      A four year old and a firearm? Like one lethal weapon wasn’t enough? (“Snarky”, really? Get over yourself).

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