Previous Post
Next Post

Kenneth Herman (courtesy

Rift Emerges Among Gun Owners Over Concealing Weapons in Schools, the headline at The New York Times [gleefully?] proclaims. The story details Michiganders’ fight over gun rights within the state’s pubic schools. In this corner, we have gun owners like Kenneth Herman [above] who wants to open carry in schools (as is their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right). In that corner, we have gun control advocates who want a total gun ban in schools (because guns). In this corner, we have gun owners who want to be able to carry concealed in schools, who are OK with a ban on open carry in schools. The antis are the antis. But where do you stand on open vs. concealed in schools? Before you answer, check out the horse trading going on in the Mitten State . . .

Michigan law on weapons in schools is complex, and to some extent unsettled. Like many states, Michigan bans concealed guns at schools, libraries, sports arenas and other places. But the judge in the Clio case found that residents can take handguns into those spaces provided they carry them openly and have concealed pistol licenses.

Another Michigan judge, however, found just the opposite, ruling that the Ann Arbor schools acted legally in banning openly carried guns inside their buildings.

State Senator Arlan Meekhof, a Republican with a concealed pistol license who said he carries a weapon “all the time, except in schools,” is trying to resolve the conflict. He has sponsored legislation that would prohibit open carry on school campuses and require schools to allow concealed carry on their campuses for permit holders who seek an exemption.

Ah an “exemption.” So Michiganders seeking to conceal carry at school would have to ask the state’s permission to exercise their gun rights twice. It would kinda be like double-secret probation, only the reverse.

The legislation would apply to schools covering kindergarten through 12th grade, and seeks to extend concealed-carry rights to colleges, bars, day care centers and other areas where such guns are currently restricted. The legality of guns on public college campuses remains murky: The University of Michigan bans weapons on its property, but that policy has been challenged in court. Under the bill, private businesses could still restrict guns on their property.

So the deal here adds campus carry to the mix to sweeten the pot for those who oppose the bill because of the open carry prohibition. Politics, eh?

Though Mr. Meekhof said he generally supported open-carry rights, and though many gun owners alternate between concealed and open carry depending on the setting, he said classrooms deserved special protection from the distraction that openly carried firearms might cause.

“Someone exercising their right causes a disruption in education of our kids,” added Mr. Meekhof, the Senate majority leader. “I’m trying to find a way where people can still exercise their constitutional rights and not have the sight of a gun cause the school to lock everybody down.”

Don’t scare the horses students! Better they remain oblivious to guns that are around them, right? What’s your take on all this?

Previous Post
Next Post


      • The freedom of speech was settled at the same time, as was the right against search and seizure, but both are curtailed in a school environment. I’m uncomfortable with the former restrictions and outright opposed to the latter, but we don’t seem to be discussing either as a society.

        Point being, the enumerated rights have been curtailed in many ways for specific situations.

        (As an aside, I won’t go within 40 miles of the Mexican border in opposition to the Border Patrol’s “constitution free zone” – which I know impacts me in the Houston area, being near a sea border, and has crept up to 100 miles)

    • I see the Libertarian Constitutionalist Nazi’s are back in full force again. (No offense or flaming intended.)

      I support concealed guns in schools by qualified, licensed, and trained school administration and staff. All others can pound sand (figuratively again, of course.) With all the crazies in the world, I have no issue with restrictions on John Q. Public waltzing through Central High with his gat strapped on his hip like it is a phallic symbol of superiority.

      • ‘constitution nazis want guns everywhere’ screams nothing more than’guns for me but not for thee’.

        How about you fudds… how was it put so eloquently… ‘pound sand’?

      • So, just for the record, and I think I called this a couple of weeks ago, David B. thinks “Constitutionalists” are “Nazis.”

        That comment drips with Statism. Good to see it out in the open though.

        • Well, to the larger point, OCers in school are attempting to burn the whole gun rights movement. We “Fudds” are the Kreisau Circle or even the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s of the gun rights movement. We want what’s best for the country and not what’s feeds the delusions of a few.

        • Well, to the larger point, OCers in school are attempting to burn the whole gun rights movement.

          Much like the under-21 man carrying a long gun in Colorado, in Michigan, the only lawful way to carry a firearm at a school is to have a CWP, and to carry openly.

          The options are:

          1) Have CWP, carry openly
          2) Disarm

          Your solution is…?

        • “Well, to the larger point, OCers in school are attempting to burn the whole gun rights movement.”

          Well, that’s rich. And illogical.

          You are just anti-OC. So, you’ve made up your mind that all OC-ers are “bad.”

          That says more about YOUR mind/thinking than what the OC-ers are “attempting to do.”

          “We “Fudds” are the Kreisau Circle or even the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s of the gun rights movement. We want what’s best for the country and not what’s feeds the delusions of a few.”

          Sorry, man, but you have no basis or right to even begin to compare yourself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and what he stood for, accomplished and gave his life for.

          Just wow. That must be some ego.

          You do realize that he was a staunch pacifist who came to realize the only way to stop the monster Hitler was via violence, don’t you?

          Have you ever contemplated that on a deeper level than “Oh, look at me, I don’t like OC-ers so I’m a BIG HERO?

          Bonhoeffer understood more about personal liberty and what it takes to maintain it in the face of true tyranny than any of us here in 2015 America.

          Your self comparison to him is a bit disgusting.

        • “We “Fudds” are the Kreisau Circle or even the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s of the gun rights movement.”

          Wow. Oh, Fudds…, you’re always Fudds. Kreisau Circle? More like Fifth Columnists.
          Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Try Vidkun Quisling.

        • Were David B. to be executed by OC rights activists specifically for his stance on anti-OC, then maybe there would almost be some semblance of a claim to a minor similarity to Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

          Nah. It’s still a stretch.

          Gads; I’m still amazed at the gall of this.

      • “I see the Libertarian Constitutionalist Nazi’s are back in full force again. (No offense or flaming intended.)”

        You use two terms, Libertarian and Constitutionalist that are generally considered positives and then turn them into pejoratives by attaching the derogatory “NAZI’s” afterwards and then claim no offense was intended? Bullshit.

        You either support the Second Amendment, as written, or you don’t support the Second Amendment, or the rest of The Constitution of the United States of America. How that equates to Nazi is beyond me.

        As for the point of the larger article, it is important for each American, when exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, as with exercising any of their Constitutionally protected rights, to use good and reasonable judgement. In my opinion, the government has zero authority to tell any citizen when and where and how he/she may keep and/or bear their arms (weapons). However, I would NOT open carry, as a personal decision, in a middle or high school for the simple reason that I have observed that a certain percentage of boys in that age group have a distinct lack of self control and common sense that leads them to ostentatious displays of bravado. I would be concerned that this might lead to attempts to snatch my openly carried pistol from its holster, whether or not they intended any harm with it afterwards.

        As I can see no distinct advantage to open carry on school grounds I believe, given the option, I would prefer to remain incognito in that environment. YMMV.

      • With all the crazies in the world, I have no issue with restrictions on John Q. Public waltzing through Central High with his gat strapped on his hip like it is a phallic symbol of superiority.

        If there are that many seriously crazy, unbalanced, and dangerous people walking among us — so dangerous that you want them disarmed — isn’t that about the most compelling reason to be armed in public?

      • David B,

        How is it that you do trust John Q. Public to leave their handgun in their car, but you do not trust John Q. Public to refrain from attacking people if they have their handgun?

        Which is it? Do you, or do you NOT trust John Q. Public?

        More important question: what other rights does John Q. Public have to give up because you don’t trust John Q. Public with those rights?

        • The issue is OC at schools. You equate anarchy with Liberty. Good laws create a just and equitable society; good laws are not a heavy yoke. Quit kicking against the pricks.

        • You mistake restricted laws for a lack of law. Only a tyrant or an idiot claims that those are equivalent.

        • David B,

          Oh, come on David B. You condemned all John Q. Publics who wish to carry in schools whether they carry openly or concealed. You said it yourself here,

          I support concealed guns in schools by qualified, licensed, and trained school administration and staff. All others can pound sand …”

          And I can only imagine how few administration and staff would meet your idea of “qualified”.

          Just admit it. You cannot make a coherent statement. First you say that you trust people who you do not trust. Then you condemn everyone who would carry in schools no matter how they carry — while claiming that you are only talking about “open carry”.

        • David B,

          You said

          Good laws create a just and equitable society; good laws are not a heavy yoke.

          Hmm. Let’s see. Violent attackers have the advantages of surprise, location, tactics, strength, speed, and usually weapons as well as superior numbers. So, laws that disarm us and put us at an even greater disadvantage to violent attackers are “just and equitable” exactly how?

      • “Libertarian Constitutionalist Nazi’s” – This obviates anything you say after that point. Feel free to try again from another angle.

      • That’s cute that you think the “crazies” the world today is so full of are compelled or constrained by laws. Bless your heart.

        Oh, and, protip: following ad hominem with “no offense intended” doesn’t lessen the logical fallacy of the ad hominem.

        • Based on such an articulate and well-reasoned response, I’m not certain you understand the concept of “logical fallacy” in general, much less ad hominem in particular.

          Nevertheless: please tell me more about how mere laws will keep “crazies” from carrying firearms in schools.

      • So your real objection is to some hypothetical person’s alleged attitude? What’s it to you? Your discomfort with someone else’s attitude is inconsequential and certainly not grounds for curtailing someone’s constitutional rights. You should mind your own business.

        Or are you genuinely concerned that John Q. Public, to use your condescending term, is actually crazy and certain to go on a killing spree simply because he’s armed on campus?

        First, that view ignores the reality of decades of licensed carry that such people are more law abiding than not only the general public, but also more so than police officers.

        Second, that view ignores the reality that crazy murderers are, well, crazy and they murder. It’s kind, sorta their thing. No law, no school rule, and certainly no no-guns sign is going to stop them.

        I know I’m supposed to treat you with respect, acknowledge your concerns and try to seek some common ground in hopes of persuading you. At least that’s what the apologist, appeasement crowd contends.

        Still, your argument is so patently shallow, hollow and hateful toward people, that it’s really difficult to take you as anything but a severely deluded and possibly evil individual. It’s obvious you’ve not only done no serious thinking about this subject, but likely lack the critical thinking skills to do so. You’re wasting opportunities to understand even rudimentary principles.

      • An idividual who has been deemed too dangersous to society and has been locked up in prison is the only person who should have restrictions on thier choices of tool or method used in self defense. All other restrictions on a person’s choices regarding self defense is immoral and has been the foundation of every act of violence that is considered a crime against humanity that has ever occurred.

      • Let’s follow the apparent “logic” of your comment to its actual conclusion.

        You claim John Q. Public cannot be trusted to carry a firearm in a school.

        Yet, by the wording of that statement, you seem perfectly comfortable with LEO’s carrying, specifically OC-ing, in schools (assuming you don’t view LEO’s as being the member of the group John Q. Public).

        It is verifiable fact that CC permit holders of the John Q. Public variety have a lower crime rate than the population comprised of LEO’s. Further, we have vastly different rates of law abiding John Q. Public members flash banging babies in cribs, shooting non-aggressive dogs and attacking female mail carriers in a residential neighborhood (while mistaking them, and the truck, for a fugitive).

        So, if the issue you have with John Q. Public carrying in schools is that he cannot be trusted, then by your own logic, that same statement HAS to apply to cops, because the cops are demonstrably more dangerous to the General Public than John Q. Public CCW holder is.

        By your own logic, you should favor John Q. Public carrying in schools RATHER than LEO’s.

        So, what is it? Is it a safety and “trust” issue, in which case your conclusion does not fit the data, OR is it an emotional bias, in which case no one cares what you “feel”?

        Or, is it the third option, that LEO’s are part of John Q. Public and you don’t favor THEM carrying in schools either? In this case, no one carries in schools and you are, in fact, anti-gun and favor “gun free zones.”

    • But, people have a right to feel save… And besides, the 2nd A only protects “muskets” and “the militia.”

      Furthermore, the 2nd A is outdated, that’s what we have police for, you know. You don’t ten rounds or assault weapons for hunting.

      Don’t you like children, don’t you want to save little children from certain death?

      We need common sense laws and the government to protect us from ourselves, and you gun nuts are crazy people with little penises.


      Ok, I’m all done. Just wanted try it on for size.

      • How does OC in schools protect us from the British or our own tyrannical government?
        This is a stunt. Nothing more or less.

        • The better question is “where is the demonstrable harm?” Just because something makes you “feel” a certain way is not a good reason to ban it. The burden of proof is on people who want restrictions, not on the people who want them lifted.

          Oh, and the 2nd amendment is not about protecting us from the British. It was for protecting us from crazies and our own government.

        • “The better question is “where is the demonstrable harm?” “

          A most excellent point.

          An OC’d handgun carried by a Law Abiding Citizen (as we all are supposed to be presumed until proven guilty via due process) causes no harm to anyone.

          But, that’s the way of it in the Statist mind. There, we are all guilty little Sheep that need some good old fashioned controllin’.

  1. I’m a big fan of legislation that requires the honoring of the right to carry openly or concealed at the discretion of the gun owner. That being said, however, I can see the argument against open carry in places where it could be a distraction. I don’t happen to agree with that argument, but I can see it.

    What needs to happen is a blanket policy one way or the other. None of this “exception” garbage.

  2. The veneer of a cover garment does nothing to increase safety, I would be more concerned with kids being exposed to liberal educators than seeing a gun.

    Besides if they are good Americans from freedom loving homes, not only have they already been exposed to firearms, they may already have one of their own, or a reasonable facsimile of one. (Toy, air soft, BB, paintball etc)

  3. My take on this is that I support education in schools. Until the administrators and teachers actually educate their students, they should STFU about everything else and thank the taxpayers for their jobs.

  4. This just sounds like a ban on OC in schools. In my experience, the only people actually get that “exemption” when they apply for it are mostly ex-LEO, but I have met a retired fire chief with the exemption as well. It might be possible for us peons after the county “Gun Boards” are gone (or are they already?). But I wont hold my breath.

    • Currently the CC exemption in schools just applies to a special class: LEOs, judges, prosecutors, prison guards, etc. Under the new law, if passed and signed, the exemption is free and applies to everyone. All you have to do is check the box on your application that says, “I want to conceal carry in pistol-free zones.” No extra training or cost involved, just check the box.

      The main thing this law does is trade OC for CC because some school officials (but not all) are getting their panties in a twist. We actually have a fair number of parents who are currently OCing in schools every week without issue. They attend school functions, parent-teacher conferences, field trips, special events, etc. This includes a lot of elementary schools, but also middle and high schools, too.

      Some school officials, led by Ann Arbor, are lobbying against the new law, too, saying they don’t want CC, either. So ironically if the new law doesn’t pass it stays the way it is, OC only allowed. The legislators have told the schools that they cannot prevent carry, that basically they get a choice: OC or CC, one or the other.

  5. I don’t mind polite requests to keep guns in college classrooms concealed. I think it’s a reasonable practice and polite, mainly because some people can’t help but be distracted by such things. I don’t think CC should be a mandate, however.

    K-12 on the other hand, such as picking up a kid at school, OC is fine. Maybe even better, since it contributes to normalization. I simply don’t see any good reason to deny OC. Anti-gun parents are entitled to their opinions, but if they’re concerned that their child seeing a gun might lead to a conversation about guns, well, avoiding that conversation is flat-out irresponsible whether you favor guns or not.

  6. “…he said classrooms deserved special protection from the distraction that openly carried firearms might cause.”

    So Police have to ‘put it away’ so they don’t cause a distraction? If not, why not? Or is there some sort of magical power exerted by the uniform? Which then begs the question, is it the utility belt that is the magic, or the polyester?

    And I have asked this before but to date haven’t gotten anything close to a rational answer….. What makes a classroom so special that the mere sight of a firearm is a disruption?

    • Let’s put it out there.

      Gun grabbers: prove that an openly armed parent or teacher disrupts the class and prevents learning. Seriously. Prove it.

      Follow-up question: if a person wearing a t-shirt with a pirate “skull and crossbones” icon truly disrupts class, do we ban such t-shirts? Or do we tell children to control themselves and get back to learning?

      • Or you could address the elephant in the room day one, answer any questions the students have and educating them on the issues, and then problem solves itself.

        Bottom line is that any change to an established environment is disruptive to the occupants until they acclimate to the changes. This is just more Liberal protectionism of muh feelz.

  7. Carry whatever, wherever, however.
    It’s laughably absurd that anyone would seek to regulate the conveyance of an inanimate object.

  8. I don’t have a problem with requiring concealed carry on school campuses. And not just because of the distraction effect. Look at it this way; If you were a teacher in Detroit schools and you are carrying to protect yourself, do you want it out there where some kid is going to try and grab it? Sorry folks, but I used to live in Detroit. I know what its like. And not just there. Plenty of other big city school systems are just plain dangerous places. My church advocates carrying. My pastor has his permit. But in the church we have a no OPEN carry policy. This is for the members and visitors who may feel uncomfortable with open weapons in the service. But I can promise, there are quite a few members carrying. SO no, I do not have a problem with places being limited to concealed carry. It is only the NO carry that I have a problem with.

    • Geez, more with the ‘bad guy will grab it’ meme.

      How often does that happen…really?

      And, have you never heard of

      (a) Retention Holster?

      (b) Retention Mindset?

      If cops/SRO’s can OC in schools without this “concern” for the gun-grab, then the argument makes zero logical sense when applied to OTHER legal carriers.

    • Dave C,

      Maybe a teacher in a Detroit school believes it is in their best interest to carry concealed. Why force every teacher in every school to carry concealed? Some teachers may prefer open carry. Let each adult choose for themselves.

    • Thousands of police employees open carry every day, how often do their guns get grabbed? Carry your boomstick in a quality retention holster and train to retain your stuff.

  9. Every single person who walks into a school could have one or more concealed handguns, long guns, pyrotechnic devices, explosives, arson supplies, swords, hammers, chemicals, poisons, etc. — or simply employ any number of items on the premises as improvised weapons — and use all of them with devastating effects. That being the case, it is irrational to single out a parent or staff member with an openly carried handgun and claim that they are “dangerous” … everyone could be dangerous! In case that is not abundantly clear, I will say it again: every single person walking into a school could have the intent and the means to harm dozens of people.

    I believe method of carry should be optional. If someone is going to freak out because they see an armed parent or staff member with a child in-hand, that person needs serious psychological help because the armed person’s intent to peacefully go about their business is absolutely obvious by inspection. The last thing we want is parents and staff teaching children to freak out over what could happen. Anything can happen. The sooner we teach people to understand that and deal with it, the better.

      • Hard to provide citations for “Geezer Science,” eh?

        The anti-OC dogma is astounding. Just like with trying to convince the anti-all-guns crowd with facts, convincing the anti-OC bunch with facts appears to be a losing proposition.

        To them, emotion trumps facts. Seems a theme whenever one’s stance can be prefixed with “anti-.”

        • True, you can carry how you want. I don’t care one way or another.

          Had you said, “I prefer CC” and left it at that…no biggie. My challenge to your statement is not your choice of carry.

          However, you opened yourself to criticism by stating an irrational statement. There’s no data to support the “shoot me first” meme.

          The problem with your statement is newbie gun owners will read that and THEY will believe the “shoot me first” meme about OC…and thus the Geezer Science continues (“I read it somewhere, so it must be true.”)

          So, consider my comment more for them than for you. The “Shoot Me First” argument against Open Carry is not supported by data or real world observation. It’s the bloated fantasy, written long ago, of some pundits that cared more about looking like they had expertise in a subject than actually demonstrating the point with facts.

          Facts matter. Geezer Science is not facts…it’s repeating stuff that “sounds good” but has no rational basis.

    • IF (big IF) you presume that the bad guy enters the location intent on shooting any and everybody he can, and he knows or spots a person open carrying before that person can respond to the threat, then, and only then, does the “Shoot me first” apply. Even so, he has been distracted from his original plan and may not be successful or at least some others may be able to escape.

      Except in mass shootings (which historically have been planned almost exclusively for “Gun Free Zones – I wonder why?) in most simple criminal misadventures it would appear that the last thing they want to do is to shoot someone, much less get shot at. They are hoping their gun will give them a free pass to easy pickings. The presence of a good guy with a gun, concealed or open, almost ensures that rather than simple robbery they are going to have to work for the loot and maybe get killed. Even if they get away they may face murder or felony murder charges – hard time and less likely to be plea bargained than armed robbery.

      I haven’t seen statistics on this, and it is very hard to prove a negative, but I suspect that the vast majority of petty criminals who become aware of an armed person in their intended target area, will beat feet in the opposite direction, not just walk in guns blazing and take out the armed person as a matter of doing business. Yes, they are probably a little crazy or drugged up or maybe need some drugs desperately, but will they really decide to face certain pre-meditated murder charges for the measly pickings in a Quickie Mart cash register? Seems highly unlikely.

      • “I haven’t seen statistics on this, and it is very hard to prove a negative, but I suspect that the vast majority of petty criminals who become aware of an armed person in their intended target area, will beat feet in the opposite direction, not just walk in guns blazing and take out the armed person as a matter of doing business. “

        The answer you are looking for comes from the psychologists, sociologists and criminologists that have studied criminals and why they commit crime.

        William Aprill, for example, describes it this way. For the vast majority of violent criminals, victim selection is done via a mechanism the mental health pros call “thin slicing.” Thin slicing is making a very quick decision about something in a situation where you have very little information upon which to make that decision.

        The key take-home from this ‘thin slicing’ analysis is that the criminal defaults to “don’t attack that person.” Thus, he has to see something that changes his mind to favor attack.

        He’s not meandering around ready to attack everyone and just picks one. His selection is far more deliberate (but maybe subconscious)…he’s meandering around thinking “don’t attack anyone” until he sees the ONE that gives him a clue “okay, this one is good to attack.”

        According to Aprill, any explicit clue that you can give (such as openly carrying a gun) that reinforces his “don’t attack” default position pushes him off you.

        And, we know that in at least one case armed robbers quite specifically de-selected a business for robbery precisely because they saw two OC-ers inside when they did their preliminary casing of the joint. They told cops (after they were later caught) that they specifically did NOT rob that place because they saw OC’d handguns on two patrons.

        (That was in Kennesaw, GA:

        So, the “Shoot Me First” idea is NOT supported by any data whatsoever, yet there is both a body of theoretical and supporting real world data that shows the opposite.

        OC is not, in general, a magnet for attack by violent criminals hell bent on robbing one single place. The “Shoot Me First” notion flies in the face of everything that is known about how violent criminals select victims.

        Yet, it continues to be trotted out, time in and time out, by people that just have a personal, emotional bias against Open Carry and those that listen to them spout Geezer Science because “it sounds smart and well thought out.”

  10. Correction: What has not been published in most of the media interviews I have done is my entire statement on the topic; I would like the option to carry concealed in a school. Most of the time this would be my preferred method of carry. However, occasionally I would like to carry openly. If SB442 and its tie-barred bill were to pass, it would be the first ban on open carry since Michigan became a state. In addition, the bills do not provide protections for accidental exposure. If the “pro-gun” proponents are indeed pro-gun, they would introduce a bill to simply repeal MCL28.425o. I doubt any of us are willing to give up the 1st Amendment to keep the 2nd Amendment, so why trade aspects of the 2nd Amendment?
    In addition, the so-called fear factor argument has been proven to be false time and time again. Parents open carry at schools every day in this state without an issue (unless the administration causes a scene).
    Open carry is somewhat new to society. Open carry at a school is also new. It takes time for people to become accustomed to “new” things. But, in time people will become more comfortable and even in favor of law-abiding citizens being armed (openly or concealed) in schools.

  11. I have carried for over 15 years. I have never had a child or adult make a negative comment about my gun. I open carry to the school twice a day every day never had a child run in fear, no terror as the school board clams , never a second look. So the school claiming open carry would cause a problem, are false.
    Little something about the guy this article is written about. He has spent a year in Iraq , a year in Afghanistan, trained by the Dep of Defense and the Dep of State, has taken classes at Front Sight in Nevada and is a NRA certified instructor. In short, has more training than 99% of the police officers in the state of Michigan. Why would anyone not want their children protected? Why hide behind “no guns allowed” signs?
    The school here has made a new rule, NO one is allowed in the school except staff and students. Of course bad guy will not obey their rule, making our schools even more dangerous than before. Please write to the Clio school board, thell them to stop using our children as leverage. 3 months into the school, parents have never yet met a teacher.

    • “Why would anyone not want their children protected? Why hide behind “no guns allowed” signs?”

      Because facts don’t matter to the crowd that thinks signs stop bad guys. That much is obvious, at least. They think signs will stop bad guys.

    • Your school district’s policy is that no parents can ever enter the school? Oh, Hell no. First of all that cannot have any protection in law. Second of all, I would schedule an event to formally and officially violate their “policy”. Get 20 or more like minded parents together to enter the school on the same day at the same time. Tell the school ahead of time. Tell the local press ahead of time. Tell the local police ahead of time. And tell both the school and the police that the school is NOT a prison, and that you have every right — no, a duty — to visit the school at any time to quietly and unobtrusively observe and verify your child’s classroom environment as well as the school environment. And, tell the police that they have no legal authority to bar you from visiting the school to quietly and unobtrusively verify that everything is on the up-and-up. I would also tell the police that if they threaten to use force to prevent you from quietly and unobtrusively see what your school is doing with YOUR children, that you will respond in kind.

      Who in the Hell do these school boards and administrators think they are? What police force would back such a ludicrous school policy?

      • Unfortunately the Clio school board think we ( the tax paying citizens ) work for them, not the other way around. Our schools are open to more danger now, than ever before. I believe other states have seen this same kind of dirty play by school boards and have taken action against such schools and businesses. IF any person is harmed in a building with the “no guns allowed” signs and are keepingt parents, adults, out the school / business is held directly in violation of state laws, placing the school board/business owners, in jail. Rightfully so. Anyone who would be so low deserve to be locked up. The Constitution is the law of the land, obey it, you have NO right to deny any American the right to defend themselves.

        • Well, Clio is for the proposed new law allowing CC in schools. They prefer that to OC and don’t seem really worried about it. Now the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) is against guns even existing in America!

  12. Where are you getting that libraries are a gun free zone what law are you citing because its not listed in any of the Michigan laws I find

  13. What was the question again?
    Sorry, I got distracted trying to figure out what they teach at a PUBIC school….

  14. Michigan law is a curious exception to the norm. In my view, promoting OC is the way to normalize guns in civilian hands. Therefore, it’s my inclination to fight to maintain the existing Michigan law. Compel Michigan citizens – especially children – to recognize the normalcy of guns in civilian hands.
    What is the objection? That the children will be frightened? Why? Children are very adaptable. After one or two parents OC in the school children will regard it as normal.
    The objection is that the Antis don’t want guns to be normalized. Let them face up to their own reality! If someone OCs in a school let the school administration reach the conclusion that there might be something to be concerned about. Perhaps the carrier is unrecognized (perhaps a grandparent). Let them confront the carrier and inquire as to her business. Let them call the police to inquire into the carrier’s business in the school.
    Why is there more to be concerned about the OCier and LESS to be concerned about the CCier? Explain that!

  15. I, personally, don’t think Open Carry is necessarily a better idea than Concealed Carry from a tactical standpoint. But the argument against OC and for CC, both on campuses and in general, seems to be less “tactical disadvantage” and more “I’m fine with you having guns as long as I don’t have to SEE them”. Either way, neither is a basis for legislation. Just because I think CC is more sound than OC doesn’t at all mean that one should be more or less legal than the other. The fact that the arguments against OC seem largely based on discomfort belies the fact that the argument to allow one but not the other is flimsy at best.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here