Jason Gillman Jr.

HB 5074-5076 (Supernap Tax Carveout House Bills) to be heard 1 December

Folks,

As a quick heads up, House Bills 5074-5076, which provide the tax carveouts for datacenter operators, will be heard in the Tax Policy committee on 1 December at Edit: 1030 (previously Noon).

I plan on being there, and if you want to crash the party, you should too.

I still haven’t seen any traffic for the Senate Bills (Senate Bills 616-618) – which are an identical match.

You Betcha! (11)Nuh Uh.(0)

Michigan Open Carry Files Suit Against Clio Area Schools

So a bit later than anticipated, but…

As set forth in the precedent setting opinion of Capital Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, Inc, school Districts are barred from making rules forbidding the lawful carry of a pistol. Yet, many districts throughout the state continue to do so with illegal policies and bullying. Michigan Open Carry, Inc (MOC) has partnered with Kenneth Herman to file suit against Clio Area Schools (CAS). Mr. Herman is a dues paying member of MOC.

Starting in 2013, Mr. Herman has, and continues to be, aggrieved by CAS. His constitutionally guaranteed right to self defense has been chilled as a result of threats of arrest and criminal prosecution should he not comply with CAS’s unlawful policy related to firearms. As a result of these unlawful actions on the part of CAS, he has been unable to defend himself while attending to business or other functions at his daughter’s school.

It is our hope that this case may ultimately be appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals so the matter may set precedent that will guide the policies and actions of other school districts and law enforcement throughout the state.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of Michigan Open Carry, Inc working successfully with several other, more cooperative school districts to modify their firearm policies to bring them into compliance with State Law.

According to Mr. Herman, his daughter’s teachers have taken it upon themselves to mention his self defense choices in class to all the other students, possibly to incite ridicule amongst her peers.

Originally posted here.

Complaint can be read here.

You Betcha! (10)Nuh Uh.(0)

Eaton County Dems and LALWV in on giving the rusty hatchet to Tom Barrett?

Update – 16 October 2014 @ 1042 Hours

I received a reply from Ms. Wilson.

We had no time to reschedule it, to notify people of its rescheduling, and to find the personnel to handle another date. We also weren’t entirely sure that Barrett would not show up for the full forum. I do regret that I didn’t have a chance to let Theresa Abed know the circumstances, but everything was speculative until the evening of the forum itself.

So yeah, Jacquelyn Tennis was barking up the wrong tree.

You Betcha! (14)Nuh Uh.(0)

Transparency? Nahh, we don’t need that.

Yes, it’s long, but I highly recommend watching the whole thing (well, you can probably skip the part that the 10A guy starts talking, he was missing the mark all over the place).

Yesterday (1 October 14), the House Criminal Justice Committee finally heard testimony on Rep. Tom McMillin’s HB4914 (introduced back in July 2013). This legislation would require that law enforcement agencies report every six months on the usage of their SWAT teams.

From the language of the bill:

Sec. 3. Beginning October 1, 2013, and every 6 months after

that date, any law enforcement agency that maintains a SWAT team

shall report all of the following information to the office of the

attorney general using the format developed under section 4:

(a) The number of times the SWAT team was activated and

deployed by the law enforcement agency in the previous 6 months.

(b) Without identifying an exact address, the approximate

location within or outside of the jurisdiction of the law

enforcement agency to which the SWAT team was deployed, including

the name of the county and the city, village, or township, and the

zip code.

(c) The reason for each activation and deployment of the SWAT

team.

(d) The legal authority, including type of warrant, if any,

for each activation and deployment of the SWAT team.

(e) The result of each activation and deployment of the SWAT

team, including all of the following:

(i) The number of arrests made, if any.

(ii) The type of evidence seized, and whether property was

seized.

(iii) Whether a forcible entry was made.

(iv) Whether a weapon was discharged by a SWAT team member.

(v) Whether a person or domestic animal was injured or killed

by a SWAT team member.

But we don’t need reporting for these sorts of things though, right? I mean, bad raids never happen in Michigan!

Well, apparently the Republicans on the committee think otherwise. For example, Rep. Joseph Graves finds it worrisome that the officers would have to go back and justify their actions (7:20 in the clip). Heaven forbid a SWAT deployment be justified, or even just tracked! Further he goes on to say that filing a report of the incident doesn’t take it away (8:58). Really? I didn’t think about that.

However, that’s just one of the many gems coming out of Team-R in this hearing. The amount of stupid coming from them just boggles the mind.

Yup, just shows Team-R is all for transparency!

You Betcha! (21)Nuh Uh.(0)

Michigan Open Carry to initiate lawsuit against K-12 school district

Michigan Open Carry is going on the offense!

In a closed session, the Board of Directors for Michigan Open Carry has voted to partner with a plaintiff who was threatened with trespass for open carry of a holstered pistol at a public school. Details are going to be sparse for now given that the suit will be filed in two months (a strategic decision by the BoD).

You Betcha! (14)Nuh Uh.(0)

Ready to play ball now, Heartwell?

Readers of Right Michigan are probably keenly aware of George Heartwell’s flagrant disregard for state law and the 2nd Amendment.

The city of Grand Rapids (and now the City of Jackson as well) is getting taken to task in the Western District (the Jackson case is being handled in the Eastern District) for promoting policies, customs, and ordinances that are illegal under state statute (MCL 123.1101 – 123.1105).

The unfortunate thing about this is that unlike TCAPS, the taxpayers are probably going to be on the hook.

Well, that may change.

You Betcha! (9)Nuh Uh.(2)

And the Grand Rapids Stand Up Comedy Act Continues…

So, since I wasn’t seeing anything on the Western District’s feed, I figure I’d hop on PACER to see if for some reason updates to the Deffert case didn’t get posted.

Well, things did get posted, like the answer to the amended complaint. Maybe I should have titled this piece after famous words uttered by Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction (Note, course language).

To put it nicely, “Grand Rapids just reached a whole new level of absurd”.

Basically, in their response, they argue that Deffert wasn’t participating in an activity that was covered by the 1st or 2nd Amendments, preemption doesn’t apply, and that their officers are thoroughly trained in the legalities of open carry in Michigan.

Oh yeah, they also think that you have to show your papers as well.

27. In Michigan, there is no duty for an individual to identify him or herself to law
enforcement unless being stopped for a motor vehicle code violation.

ANSWER: Paragraph 27 states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that a response is required, defendants deny
this allegation as an inaccurate and incomplete statement of the law.

Get ready to pay up, Heartwell.

You Betcha! (9)Nuh Uh.(0)

Falsities About SB789 Being Spread

SB789, sponsored by Mike Green, would make numerous positive changes to the statutes concerned with concealed pistol licensure. This would include such things as:

  • Eliminate the county gun boards – requirements verification shifts to Michigan State Police
  • Count Clerk becomes the licensing authority
  • Remove the requirement to provide two references
  • Reduce the application fee $15 from $105 to $90
  • 100% of court costs and attorney fees to the appellant if a denial gets overturned
  • Shorten and cement the timeframe for a go/no-go in regards to the application

NO WHERE does it remove the fact that the licenses shall be issued assuming the applicant passes the more or less objectively defined standards in 28.425b. In fact, the striking of 28.425b(7)(n) (shown below) further solidifies the the shall-issue aspect:

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Good Luck George, You’re Gonna Need It

Late last month, Johann Deffert’s attorney, Steve Dulan, filed an amended complaint with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. As you will recall, Mr. Deffert filed suit against the City of Grand Rapids, as well as the thugs officers that detained him, following a patently illegal detainment this time last year.

The amended complaint removes Stephen Labreque and then police chief Kevin Belk as defendants. However, the amended complaint brings up an issue that’s pretty damning for Grand Rapids – the fact that Mayor George Heartwell and the rest of the City Commission took no action to repeal the firearms ordinance despite the fact they were notified on the 8th of January – months before Mr. Deffert was detained. From the complaint:

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Codifying the Legality of Open Carry in Michigan

Michigan Open Carry has been involved in getting HB 5091 and 5092 pushed through.

Basically, these two pieces of legislation further define what constitutes brandishing, a definition that more clearly shows that open carry is not brandishing.

We also pushed forward some substitutions to make things even better:
http://rrfaae.com/dump/MOC/H03891’13%20(H-1).pdf (for 5091)
http://rrfaae.com/dump/MOC/H03299’13%20Star%20(H-1).pdf (for 5092)

These substitutions sailed through committee. Vote to report will most likely be next week.

Appreciation goes to Rep. Joel Johnson and Rep. Brandon Dillon for moving these through.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)