Open Firearms Carry On Michigan School Properties...

There is growing debate regarding our right in Michigan to openly carry firearms on school property when in possession of a concealed pistol license.

There shouldn't be.

Michigan's law is very clear: open carry onto school property by one holding a concealed pistol license is expressly protected (note that I do not say "permitted - it is a RIGHT, not a privilege), and the federal Gun Free School Zones Act (18 USC 922) also contains a specific exemption for concealed pistol license holders: 

"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 or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;"

For further discussion of Michigan's law, I refer you to MSP legal update 86, which states, 

"The above section does not apply to any of the following:
[…]  A person with a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by any state "
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

That public schools are government entities and therefore subject to Michigan's firearms pre-emption law is clearly established under both federal and state laws and guidelines.

Under IRS definitions, public schools are "instrumentalities," agencies (branches) of governments: 

"An instrumentality is an organization created by or pursuant to state statute and operated for public purposes. Generally, an instrumentality performs governmental functions… 

In Revenue Ruling 57-128, the IRS addressed the question of whether an organization is wholly-owned by one or more states or political subdivisions. In making this determination, the following factors are taken into consideration:

• Whether it is used for a governmental purpose and performs a governmental function
• Whether performance of its function is on behalf of one or more states or political subdivisions
• Whether there are any private interests involved, or whether the states or political subdivisions involved have the powers and interests of an owner
• Whether control and supervision of the organizations is vested in public authority or authorities
• Whether express or implied statutory or other authority is necessary for its creation and/or use of the instrumentality, and whether such authority exists
• The degree of financial autonomy and the source of operating expenses"

According to census.gov, with only a few exceptions, school districts are counted as government entities.

Under MCL 380.501, "A public school academy is a body corporate and is a governmental agency."

Under MCL 380.1311d, "...the strict discipline academy corporation is a governmental entity."

MCL 380.552"...the school of excellence is a governmental entity."

In Michigan, school districts have the power of taxation through the levy of property taxes, making them government subdivisions.

By all objective measures, school districts in Michigan are local units of government and are covered under MCL 123.1102,

"A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

Schools are trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand, they claim NOT to be government agencies for purposes of avoiding Michigan’s pre-emption law, yet they claim the protection they believe their status as government subdivisions affords them in immunity from prosecution.

They can’t have it both ways.  Their appeal to immunity means they truly recognize their status as local units of government.

Assuming their status as local units of government grants them immunity from prosecution, this argument holds up only in so far as the policies and actions of the government agency are lawful. Government immunity does not provide blanket immunity against unlawful policies or activities; policies that violate Michigan's pre-emption law are clearly illegal, therefore invalidating any claim to immunity.

Michigan Vaccine Waivers….

OK, folks.  I'm going to weigh in on this controversial topic.

We NEED to maintain free access to vaccine waivers.  I know that some of the medicos with whom I am friends may disagree with me, but I have already heard the medical profession's side of this issue.

Now it is MY turn.

There are two very basic reasons why we need to maintain free access to these waivers here in Michigan.

First, is the issue of Constitutionality.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 Sections 2 and 4 of the Michigan Constitution both guarantee freedom of religion - NOT WORSHIP; this is a critical distinction.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 2: "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation," emphasis added.

Article 1 Section 4: "Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion… The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief," emphasis added.

 Our Constitutions guarantee us the right to follow the dictates of our INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES with regard to religious belief and practice.

As this applies to this particular issue, many of us believe the Bible teaches, and I have posted regarding this before, that life originates with the creative act of God.  We believe, and is taught in the Psalms, that life begins at the moment of conception.  Everything necessary for the formation of a new human life is present at that moment, and that life has been ordained by God.

As a result, we refuse to participate in anything related to abortion.

That includes certain vaccines.

As can be seen in the two photos, the following vaccines have their origins in the cells and tissues of aborted babies:

Polio

MMR

Varicella/chicken pox/shingles

Rabies

Hepatitis-A

Cell lines originating in abortion are also in use for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis and severe sepsis.

Of these vaccinations, ethical, non-abortion alternatives are only available for polio and rabies.

Because of this, many of us are going to request vaccination waivers so that we are not forced to participate in the encouragement of abortion by using vaccines having their origins in abortion.  We object due to our religious convictions.  According to the two Constitutions, we cannot be discriminated against or demeaned in any way for the free exercise of those convictions, nor can our right to practice our religious convictions be limited in any way by the government (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment).

Second, waivers must be kept freely available due to problems with the SCIENCE underlying these abortion-related vaccines.

Yes, that's right, problems with the medical science.

Of the required vaccinations, box inserts for five of the name brands disclose measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue (accompanying the viruses when harvested for processing) in each dosage.  Now, it is not required under federal law that manufacturers disclose this particular information, so it is entirely likely that other vaccines may also contain measurable quantities of human DNA fragments and tissue, but the manufacturer has chosen not to disclose it.

Why is this important?

There is a small body of research that indicates that what is happening with autism spectrum dysfunction is an immune response that causes inflammation of the brain.  The research postulates that it is these DNA fragments and quantities of human tissue, remnants of the human tissue matrices upon which the viruses used in the manufacture of vaccines are grown, are foreign proteins that trigger an immune response that, in turn, triggers inflammation of the brain and may lead to autism.

The operating hypothesis of the research stands to reason.

One cannot receive blood transfusions or tissue/organ transplants unless they are appropriately typed to the person receiving it.

Why?

Because transplanting or transfusing an individual with tissue or blood that doesn't match their own blood type can cause an immune response - rejection.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that vaccines containing human DNA fragments and tissue can be injected into the bodies of individuals UNIVERSALLY, regardless of the blood type of the recipient, and no immune reaction will occur.  This runs completely contrary to established, documented scientific medical research.

As parents, we must maintain the ability to determine what is best for our own children, not because the UN Conference on the Rights of the Child, or the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, or the county health department have made a determination, but because WE as parents, in accordance with our own religious convictions and research, have made that decision.  That is our right under both the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

One last thought.

Having a right under the Constitution or a sincerely-held religious conviction does not give you the right to send your children to school sick.

To the contrary, it means that you have a responsibility to insure, to the best of your ability, that the practice of your conviction or right doesn't jeopardize the health of those around your children.

Yes, I know this gets difficult considering the need to take time off from work to care for sick children, but that is where God is responsible to meet the resulting need as you faithfully live your conviction.  If He has led you to it, He will also provide.

Michigan Police Departments Harassing Lawful Open Carriers….

At some point, police, who are supposed to know the law, have an obligation to begin explaining to people who call in that someone carrying a clearly holstered firearm and exhibiting no illegal behavior is within their rights under Michigan law. There are too many police departments that have instructed public offices to contact them whenever someone simply carrying a clearly holstered firearm shows up - regardless of whether they are actually engaging in illegal behavior (Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, and Ottawa County are just a few examples), and they are rolling units to respond to calls from people who are calling for no other reason than that the sight of a person carrying a clearly holstered frightens them, not because that individuals is doing something illegal.  I regularly see people openly carrying firearms in my line of work. As long as they aren't doing anything that could be considered illegal, I let them go on about their business.  Police are supposed to be ENFORCING THE LAW, not harassing law abiding citizens. 

Somehow we have come to accept the notion (and that is ALL it is) that people have a right to FEEL safe. No where does the Constitution express such a protected right. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to actually BE SAFE via the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Fourth Amendment right to be safe from illegal searches and seizures, which REQUIRES a duly authorized and issued WARRANT based on PROBABLE CAUSE that someone is engaging in an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY; the Michigan state Constitution contains a similar protection. A situation occurring recently in Kalamazoo, MI, in which a public library called police to report a carrier exercising his right to openly carry a clearly holstered firearm (Police called on lawfully carrying citizen), doesn't even meet the incredibly low standard of a Terry Stop (reasonable suspicion of illegal activity).

Those who say they have a right to feel safe need to read the study commissioned by none other than Obama himself. It clearly concludes that 1) citizens use their firearms with incredible regularity to deter crime and 2) those who do so are actually SAFER from crime than those who do not.

That's why Obama is crying for more money to carry out more "studies." The first study, using objective data, failed to confirm his agenda. He needs to keep digging until he finds someone who will.

In the meantime, it is time for law enforcement to begin enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold - and explain those rights to otherwise ignorant citizens.