Library Gun Case In the News

The wire services picked this story up: AP

MOC counsel quoted here: The Lansing State Journal  and on NPR. Good job, Dean!

Here's the sign that someone captured on their cell phone:

Preliminary Injunction - No Open Carry in the Library

We had our first hearing on March 8. MOC insisted on a ruling as to whether the TRO was appropriate before the matter of the preliminary injunction could be considered. Judge Rosemarie Aquilina ruled against MOC.  LINK
Despite arguments that the library's no-guns police is unconstitutional, lacks authority under applicable laws, is preempted by Michigan's firearms laws, and unsupported by any of the alleged facts, a preliminary injunction is issued. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Nobody is allowed to carry a firearm openly in the library.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any and all members of the general public after posted notice shall concurrently be preliminarily enjoined and restrained, directly and indirectly, whether acting alone or in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee, contractor and/or representative of Defendant, until further Order of this Court, from entering any of Plaintiff CADL's buildings or library branches while carrying, brandishing, or concealing without proper permit, any form of weapon or firearm in violation of CADL's Weapons Policy.

The court has expressly ruled that the basis for this decision is that CADL is an "authority" and not a city, village, township, or county that would be preempted under MCL § 123.1101 and 123.1102.  Here's what the law says:

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.

We argued that, so what if CADL is an "authority"? CADL is an instrumentality of its constituent municipalities and is indistinguishable from a city, village, township, or county for purposes of preemption by MCL § 123.1102. Therefore, the statute expressly preempts CADL's firearms regulation. And as I will explain in future posts (and as we said in our brief), state firearms laws preempt local firearms regulations anyway. I feel strongly that is the case and if the the library gets to regulate firearms just because it is not a city, village, township, or county, Michigan gun owners are in deep, deep trouble, as I'll explain in a future post.

MOC's Response

MOC moves to dissolve the TRO and asks for a hearing. It is defective in so many ways that it should not have issued, especially given that it was done without MOC's opportunity to be heard ("ex parte"). Legal problems with the TRO are described here.    MOC's Motion and Brief to Dissolve TRO

Here is MOC's Response to the Lawsuit's call for an injunction. LINK   If you ask me, MOC's arguments are pretty good, but as you will see, they are to no avail. I'll discuss some of the issues in later posts.

Temporary Restraining Order Against MOC

In February 2011, an Ingham County Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order that

Defendant [MOC] and its members be immediately enjoined-and restrained, directly and indirectly, whether alone or in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee and/or representative of Defendant and/or any of its members, until further order of this Court, from entering any of Plaintiff CADL's buildings or library branches while carrying, brandishing or concealing without a proper permit, any form of weapon or firearm in violation of CADL's Weapons Policy.    

The TRO 


CADL's Amended Complaint adding an additional issue is here: Amended Complaint and Brief

Lots of issues in the attached Complaint, Brief, Affidavit, and TRO. The issues will be discussed in this blog. Of course, I'll refrain from saying much about strategies considered or issues that might or not be raised by the defendant to respond to the Library. But I will summarize issues that have already been raised and hopefully discuss some of them in detail and provide links to more information.