300th Blog Post - Thank You Readers

We here at the Law Blogger [the attorneys of Clarkston Legal, also known as Karlstrom Cooney] would like to thank our loyal readers and those that follow this blog.

This is our 300th post.  Three hundred: a perfect game in bowling; an excellent batting average in the bigs; the length of Noah's Arc, in cubits, and one of this blogger's favorite movies.

We started this blog with our first post back on March 30, 2009, on the topic of a lesbian couple litigating their right to adopt a child here in Michigan.

In the four years that we've been up and running with the Oakland Press, there have been almost 160,000 page views and we've received 438 published comments.  Minor league stats in the overall blogosphere, but hopefully relevant to our local readers.

In these years we have attempted to post interesting law-related information that our readers find useful and informative.  Some of the more important topics we've covered in our posts include:

• cell phone use and texting while driving, especially where teenagers are concerned;
• the "Superdrunk" driving law;
• same-sex marriage cases from their initial filings through the recent oral arguments at SCOTUS;
• privacy laws in the Big Data era;
• Second Amendment cases at SCOTUS;
• Obamacare at SCOTUS and now that the new laws are scheduled to take effect in the workplace;
• divorce and family law developments, especially child custody matters;
• the juvenile lifer laws recently decided by SCOTUS;
• significant developments in the criminal law; and
• occasionally, high-profile cases and local personalities that have intersected with the legal system or criminal justice system.

Before we begin work on our next 300 posts, we would like to also thank the Oakland Press and its editorial staff for their support and encouragement over the years.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 300,child custody,divorce,family law,juvenile lifer law,lawyer,Oakland Press,SCOTUS,Second Amendment

Michigan Legislature Looking to Ban Open-Carry in Schools

There is a little-known loophole in our gun laws that allows a person that has a concealed pistol license (CPL) to openly carry a firearm into a school, provided the weapon is visibly holstered.  Given recent headlines, State Representative Andy Schor, (D Lansing), is attempting to close this loophole with House Bill 4104.

Hopefully, these terrible headlines will render the state gun lobby ineffective, and HB 4104 gets passed and signed by Governor Rick Snyder.  Who could forget last December when the Governor, on the eve of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, was poised to sign gun legislation that would have broadened and strengthened weapon possession laws, but had a change-of-heart and vetoed the bill.

The open-carry in schools exception came crashing into the media headlights last February when Nicholas Looman, a CPL holder, open carried his pistol into an elementary school in Grand Rapids in order to vote in an election.  He was allowed to vote, then escorted off school grounds and later briefly detained.

Obviously, the 25-year old was looking to make a point.  In the end, the Kent County Prosecutor took a pass on prosecuting Looman, saying he technically complied with state law.  A CPL holder can open-carry a weapon in a public school, day care center or public hospital provided the weapon is visible.

With the recent national headlines as a backdrop, the gun debate has been renewed in Lansing.  Schor's proposed legislation is competing with a senate proposal sponsored by Senator Mike Green (R-Mayville).  It was Senator Green's bill (vetoed SB 59, which now has been re-introduced as SB 112) that was sitting on Governor Snyder's desk when the Newtown shootings broke-out.

We here at the Law Blogger cannot help but conclude that when we enter certain public places, such as schools, day care centers and hospitals, we just need to leave our guns at home.  Along these lines, we hope that Representative Schor's bill will pass the Legislature and be signed by Governor Snyder, and that Senator Green and company goes away.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Andy Schor,concealed pistol license,concealed weapon,Governor Rick Snyder,gun lobby,Nicholas Looman,open carry laws,Second Amendment,Senator Mike Green

Michigan's Concealed Handgun Bill Vetoed

State Senator Mike Green (R-Mayville) must love guns.  He has sponsored yet another set of sweeping expansions to Michigan's concealed handgun laws.  If Green's bill was signed by Governor Snyder, concealed weapons would have been allowed in some places where they were never legal before; like schools, churches, and large entertainment venues.

Senator Green is also the sponsor of the gun reforms of 2001, making weapons permits generally easier to procure for adults.  The Second Amendment is alive and well here in Michigan.

The bill would have abolish the county gun boards, in place since 1927, to streamline the application process.  County sheriffs would have reviewed and would have the sole authority to approve all applications.  Interestingly, the bill places a premium on issuing the permit to a qualified applicant quickly, mandating a partial application fee refund if not processed in accord with a specific time frame.

While the university would have remained a "gun-free zone", churches and other schools would not; nor do large  entertainment facilities.  I don't know about you, but I would not want to be at Ford Field or the Big House, when some drunk folks take out their weapons to settle a score.

In touting his pet legislation, Senator Green emphasized that that Michigan will now have the strongest training standards in the nation.  Well, those of us over here at the Law Blogger will certainly sleep better at night knowing that our neighbors that have applied for concealed pistol licenses are well-trained in their use and deployment.

Also, we wonder about the correlation between the training in the use of handguns and the method of use.  In other words, does better training reduce the criminal use of the weapon?  We think not.

The Second Amendment is alive and well in our country; perhaps as it should be.  But folks, Governor Snyder surely got this one right.  Frankly, the county sheriff and the county gun board both need their collective eyes on all applicants for concealed weapons permits.

Also, concealed license holders should have their identity made public in a central registry.  We'd like to know who among us is packing heat.  It's getting to a point where you just have to assume that everyone does.

On the other hand, we are mindful of weapons proponents that assert that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut may have been prevented if the principal or one of the teachers were armed.

Now there's a swell concept: armed teachers.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: concealed pistol license,concealed weapon,gun board,handgun,Second Amendment,Senator Mike Green,sheriff

Second Amendment Litigant is Unlikely Handgun Advocate

Otis McDonald grew tired of the pattern of intimidation brought to bear upon him by some of the drug-dealing urban youth of his Chicagoland neighborhood.  At times, they would curse him and brandish their weapons just a few feet from his porch in Chicago's Morgan Park.  According to McDonald, some of these "punks" even threatened to "put him down."

Consequently, McDonald sought to even the odds by acquiring a gun, even if it meant he had to violate Chicago's anti-handgun ordinance to do it.

The 76-year old South-side Democrat, a retired grandfather and journeyman building engineer, who spent his career at the University of Chicago after serving in the military, is the petitioner in a case up for oral argument today at the United States Supreme Court.

An unlikely advocate for the right to "bear arms", at least in the organized sense, McDonald is not a card-carrying member of the NRA.  That group, however, will join him today in addressing the High Court and requesting that the handgun ban be struck down as unconstitutional.

This Blog has been tracking the case, as some of the high-crime issues underpinning Chicago's handgun ban are relevant to the communities of Southeast Michigan.  One of our earlier posts covered the lawyers arguing the case today.

There seems to be a consensus among legal professionals that Chicago's ordinance is likely to be declared unconstitutional.  Today, the City of Chicago, through it's retained Washington D.C. appellate lawyer, is expected to argue the safety interests such a ban serves in high-crime areas.

The consensus among High Court watchers that the handgun ordinance will be struck is based on the Court's recent decision striking-down a similar anti-gun law in the nation's capital.  The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, however, does not apply to the states since it arose in the District.

There are many reasons Americans feel a deep-rooted sense of righteousness when it comes to our right to possess and carry firearms.  It's in our historic genes; our national tradition.  Otis McDonald, on the other hand, acquired his taste for the right to bear arms out of good old-fashioned necessity.  In order to feel safe in his own crime-ridden neighborhood and to protect his family from local thugs, he armed himself in transgression of Chicago's gun ordinance.

As a result, Law Professor Nicholas Johnson of Fordham University claims that Otis McDonald will be immortalized as a litigant in one of the rare cases that becomes common knowledge among our citizenry and stands for a single proposition; in this case, the right to bear arms.

Local Connection:  Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox joined the NRA in filing an amicus brief in Otis McDonald's case.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Mark J. Konkol,Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox,NRA,Otis McDonald,SCOTUS,Second Amendment,U.S. Supreme Court

City of Chicago hires Washington DC Solo Lawyer to Argue Second Amendment Case

Chicago's deputy corporation counsel in charge of appeals, Benna Solomon, has a schedule that is crowded with U.S. Supreme Court arguments.  So much so, she recently went beyond the city's law department to hire Washington DC solo appeals specialist James A. Feldman; a rare engagement, she says.

At stake is the oral argument scheduled before the high court on March 2 in the Second Amendment case of McDonald v City of Chicago.  The case, a subject of a prior Lawblogger post, tests a strict Chicago handgun ordinance in the context of the Second Amendment's applicability to the states via the Due Process clause.

The McDonald case has received much attention.  The Supreme Court's decision will be greatly anticipated by both opponents and proponents of the right to bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The reason Chicago's Ms Solomon opted out of arguing the case herself is because she will be appearing in the Supreme Court the week before, to argue another case on behalf of the city.  She therefore looked to Feldman, who had done previous work with the city, and who's reputation as an experienced oral advocate at the highest level apparently preceded him.

Both Solomon and Feldman clerked at the high court for Supreme Court justices; Solomon with Justice Byron White, Feldman with Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.  Feldman also argued cases before the Court during his long tenure with the United States Solicitor General; the litigator for the United States Government.

Arguing on the other side will be Alan Gura, also of Washington DC, who won the District of Columbia vs Heller case on behalf of gun advocates.  Because it arose in the District, Heller involved federal gun laws and the decision striking down the gun ordinance therefore does not apply to the 50-states.  Gura will be sharing the podium, and his precious oral argument time with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who will be arguing on behalf of the NRA.

Stay tuned for the decision on this one as it will affect how states can regulate our right to bear arms.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Alan Gura,Benna Solomon,James A. Feldman,McDonald v Chicago,Second Amendment,US Supreme Court

Second Amendment May Gain Some Ground

Nearly a decade post-9/11, the forgotten amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, may gain some ground here at the beginning of the 21st Century.  Several state attempts to erode this right have been subjected to successful constitutional challenges.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Robert Ord -v- District of Columbia, reversed a trial court's dismissal of one such gun owner's challenge, remanding the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Robert Ord, a licensed investigator, also licensed to carry a weapon in Virginia, will now be able to develop his case; a case that asserts that the mere threat of prosecution in nearby District of Columbia, where he frequently works, constitutes damages.  One interesting aspect of this case is that Ord was never arrested, nor were his weapons seized.  He claims the objectionable government action was the issuance of a warrant; a warrant Ord claims was obtained by the police in bad faith.

This spring (March 2010), the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a gun-ordinance case from Illinois, McDonald -v- Chicago.   Michigan's Attorney General recently filed an amicus brief in the case.  In the Chicago gun case, the issue for determination by the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated (thus applicable) to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause such that Chicago's gun-ordinance banning guns in private homes is unconstitutional. 

A good primer on this age-old issue can be found on the official blog of the U.S. Supreme Court; known as SCOTUS.  The high court's blog post surveys the historical context of the Second Amendment with a focus on the modern ordinances and state laws that attempt to limit gun possession due to it's correlation with violent crime.

The high-court petitioner(s) in these gun cases are citizens claiming a constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. They assert that the state cannot unreasonably restrict this right with its laws or ordinances.

These cases pit the power of the government against the fundamental liberty interests of the individual.  The tension between the two continues to be the glue of our Democracy, just as it was in colonial times when these concepts were debated in Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.

In the decade since 9/11, various powers of the federal government have expanded under President Bush. At the state level, however, the individual right to bear arms may hold ground. The McDonald and the Ord cases are crucial milestones for the highly revered Second Amendment.

info@clarkstonlegal.com
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: District of Columbia,McDonald,Robert Ord,Second Amendment,U.S. Court of Appeals,U.S. Supreme Court