DETROIT — When a man armed with a loaded assault pistol strapped to his leg, dressed in camouflage, and singing to himself began walking in front of a Grand Rapids church one snowy Sunday morning in March 2014, an alarmed churchgoer called 911.
When police arrived, they took the man's gun and briefly handcuffed him while they questioned him. The man, Johann Deffert, an "open carry" gun advocate, then sued police, saying they had violated his constitutional rights.
A federal judge disagreed.
In a decision released last week, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff tossed Deffert's lawsuit, saying the police officer "was justified in following up on the 911 call and using swift action to determine whether plaintiff's behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life ... in the neighborhood."
Neff's decision comes as police agencies around Michigan are grappling with increasingly contentious clashes with gun advocates who are showing up at places like churches, schools and government complexes armed with assault rifles and handguns, part of their campaign to educate residents on gun laws, and desensitize the public to the sight of guns.
Michigan's controversial "open carry" laws allow people with concealed carry permits to take guns into so-called pistol-free zones, such as schools, as long as the weapons are visible. There is no state law regulating open carrying of weapons in other areas as long as the weapon is in plain view, according to Michigan State Police.
Now courts are weighing in, and state lawmakers are reviewing the laws.
"We're seeing sporadic reports of it from around the state, those who are trying to draw attention to themselves, and it's needlessly alarming people," said Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, which has 1,100 members. "People aren't used to seeing someone brandish a gun in front of their kids' schools."
Stevenson said the increasingly confrontational nature of the clashes is dangerous.
"It puts the police in a position where, we don't know what their intent is, so they're going to approach this person, not realizing that the intent is to hurt somebody. It's a terrible situation what these people are doing, somebody is going to get hurt."
Most recently, Shawn Nixon, 39, of Oakland County posted a video of himself, walking armed with a pistol at the Oakland County complex in Pontiac, where he was videotaping a lot where sheriff's office employees park. When questioned by deputies — including one who appeared to snatch a piece of identification from Nixon — he became angry and began to curse at the deputies before leaving.
Sheriff's officials say they are duty-bound to investigate what they perceive as threatening behavior, regardless of whether a person has a permit to carry a weapon or whether they are openly carrying a weapon in a place permitted by law.
"On this day and still today, police and military in America are on high-alert by federal authorities due to numerous credible threats to attack facilities and assassinate law enforcement officers," Oakland County Undersheriff Michael McCabe said in an email. "Given the totality of this situation, a Deputy approached the person to identify him and determine whether or not it was a threat. After making contact and identifying the person, the Deputy determined it was not an immediate threat and the contact was ended."
Increasingly, courts seem to agree. In July 2013, Sterling Heights police were flooded with 911 calls about two heavily armed men, walking in front of Henry Ford Medical Center. One was dressed all in black, wearing sunglasses, carrying a rifle. The other had a AK-47 assault rifle strapped across his chest. Both had handguns. Police arrived and one of the gunmen began filming.
Police disarmed them and cuffed them, then ran background checks to see if they had weapons permits or any criminal history. They were released after 10 minutes and their weapons returned. Both filed suit, saying police had violated their constitutional rights.
Again, a federal judge disagreed.
"The single reasonable conclusion is that plaintiffs were knowingly acting in a provocative manner hoping to foment an interaction and cause a disturbance," said U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland in his 2014 ruling. "As events show, they succeeded nicely."
In tossing out the suit, the judge said, the two men, in effect, were disturbing the peace and loitering when police arrived, and that the subsequent investigation and brief detention was justified as a result.
Michigan lawmakers are looking for ways to ratchet down the emotion attached to the issue. Republican state Sen. Mike Green, a staunch Second Amendment defender, said legislators are being lobbied by school administrators demanding change. He is working on a proposed law that would allow those with concealed weapon permits to take them into gun-free zones like schools, as long as they were concealed — the exact opposite of the existing laws.
With no guns in sight, there would be fewer upset or anxious people, he said. "Yes, it does cause a lot of problems, and we see this as a way to fix it."
He is anticipating pushback from some schools that want no guns at all. "I understand that, but I believe in our right to arms ourselves."
