Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 130

Thread: Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

    Looks like someone open carrying without a CPL got "tripped up" carrying in a Meijers (which has a Liquor License) under MCL 750.234d.

    http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/M...147510175.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Must have been very scary for shoppers.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Looks like someone open carrying without a CPL got "tripped up" carrying in a Meijers (which has a Liquor License) under MCL 750.234d.

    http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/M...147510175.html
    Was it scary becaused he waltzed in... who writes this crap. Another example of why the law should be changed to allow non cpl carry. A good compromise would be to allow carry but forbid alcohol purchases without the cpl. Problem solved assuming our lawmakers want to solve problems
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Was it scary becaused he waltzed in...
    Oh, come on. Everybody knows you can only waltz in high-end joints that actually have a ballroom. Now, if he was swing dancing, that would be different. No charges.



    I agree about poorly written article. The word waltz is a giveaway. So is the lack of information as to whether the gun was carried in the hand or a holster.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    If he had permission to use his rights from the store owner or the .gov, it would have been fine.

    oh wait, rights?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    If rights can be granted or denied by a meijers manager making 8 bucks an hour, what have they been reduced to?

  7. #7
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    If rights can be granted or denied by a meijers manager making 8 bucks an hour, what have they been reduced to?
    To date, private property rights apply and we should simply take our business elsewhere (IMO).

    Unless other information has surfaced that the Meijers Manager effected a Citizen's Arrest, I believe animus would be more appropriately directed at the Legislators who authored and voted for MCL 750.234d.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I wasnt talking about private property rights, but the emasculation of our second amendment rights.

    The difference in losing private property rights, and the RKBA, is that no ones life is in danger by ignoring private property rights, but there is a danger in ignoring the RKBA. The laws should be reconstructed to reflect this inescapable truth.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    If he would have refused to talk to the police, they would have nothing to arrest him for. He must have voluntarily provided ID/or admitted to not having a CPL. NO talkie/no arrestee. DO NOT CARRY A FIREARM WITHOUT A CLEAR KNOWLEDGE OF FIREARM LAWS..OR YOU DESERVE TO BE ARRESTED WHEN YOU BREAK THE LAW.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    THe cop that broke the law by arresting him should be arrested himself.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I wasnt talking about private property rights, but the emasculation of our second amendment rights.

    The difference in losing private property rights, and the RKBA, is that no ones life is in danger by ignoring private property rights, but there is a danger in ignoring the RKBA. The laws should be reconstructed to reflect this inescapable truth.
    The inescapable truth is that there are other rights that are equally as valid as the right to keep and bear arms... and a good example of that is private property rights.

    Now I'll be blunt...

    No matter what excuses, rationalizations, or mental masturbations, are engaged in to justify it...............................

    To expect, or demand, one right to be respected while disrespecting another right is... hypocritical.

    And now... actually on topic...

    I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 04-15-2012 at 09:18 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What Im doing isnt hypocritical, although I get where you are coming from, and all things being equal I would wholeheartedly agree.

    There are two levels upon which I see the rights themselves as being unequal. First, the RKBA should not be so weak that it can be granted or denied by a person working at the local store, probably making a shade above the minimum wage. It's disgraceful An second, since denying a persons private property rights in a place open to the public, doesn't hurt anyone, but denying someones RKBA could, then the choice is clear, you err on the side of safety.

    Private property home/car and private property open to the publc are completely different animals, and the law needs to be brought in line with that fact.

    THe .gov should not be allowed to hand over control our rights as they do in 425o and 234d. They also should not be protecting the private property rights in how it relates to guns, if they are going to turn around and enforce a ban on smoking for example in those same places of business.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

    I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.
    In this, we agree.

    As activists, it is our voluntary "job" to do what we can to get these and other unconstitutional laws removed, so that we can protect people from both the .gov and the criminal.

  14. #14
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The inescapable truth is that there are other rights that are equally as valid as the right to keep and bear arms... and a good example of that is private property rights.
    Now I'll be blunt...
    No matter what excuses, rationalizations, or mental masturbations, are engaged in to justify it...............................
    To expect, or demand, one right to be respected while disrespecting another right is... hypocritical.
    And now... actually on topic...

    I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.
    This is why I tell people to study the law and know the ins and outs BEFORE open carrying. I like the round number of 6 months of study.

    I've been admonished by some of the radicals here for suggesting people not carry until they're better acquainted with the law. I guess they don't care if people get their freedoms taken away.

    I'm sure this will turn out to be a perfect example.
    Last edited by dougwg; 04-15-2012 at 10:02 PM.

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    If he would have refused to talk to the police, they would have nothing to arrest him for.
    Cite? It would appear that PC to arrest would come from MCL 750.234d. By NOT speaking during a stop predicated by RAS, then it would seem logical to me that PC is developed.
    In Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983), SCOTUS ruled that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause (PC). A better-than-even chance is not required.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 04-15-2012 at 10:01 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    THe cop that broke the law by arresting him should be arrested himself.
    What law did the officer break? Cite?
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Last edited by stainless1911; 04-15-2012 at 10:15 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    What Im doing isnt hypocritical, although I get where you are coming from, and all things being equal I would wholeheartedly agree.

    There are two levels upon which I see the rights themselves as being unequal. First, the RKBA should not be so weak that it can be granted or denied by a person working at the local store, probably making a shade above the minimum wage. It's disgraceful An second, since denying a persons private property rights in a place open to the public, doesn't hurt anyone, but denying someones RKBA could, then the choice is clear, you err on the side of safety.

    Private property home/car and private property open to the publc are completely different animals, and the law needs to be brought in line with that fact.

    THe .gov should not be allowed to hand over control our rights as they do in 425o and 234d. They also should not be protecting the private property rights in how it relates to guns, if they are going to turn around and enforce a ban on smoking for example in those same places of business.
    Look... it's quite simple..

    Private property rights are equally as valid as the RKBA. A right is a right is a right. And that means that some minimum wage employee who has been given the authority by the owner certainly can exercise private property rights and ban guns on that property.

    The argument that property open to the public isn't really "private" property is bogus because the name on the deed is NOT "the public".

    And the .gov is who the Bill of Rights is directed at... NOT the individual.

    Now... for folks to demand that one right be respected over another equally as valid right IS hypocritical regardless of what manner of mental masturbation is used to justify it.

    And THEN! to expect the .gov.... who the Bill of Rights is intended to keep the .gov from interfering with rights to begin with.... to intervene and force one group of individuals who happen to open their property to the public to give up their property rights in favor of a different group's RKBA rights when they patronize that property is.... I don't even have a word to describe the utter idiocy of such thinking.

    But enough! The fact that folks are getting into trouble by jumping into OC without enough knowledge is very important so therefor I'll not discuss this stuff in this thread and derail it any further.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 04-15-2012 at 10:31 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    I believe animus would be more appropriately directed at the Legislators who authored and voted for MCL 750.234d.
    MCL 750.234d is also known as Public Act 328 of 1931... I bet most, if not all are dead. No sense in being angry with them. Our "animus" should be directed for any current legislators who are allowing this to stay on the books.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 04-15-2012 at 10:22 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The .gov already influences and impedes the rights of private property owners. What makes my point of view any less valid?

  21. #21
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    THe cop that broke the law by arresting him should be arrested himself.
    Just because the Police Officers that illegally arrested you, illegally took away your CPL for 8 years, and illegally made sure you were prosecuted for a misdemeanor crime, does not mean that all police officers do so.

  22. #22
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    MCL 750.234d is also known as Public Act 328 of 1931... I bet most, if not all are dead. No sense in being angry with them. Our "animus" should be directed for any current legislators who are allowing this to stay on the books.
    I believe you misunderstood my post to stainless1911.

    Besides, looks like there have been updates since then...

    History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 218, Imd. Eff. Oct. 13, 1992 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 158, Eff. Aug. 15, 1994

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Cite? It would appear that PC to arrest would come from MCL 750.234d. By NOT speaking during a stop predicated by RAS, then it would seem logical to me that PC is developed.
    In Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983), SCOTUS ruled that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause (PC). A better-than-even chance is not required.
    If your reading of the case is accurate, the government has reduced probable cause even further than the 51% probability I heard about a couple years ago.

    If the standard is now less than 50% chance, they're telling us they're willing for searches and arrests of innocent people 50% of the time.

    Oh, joy.

    Well, if this is true, maybe this will push people into further intolerance for government overreach. One of the larger outrages that pushed the colonies into revolution was warrantless searches (Writs of Assistance.)
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-15-2012 at 10:32 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Just because the Police Officers that illegally arrested you, illegally took away your CPL for 8 years, and illegally made sure you were prosecuted for a misdemeanor crime, does not mean that all police officers do so.

    just the same as gun owners "what one does, they all do"
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Just because the Police Officers that illegally arrested you, illegally took away your CPL for 8 years, and illegally made sure you were prosecuted for a misdemeanor crime, does not mean that all police officers do so.
    I almost agree. I think you would be hard pressed to find an officer who would honor his/her oath by refusing to enforce a gun law on the sole basis that it would violate a persons rights.

    It seems to me, and yes I will admit to being a little jaded, that officers who swear to uphold both the law and the constitution will uphold the law and not the constitution when the two contradict.

    In this case (as in mine) the officer should pause and think about the consequences of his/her actions and act accordingly. His/her thought process should be along the lines of,
    "I took an oath, to the constitution and to the law. If I enforce this law, it will infringe upon this persons rights acknowledged by the constitution which is greater than the law, therefore I will defend the persons rights honoring my oath, yet if they are in violation of a law that does not contradict my oath, I will charge them with that law."

    If I were the officer at the scene at the meijers, having to choose between chagring him or protecting his rights, I would have defended his rights and let him go.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 04-15-2012 at 10:37 PM.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •