• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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"
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA

Stainless, although I agree with you philosophically on this, neither your interpretation nor mine really matters. What matters is how the courts interpret it. If this were a website that only spouted personal philosophical beliefs, there would be no value in a person's practical exercise of OC in a Michigan. Like your previous discussion regarding what schools teach student's about the 2nd Amendment, your continued arguments regarding what WE may believe has value only in a truly argumentative sense. But preaching to the choir has little to no value when it is interjected into a discussion as if it something based on some legal authority. Since SCOTUS is given that privilege, to pronounce otherwise is not helpful. Your interpretive opinion currently doesn't matter if SCOTUS disagrees, nor does mine... and by stating it as "fact" only confuses those that read your writing. If you stated it such: "It is my belief that since the 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed, my opinion is..." and then later acknowledge the current interpretation by SCOTUS, a state supreme court, or legislature, that would at least express your point without putting others into legal jeopardy.
However, if you have a citation where an individual has successfully argued in a court of law that a LEO should be arrested based upon a law promulgated by a legislature which was determined to be "unconstitutional", opine away... with an appropriate cite.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Stainless, although I agree with you philosophically on this, neither your interpretation nor mine really matters. What matters is how the courts interpret it. If this were a website that only spouted personal philosophical beliefs, there would be no value in a person's practical exercise of OC in a Michigan. Like your previous discussion regarding what schools teach student's about the 2nd Amendment, your continued arguments regarding what WE may believe has value only in a truly argumentative sense. But preaching to the choir has little to no value when it is interjected into a discussion as if it something based on some legal authority. Since SCOTUS is given that privilege, to pronounce otherwise is not helpful. Your interpretive opinion currently doesn't matter if SCOTUS disagrees, nor does mine... and by stating it as "fact" only confuses those that read your writing. If you stated it such: "It is my belief that since the 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed, my opinion is...", that would at least express your point without putting others into legal jeopardy.
However, if you have a citation where an individual has successfully argued in a court of law that a LEO should be arrested based upon a law promulgated by a legislature which was determined to be "unconstitutional", opine away... with an appropriate cite.

What I fail to understand is why, when we are taught even as small children that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts it is null and void, that it, in and of itself has no legal weight or merit.

So what do we have a constitution for, propaganda? Rhetoric?

And how could I say that "It is my belief that since the 2nd Amendment says shall not be infringed, my opinion is..." when all I did was read what was in front of me? I doubt the founding fathers, upon writing the Bill of Rights, had it in their minds that the Bill was of no effect, unless and until it was "interpreted" by SCOTUS or any other high court.

You're right, I do struggle with this concept. I think the discussion o the schools you correctly referenced, and in this thread are good examples as to why I feel the way I do, and retain some confusion on the subject.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I believe you misunderstood my post to stainless1911.

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

Oh, I was j/k. I knew there had been updates, but like I said, I was j/k. We can't even tell when that section was added.

There are so many laws in Michigan regarding firearms in Michigan that are poorly written, potentially unconstitutional, and just plain illogical that I often wish we could just scrap them all and start all over... Of course, I would love to see many of them changed, but I am not even arguing that the intent be changed... I'm just talking about putting them in logical order, writing clearly the intent of the law in question instead of having laws that seem to contradict others, and providing definitions for terms that are used. I think that even those people that would fall on the other side of the 2nd Amendment issue would agree that Michigan's laws are a hodgepodge of poorly written "thought"/innuendo that anyone who wishes to truly understand them is really out of luck. Which, btw, just puts it in the hand of judges who can just pick and choose whatever law seems to suit their fancy to support their reasoning.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Absent a Published Court Opinion rendering a specific law unconstitutional, an individual officer is Duty Bound to uphold such law or be found in Dereliction of Duty. Someone like the county sheriff could provide direction not to arrest for a specific law, but an individual officer risks in doing so.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I think jury nullification would work as a two way street, benefiting the officer. The media would likely make a hero out of the officer for taking a stand against tyranny. They tend to do the opposite with us.

It would be a proud moment for us and the police when the officer was acquitted.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
What I fail to understand is why, when we are taught even as small children that the constitution is the supreme law of the land (as it is interpreted by the US Supreme Court), and that any law that contradicts it is null and void (only if the US Supreme Court decides that it is)

I doubt the founding fathers, upon writing the Bill of Rights, had it in their minds that the Bill was of no effect, unless and until it was "interpreted" by SCOTUS or any other high court Actually, the whole notion of "judicial review" was successfully argued... based upon what was written in the Constitution, in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Even before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In between 1776 and the addition of the bill of rights in 1791, courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had taken part in judicial review and had invalidated some state laws because they violated the state's constitution. see: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/13.html

You're right, I do struggle with this concept. I think the discussion o the schools you correctly referenced, and in this thread are good examples as to why I feel the way I do, and retain some confusion on the subject.

My reply in red, above.
 
Last edited:

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
THe cop that broke the law by arresting him should be arrested himself.

From what very limited info there is, it seems the person who had the gun was at fault. And the police made a legal arrest, without any injuries to anyone. And I believe that OC'ing in a place that sells/serves alcohol is enough for probable cause. Unfortunately this guy did not know the law and got himself into trouble. Cops did what cops do they were called to investigate a possible crime found one and arrested someone breaking the law. Sucks, yes but thats why when you attend a seminar we always tell you to "read and understand the law" before you open carry. The best defense against a situation like this is knowledge of the law.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I doubt the founding fathers, upon writing the Bill of Rights, had it in their minds that the Bill was of no effect, unless and until it was "interpreted" by SCOTUS or any other high court.

Inasmuch as they provided no enforcement mechanism, and no penalty for violation by the Congress or federal marshals, etc., they were leaving it up to the courts or the people.

The history of the Bill of Rights suggests a certain, shall we say, disregard for rights. The reason the Bill of Rights is in the first ten amendments is because the constitution came out of the convention with almost no rights mentioned. The Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and George Mason smelled trouble and agitated for a Bill of Rights. The Anti-federalists nearly derailed adoption of the constitution over the lack of a Bill of Rights. The so-called father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was actually opposed to a Bill of Rights. The only reason he relented and started gathering suggestions for rights to include in a Bill of Rights was to shut up the Anti-federalists and prevent them derailing the constitution being adopted. Madison got a list of numerous rights suggestions from the various state legislatures and culled the list down to the one we know today.

The history of the Bill of Rights is kinda fascinating. As is the history of various rights in general. There is a very good book: History of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy still in print. I very much recommend it.

With all that said, the Founders provided no enforcement mechanism and no penalty for violations. Even the enforcement mechanisms we have today such as section 1983 are kinda pathetic. Don't get me wrong, I'll take all I can get. But, in the big scheme of things, they fall far short, allowing far too many encroachments too fast, and at too great an expense to fight back in federal court. For contrast, imagine if the Bill of Rights specified impeachment of the Speaker of the House for so much as assigning to a committee a bill that infringed freedom of speech.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Inasmuch as they provided no enforcement mechanism, and no penalty for violation by the Congress or federal marshals, etc., they were leaving it up to the courts or the people.

The history of the Bill of Rights suggests a certain, shall we say, disregard for rights. The reason the Bill of Rights is in the first ten amendments is because the constitution came out of the convention with almost no rights mentioned. The Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and George Mason smelled trouble and agitated for a Bill of Rights. The Anti-federalists nearly derailed adoption of the constitution over the lack of a Bill of Rights. The so-called father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was actually opposed to a Bill of Rights. The only reason he relented and started gathering suggestions for rights to include in a Bill of Rights was to shut up the Anti-federalists and prevent them derailing the constitution being adopted. Madison got a list of numerous rights suggestions from the various state legislatures and culled the list down to the one we know today.

The history of the Bill of Rights is kinda fascinating. As is the history of various rights in general. There is a very good book: History of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy still in print. I very much recommend it.

With all that said, the Founders provided no enforcement mechanism and no penalty for violations. Even the enforcement mechanisms we have today such as section 1983 are kinda pathetic. Don't get me wrong, I'll take all I can get. But, in the big scheme of things, they fall far short, allowing far too many encroachments too fast, and at too great an expense to fight back in federal court. For contrast, imagine if the Bill of Rights specified impeachment of the Speaker of the House for so much as assigning to a committee a bill that infringed freedom of speech.
With the law in our hearts and minds there would be no crime and no need for enforcement. I imagine the FFs philosophical foundations included such.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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.

Umm, no.

You are not required to go to either place. If you don't like my rules, stay out of my house. If you don't like my business policies (no shoes, no shirt, no service, for instance) then feel free to take your dollars elsewhere.

Just because someone exercises his right to economic liberty by operating a business does not mean he gives up his rights as a private property owner.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
How did they know he was carrying if he was CC?

That makes it a 425o infringement, not a 234d infringement.

From the article on MLIVE:

Lansing police public information officer Robert Merritt said police were dispatched to Meijer, 6200 S. Pennsylvania Blvd., about 1 p.m. Security at the store had been watching a man in the parking lot kneeling to the ground, apparently loading a handgun.

The man concealed the weapon on his person and entered the store. Meijer security followed him at a safe distance.
 
Top