Gun advocates protest Mich. teen's arrest for carrying non-concealed M-1 rifle

CBS/AP) BIRMINGHAM, Mich. - Gun toting advocates are standing in support of a southeast Michigan teen who was arrested after strolling the downtown area of a posh suburban Detroit community with an M-1 rifle strapped to his back.

Supporters filled the Birmingham commission chambers Monday night, displaying firearms in holsters and strapped to their backs. They voiced support for 18-year-old Sean Combs, who was arrested April 13 while walking along Old Woodward Avenue.

The Troy High School student faces three misdemeanor charges for brandishing a weapon, resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace. Each is punishable by up to 93 days in jail.

According CBS station WWJ in Detroit, the police report stated that Combs was stopped and asked for identification to check if he was old enough to possess the weapon, an M1-.30 caliber rifle that was fully loaded with one round in the chamber. Combs refused to identify himself and was taken into custody, where police say he was uncooperative. He also failed to provide proof of ownership.

"This guy was creating a disturbance and he wouldn't cooperate," Police Chief Don Studt told WWJ.

Friends of Combs told WWJ that he was just walking around downtown and was participating his right to carry the weapon, which he had received as a birthday gift a month earlier.

The Detroit News says the commission was not expected to take action or address the charges.

Mayor Mark Nickita says the "issue has gone to the courts."

Click to expand...

In Michigan, you're not required to prove ownership. So that shouldn't end up going anywhere. Also I found out that they don't have a ID law but it is similar as Ohio they have to have probable cayse to even ask for it to begin with. Carrying openly does not qualify as probable cause and this will go good for Michigan. I am pretty sure the officers involved and the state are in deep crap with this one. Well first the have to have a legal reason to arrest a person in the first place. Which he has violated no law as I can tell. He was not required to show ID by state law and open carry even at his age is perfectly legal. You must show identification if you are stopped while driving or if you are in a place that sells alcoholic beverages. At any other time, you cannot be legally arrested for failing to present identification to a police officer. However, you may be asked to state your name, age, and address.

752.825 Resisting arrest.

Sec. 5.

It shall be unlawful for any person to resist or obstruct any officer or person empowered to make arrests under the provisions of this act.

Odd the obstruction charge. How can a citizen obstruct a unlawful action?

So, a rifle slung over the shoulder is now considered brandishing. Hunters will be brandishing when hunting season starts up.

OC for ME said:

Odd the obstruction charge. How can a citizen obstruct a unlawful action?

So, a rifle slung over the shoulder is now considered brandishing. Hunters will be brandishing when hunting season starts up.

Click to expand...

Yea I am trying to find the exact law for each of his charges but its a pain in the butt to find anything in that mess. I did find this link though.
http://www.michiganlegalaid.org/library_client/individual_rights/your_rights_and_police/html_view

750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234e.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.

(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.

(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions.

Sec. 81d.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

(2) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(3) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a serious impairment of a body function of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

(4) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing the death of that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

(5) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed by that individual while violating this section.

(6) A term of imprisonment imposed for a violation of this section may run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for another violation arising from the same transaction.

(7) As used in this section:

(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

(b) "Person" means any of the following:

(i) A police officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state including, but not limited to, a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

(ii) A police officer of a junior college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that junior college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that junior college, college, or university.

(iii) A conservation officer of the department of natural resources or the department of environmental quality.

(iv) A conservation officer of the United States department of the interior.

(v) A sheriff or deputy sheriff.

(vi) A constable.

(vii) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States, including, but not limited to, an agent of the secret service or department of justice.

(viii) A firefighter.

(ix) Any emergency medical service personnel described in section 20950 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20950.

(x) An individual engaged in a search and rescue operation as that term is defined in section 50c.

(c) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.

I found this which help out alot http://www.usacarry.com/forums/michigan-discussion-firearm-news/2792-open-carry-legal-michigan.html
No local ordinance concerning firearm possession is enforceable due to Michigan’s preemption law.

In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: 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.

THE MICHIGAN APPEALS COURT CONCLUDED: April 29, 2003 9:10 am. v No. 242237 In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.

Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.

MCRGO v. Ferndale: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession

Brandishing and disturbing the peace are not an offense while lawfully openly carrying a firearm.
ADVISORY NOTE: Though this section on disturbing the peace does not deal with firearms, due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed to carry concealed MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition.

BRANDISHING Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002: …In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions…..the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions…the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that…by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.


Heres the biggie A person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. It is your option to provide ID/CPL.

Do thug cops and their thug cop masters realize what they are doing? How can any 'good' cop want to work with nitwits? ^^^This^^^ should mean several more zeros added to the check the city writes.

Any chance criminal charges could be filed against those nitwit thug cops?

OC for ME said:

Do thug cops and their thug cop masters realize what they are doing? How can any 'good' cop want to work with nitwits? ^^^This^^^ should mean several more zeros added to the check the city writes.

Any chance criminal charges could be filed against those nitwit thug cops?

Click to expand...

Normally its settled out of court with the plaintiff signing a document not holding the officers liable. Most of the time this happens because the plaintiff can't afford the fees necessary for a trial.

So in short.....NO

However, if the prosecutor had any balls, he would pursue charges on his own, as he does with most civilian cases. Unlawful detainment, unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure, assault.....it goes on and on. As soon as they broke the law, they were criminals. But because they have badges, they are free

zack991 said:

In Michigan, you're not required to prove ownership. So that shouldn't end up going anywhere. Also I found out that they do have a ID law but it is similar as Ohio they have to have probable cayse to even ask for it to begin with. Carrying openly does not qualify as probable cause and this will go good for Michigan. I am pretty sure the officers involved and the state are in deep crap with this one. Well first the have to have a legal reason to arrest a person in the first place. Which he has violated no law as I can tell. He was not required to show ID by state law and open carry even at his age is perfectly legal. You must show identification if you are stopped while driving or if you are in a place that sells alcoholic beverages. At any other time, you cannot be legally arrested for failing to present identification to a police officer. However, you may be asked to state your name, age, and address.

752.825 Resisting arrest.

Sec. 5.

It shall be unlawful for any person to resist or obstruct any officer or person empowered to make arrests under the provisions of this act.

Click to expand...

Michigan DOES NOT have an ID law. Only if doing some activities like CCing, Fishing, driving, etc.

Venator said:

Michigan DOES NOT have an ID law. Only if doing some activities like CCing, Fishing, driving, etc.

Click to expand...

Sorry I put don't but damn firefox has a built in spell check in the beta I am running and it is driving me nuts.

I really hope the kid had an audio and video recorder on him but I dont see any mention of it.

OC for ME said:

How can a citizen obstruct a unlawful action?

Click to expand...

Can't. That'll be tossed commensurate with a decision rendering unlawful arrest.

Michigan law enforcement is in BIG doo-doo. I smell a lawsuit...