• 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.

Stopped for 50 minutes and banned at Paw Paw HS

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Just a personal opinion - - -
Giving your Identification Card (in the USA your driving license is the de facto card) does not In Any Way mean the encounter will be shorter. All you have done is provided the officer with something you want back and he can "hold hostage." What are you going to do, walk away without a driving license?

If state law mandates it, then you have no choice; if you Do have a choice retain your personal papers at all costs.
 
Last edited:

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
There is no law that requires disclosure, and thus there is no reason to disclose on the spot.
We went over this in the recent Scotchman incident. While you are correct about the absence of law, I disagree with your assertion there is no reason to disclose. I think your choice is to show your CPL then or show it in court. If you refuse to ID yourself, period, that won't stop the police from arresting you if they want to. You just won't get out until you do ID yourself.

I guess it's in how far you want to take it. I wish there was a better way of dealing with this issue, but I don't see it.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Can you be trespassed from public property, while the property is being used for a public purpose by the public government if you have committed no criminal act, no breach of the peace, no disturbance, and have not broken any rules of said public property?

The thing I'm a bit curious about is if the open meetings act covers this very issue in this case. If anyone is well versed in that law please explain.

I guess it's in how far you want to take it. I wish there was a better way of dealing with this issue, but I don't see it.

You may want to risk legalizing an otherwise unlawful stop, and you may not. Personally, I would at least wait until they've done their damage to your rights, well past the point of doubt, before showing ID. That's your choice. My experience however, especially on my own, is that if they're that irritable and obnoxious, they'll just decide to unlawfully felony stop you and take your ID anyway, that is if you're carrying any.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
Operating a motor vehicle on a highway of this state is also a criminal act, but it is unlawful for an officer to stop you simply to make sure you have the proper papers The scotus has ruled.

I do not believe you need to provide your papers simply because it is unlawful to possess a pistol in a pfz without a license. In fact, it is unlawful to possess a pistol anywhere in the state without a license (purchase permit,) yet it is still unlawful For a Leo to detain a person simply for possessing a pistol.

In either case, I believe the officer would require reasonable suspicion that you do not have a license in order to lawfully detain a person.

If dr Todd is correct, then you would likely be required to provide your license when oc at meijer or any other place listed in 750.234d, or even if you were open carrying on a sidewalk or anywhere else in the state.


If you were to go to court, then the onus is on you to provide proof that you have a license to possess a firearm in certain prohibited places.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are required to have a CPL in order to open carry at a school, would it be required to prove that you have one? To me its the same as disclosing that you are concealing. If you conceal you must have a permit, and provide it when requested. Correct?


Take his advice. He's not using it.

Really? Knock it off.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are required to have a CPL in order to open carry at a school, would it be required to prove that you have one? To me its the same as disclosing that you are concealing. If you conceal you must have a permit, and provide it when requested. Correct?.

You're trying to interject common sense into a law that has little to none. ;)

No, it is not the same because showing proof of any kind in regards to licensed status is not required by any specific law when it comes to OCing on foot and not in a car. Other factors are an individual decision to make, but it should be known and understood that no, you don't have to disclose just for licensed OCing in a CEZ.
 
Last edited:

donmich11

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
3
Location
Romulus
Know the Law

If you knew the law, there would have been NO PROBLEM.........

When approached by a Public Safety Officer, and you are a CCW Permit holder, YOU MUST DECLARE IT to him or her
when the first meeting occurs, weather you are carrying or not. Thats the name of that tune......
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
If you knew the law, there would have been NO PROBLEM.........

When approached by a Public Safety Officer, and you are a CCW Permit holder, YOU MUST DECLARE IT to him or her
when the first meeting occurs, weather you are carrying or not. Thats the name of that tune......
Ah can you cite the law for your assertion? No, because you are wrong. You only have to declare you have a CPL if you are carrying CONCEALED. If you are OCing you have no obligation to show any ID.

In this situation the question is, you have to have a CPL to OC in a school. So do you have to show the CPL to show your are exempt or not? That is a specific point of law yet to be determined by case law.

But in any area not covered by .234d or the CC statute you don't have to show ID if OCing.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
welcome aboard.

If you knew the law, there would have been NO PROBLEM.........

When approached by a Public Safety Officer, and you are a CCW Permit holder, YOU MUST DECLARE IT to him or her
when the first meeting occurs, weather you are carrying or not. Thats the name of that tune......

Um, no.

You have the right to decline, c.o. the 5th amendment. There is no statutory duty to ID unless carrying concealed, driving, or purchasing age regulated items.
 
Last edited:

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are required to have a CPL in order to open carry at a school, would it be required to prove that you have one? To me its the same as disclosing that you are concealing. If you conceal you must have a permit, and provide it when requested. Correct?




Really? Knock it off.

On m phone so I won't post the cites, but There are two separate msp legal updates that play into
My theory. I know msp is not your attorney, but they can still provide useful information.

The first is an excerpt froom msp legal update 86

Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non- concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.

Even though it is unlawful to possess a pistol without having obtained a permit to do so, msp officers are directed that they cannot detain just to verify that a citizen does in fact have a permit.

Possessing a pistol is a crime unless you meet one of the exceptions. The same flora for driving, or possessing a pistol in a pfz.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
The 2nd legal update that is relavant is number 95, which is about the helmet law and the requirements that need to be met in order to ride helmet less including extra insurance, having an endorsement for at least 2? Years etc. the excerpt below pertains to my argument about not needing to provide papers simply for possessing a pistol.

Additionally, the law does not require a motorcycle operator or passenger carry proof of the $20,000 security required to operate or ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
Operators and passengers who violate MCL 257.658 are responsible for a civil infraction as detailed in MCL 257.656.
Officers are reminded that an officer must have articulable and reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Michigan Vehicle Code has occurred in order to lawfully stop a vehicle for a violation of the Michigan Vehicle Code. For example, officers may not stop a motorcycle operator for not wearing a helmet based on the mere possibility the operator or passenger may not be exempt from the requirement to wear a helmet. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion that the operator or passenger is required to wear and helmet and is violating the requirement.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
If you knew the law, there would have been NO PROBLEM.........

When approached by a Public Safety Officer, and you are a CCW Permit holder, YOU MUST DECLARE IT to him or her
when the first meeting occurs, weather you are carrying or not. Thats the name of that tune......

I love it when folks first posts are so full of knowledge.
 
Last edited:

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
I live it when folks first posts are so full of knowledge.

Lol @ your sarcasm!

"full of knowledge"

Donmich, what the q is trying to say is that one is only required to disclose when stopped if actually carrying a concealed pistol, or if carrying a pistol concealed or otherwise in a vehicle.

See mcl 28.425k (I think it is "k" from memory. On my phone now. )
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
I live it when folks first posts are so full of knowledge.

Lol @ your sarcasm!

"full of knowledge"

Donmich, what the q is trying to say is that one is only required to disclose when stopped if actually carrying a concealed pistol, or if carrying a pistol concealed or otherwise in a vehicle.

See mcl 28.425k (I think it is "k" from memory. On my phone now. )
 
Top