State police instructed to check CPL's

MikeTheGreek · Nov 19, 2012

Yance said:
You would still be required under MCL 750.234d to receive permission from the owner or agent of the owner to carry your firearm on the premises if you did not have a CPL, good luck trying to get them to say "yes you may carry your firearm in the store" they may tell you vocally that you would be allowed but you would be hard pressed to get them to write it down so you had proof.

Recently downloaded a 2.99 Android App that records and stores all my calls, I make a lot of calls each day to ask if they allow OC in their store, and then I save the call file under the stores name and address. It's not a bad system at all, and it covers me..I hope!

budlight · Nov 19, 2012

Michigander said:
I was carrying at least 3 guns, and only one of them openly, all in a car. Would you have suggested I decline to show him?

Since two of the guns would have been considered concealed, my advice would have been to disclose and show your CPL and ID as required by law in Michigan. Again just my advice.

detroit_fan · Nov 20, 2012

MikeTheGreek said:
Recently downloaded a 2.99 Android App that records and stores all my calls, I make a lot of calls each day to ask if they allow OC in their store, and then I save the call file under the stores name and address. It's not a bad system at all, and it covers me..I hope!

can i ask why you are calling so many places and asking if they allow lawful carry instead of just carrying there if they aren't posted?
why give them a chance to say they don't?

FreeInAZ · Nov 20, 2012

+1

detroit_fan said:
can i ask why you are calling so many places and asking if they allow lawful carry instead of just carrying there if they aren't posted?
why give them a chance to say they don't?

Remember he's like 23, Shaaa,,,dude,,aahhh.

(Take that whipper-snapper) me & my power chair are avenged!:banana:

sharkey · Nov 20, 2012

FreeInAZ said:
Above is just another illustration of why MI needs Constitutional Carry. Or at the very minimum a law requiring PFZ's and Liquor licensee to BOLDY POST NO CARRY SIGNS. If not posted, no arrest. That's how it is handled elsewhere.

Many Cops can't keep up with the law, let alone the average citizen who walks into a gas station that may not even sell booze but their "parent Corp." has a state-wide blanket liquor license?

Come on! :banghead:

That's not how it's handled here. Go walk into a bar open carrying in the Phoenix-Metro Area.

Well we can carry in liquor stores we're a horrible example/role model on guns and alcohol laws.

ETA I said Phoenix Metro because I hear there are bars that ignore the law in parts of AZ. Heck I open carried in a posted restaurant that served booze many many years ago in Prescott (before constitutional carry, not that that matters). No one said anything but then I realized my oopsie and made a hasty retreat to the car.

xmanhockey7 · Nov 20, 2012

detroit_fan said:
can i ask why you are calling so many places and asking if they allow lawful carry instead of just carrying there if they aren't posted?
why give them a chance to say they don't?

He does not yet have a CPL.

FreeInAZ · Nov 20, 2012

sharkey said:
That's not how it's handled here. Go walk into a bar open carrying in the Phoenix-Metro Area.

Well we can carry in liquor stores we're a horrible example/role model on guns and alcohol laws.

ETA I said Phoenix Metro because I hear there are bars that ignore the law in parts of AZ. Heck I open carried in a posted restaurant that served booze many many years ago in Prescott (before constitutional carry, not that that matters). No one said anything but then I realized my oopsie and made a hasty retreat to the car.

Bars vs Gas stations - Apples vs Oranges. The person who got arrested in MI walked into a Gas station to buy a pop (soda). Also you're example above is a poor one because in MI the only way to safely carry legally in a Bar is to OPEN CARRY with a CONCEALED PISTOL PERMIT,

We should be able to carry in liquor stores, they do get robbed. Also many places that sell liquor also sell things that people might buy like: food, soda, etc.. My point is law abiding citizens should not be the focus of lawmakers, they need to focus on criminals.

MI laws are confusing enough let's not blend AZ law.

Bronson · Nov 20, 2012

WalkingWolf said:
and since carrying is legal with a CPL there is no RAS.

You are thinking about it the wrong way. You need to think like a police officer or judge.

You might say: "carrying in a place that sells alcohol is legal IF you have a CPL, hence no RAS."
They might say: "Carrying in a place that sells alcohol is illegal UNLESS you have a CPL, hence RAS."

Not to mention MI law places the burden of proof for exemptions to firearm possession laws squarely on the person carrying the gun. In short they don't have to prove you are NOT exempt, you have to prove that you ARE.

Granted the burden-of-proof law is for prosecutions and not stops/detainments but my bet would be that if you don't offer the officer enough evidence to convince him/her that you are indeed exempt then you will get arrested and be prosecuted in which case you'll have to prove you were exempt.

776.20

In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.

Bronson

MikeTheGreek · Nov 20, 2012

detroit_fan said:
can i ask why you are calling so many places and asking if they allow lawful carry instead of just carrying there if they aren't posted?
why give them a chance to say they don't?

no cpl, and new to OC so I want to cover everything so I get hassled as little as possible.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

MikeTheGreek · Nov 20, 2012

FreeInAZ said:
Remember he's like 23, Shaaa,,,dude,,aahhh. (Take that whipper-snapper) me & my power chair are avenged!:banana:

22. it's okay, Alzheimer's can affect the memory pops. :banana:

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

WalkingWolf · Nov 20, 2012

Bronson said:
You are thinking about it the wrong way. You need to think like a police officer or judge.

You might say: "carrying in a place that sells alcohol is legal IF you have a CPL, hence no RAS."
They might say: "Carrying in a place that sells alcohol is illegal UNLESS you have a CPL, hence RAS."

Not to mention MI law places the burden of proof for exemptions to firearm possession laws squarely on the person carrying the gun. In short they don't have to prove you are NOT exempt, you have to prove that you ARE.

Granted the burden-of-proof law is for prosecutions and not stops/detainments but my bet would be that if you don't offer the officer enough evidence to convince him/her that you are indeed exempt then you will get arrested and be prosecuted in which case you'll have to prove you were exempt.

776.20

Bronson

I am thinking the way the justices of the United Supreme Court think. If a lower court judge does not agree and it is overturned the person arrested will have a new home or fancy car courtesy of the police. Police get away with a lot because the stops are consensual, that is the citizens fault for complying.

Venator · Nov 20, 2012

Once again I will post my argument on this point. I can understand both positions, that is, there is and isn't RAS to ask for a CPL.

If I was an attorney (I'm not) I would argue these points. I would also default to the safest position and show my CPL, UNLESS I had the means and support to take it to court.

RAS and ID request in exempted places

My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)
[h=2]U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/h][h=2]No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648[/h]CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
Syllabus
A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.
2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.
(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.
Page 440 U. S. 649
(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. 3. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.
(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.
(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.
382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.

smellslikemichigan · Nov 20, 2012

Venator said:
The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)

using the logic of some folks, since every single handgun in michigan must be registered, then the entire state is an "exempted place". seeing a firearm must be RAS for a stop and ID and a seizure of pistol until registration can be verified.

Venator · Nov 20, 2012

This may be applicable and worth following. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/18/71665/

Excerpt:

The Florida Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case of Mackey v. State of Florida to determine whether an investigatory stop, and a search and seizure of a person suspected to be carrying a concealed firearm, is lawful.
Conflicting case law lands this matter at the highest court in the State. By statute 190.01(2), the Florida legislature has deemed carrying a concealed firearm a felony crime in the third degree. Statute 190.01(3) says, however, carrying a concealed firearm is permissible with a valid permit.The petitioner asserts that a police officer conducted an illegal investigatory stop and a search of his person without consent and without probable cause because there was no indication that he did not have a valid permit, and no other evidence of criminal activity.
Atty. Gen. Pamela Jo “Pam” Bondi and the State of Florida argue that any person is vulnerable to an investigatory stop and a search and seizure because carrying a concealed firearm, in and of itself, is illegal. In addition, having a permit is an affirmative defense, or excuse for a crime, so the stop and search is reasonable.
Yet, as clear as the sky is blue, the law says “This section [carrying concealed weapons] does not apply to a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon.” If the language is directly written in the statute, it seems that it is more than just an exception, but the rule.

detroit_fan · Nov 20, 2012

MikeTheGreek said:
no cpl, and new to OC so I want to cover everything so I get hassled as little as possible.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

but why ask if they allow OC instead of asking if they have a liquor license? giving someone a chance to say no to OC is normally not the best course of action. i've seen many people say they don't allow OC just because they don't even know it's legal.

Michigander · Nov 20, 2012

smellslikemichigan said:
using the logic of some folks, since every single handgun in michigan must be registered, then the entire state is an "exempted place". seeing a firearm must be RAS for a stop and ID and a seizure of pistol until registration can be verified.

My thoughts exactly.

But then I'm sure most of us who have been at this a while have heard words to the extent of "yes you're being detained, we have to make sure you're not a felon" and it's been a rare occasion indeed that any cops who pull that **** off have been so much as lectured by their supervisors, even though unlawfully detaining someone is a crime.

WalkingWolf · Nov 20, 2012

A police officer can get away with most anything as long as the citizen consents to it.

Big Gay Al · Nov 20, 2012

smellslikemichigan said:
using the logic of some folks, since every single handgun in michigan must be registered, then the entire state is an "exempted place". seeing a firearm must be RAS for a stop and ID and a seizure of pistol until registration can be verified.

Just an FYI, and only because it came to mind in relation to another thread. Black powder pistols do not have to be registered in Michigan.

FreeInAZ · Nov 20, 2012

MikeTheGreek said:
22. it's okay, Alzheimer's can affect the memory pops. :banana:

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

Oh wise guy Aye! Why I oughtah....

[video=youtube;u4ZgVRJ-H8U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U[/video]

MikeTheGreek · Nov 20, 2012

FreeInAZ said:
Oh wise guy Aye! Why I oughtah....

[video=youtube;u4ZgVRJ-H8U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZgVRJ-H8U[/video]

+1 for the Three Stooges video. I grew up on that show!

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

State police instructed to check CPL's

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Campaign Veteran

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member