State police instructed to check CPL's

Just had an interesting talk (very polite) with a trooper at meijers. He asked to speak to me outside as I was leaving. Conversation as follows:

Him: I know open carry is legal but for here you need a cpl because they sell alcohol. Do you have one?
Me: Yes I do.
Him: Okay. We have been instructed to check for a cpl from anyone carrying in a place restricted without a cpl.
Me: Yes, I am aware of that. Do you need to see my cpl.
Him: No, I'll trust you have one. Thanks for your cooperation and have a good day.
Me: Same to you.

Food for thought: If they truly have been instructed to check for cpl's in these areas, those without a cpl should take note and be aware.

Warchild thanks, I have a CPL but I know there are a few here who don't and this info might save someone from a ride in a real live police car.

Raggs said:

Warchild thanks, I have a CPL but I know there are a few here who don't and this info might save someone from a ride in a real live police car.

Click to expand...

Just as a heads up, I felt it was worth posting since the discussion has taken place on here with regards to RAS for a situation like this.
The state police must think so if they have been instructed to check for cpl's in these areas.
Also take into consideration if they have truly been told to do this or was it THIS officers reasoning/statement to cover his actions?

No RAS just for going shopping, that is more than a stretch, I'd call it a thorough fabrication on someones part.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the agency, and not to the trooper. My experience with the MSP that 8 or 9 out of 10 of their employees are very trustworthy. But then some aren't, and I'm guessing this is one of those.

But hey, best to contact them for clarification isn't it?

WARCHILD said:

Just as a heads up, I felt it was worth posting since the discussion has taken place on here with regards to RAS for a situation like this.
The state police must think so if they have been instructed to check for cpl's in these areas.
Also take into consideration if they have truly been told to do this or was it THIS officers reasoning/statement to cover his actions?

Click to expand...

I think if it was a lie to cover his actions, he would have actually followed through with his request to see the CPL. He stated that he knew OC was legal and everything from the beginning, so he just sounds like a decent cop trying to do his job but also trying not to harass anyone.

Michigander said:

No RAS just for going shopping, that is more than a stretch, I'd call it a thorough fabrication on someones part.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the agency, and not to the trooper. My experience with the MSP that 8 or 9 out of 10 of their employees are very trustworthy. But then some aren't, and I'm guessing this is one of those.

But hey, best to contact them for clarification isn't it?

Click to expand...

RAS: yes and no..not to start this debate all over again, but given the increase in oc in this state and the restricted places without a cpl; his query will most likely be supported by the legal system as RAS. I was oc at a business with a liquor license. Without a cpl it would have been a justified stop/arrest. I have already been involved with this very thing happening to a person in flint.
He did not have a cpl and was arrested at a speedway gas station after walking in to buy a pop.

Just an FYI...

If the state/local justice systems can find a rash of people unlawfully OCing, to the point where it becomes common, then yes it would be a thing where a cop could argue RAS, based on previous experience. Maybe. Without that, then no, it falls short of the constitution.

And even if it becomes common, it's very much like pulling over a driver who looks too young to check his license, where you'll need more RAS than seeing a car being driven. Similarly, I would think that there would need to be further criteria than "that person has a gun!" to initiate a stop, unless that stop is voluntary.

To quote another Brian line from 08 "this isn't nazi Germany". Not saying you're wrong in your assessment of how it might work out, just saying that's how I think we should approach this issue.

Why not send a FOIA/Sunshine Law request for any such policy, "This is a Sunshine Law request pursuant to Michigan Code 1234.56(7) requesting a copy of the State Police policy or memo regarding checking the concealed pistol license of anyone carrying a pistol in a restricted business." This formally alerts them to your interest.

Then, after you get a response, write a formal letter (or complaint aka petition for redress of grievance if appropriate) about the suspicionless stop for exercising an enumerated right and whatever else you find.

You never know what juicy anti-rights nonsense you'll turn up from a police FOIA response.

WARCHILD said:

...
He did not have a cpl and was arrested at a speedway gas station after walking in to buy a pop.

Just an FYI...

Click to expand...

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:

I'd rather eliminate PFZs.

griffin said:

I'd rather eliminate PFZs.

Click to expand...

+1

griffin said:

I'd rather eliminate PFZs.

Click to expand...

Or at least rename them "Self Defense Free Zones", that would at least make them slightly more accurate.

FreeInAZ said:

Many Cops can't keep up with the law

Click to expand...

Last summer an OCSD officer came up to me and evil creamsicle and asked for our CPL's after we got out of 7-11 and went to the car we were in. He said "open carry is cool and all, but you guys just got into a car!"

After I asked for his badge number he got out of there in too big of a hurry for me to even tell him that 7-11's sell booze and that if he was going to go the "verify you're legal" route that 7-11 is a CEZ as well.

Michigander said:

If the state/local justice systems can find a rash of people unlawfully OCing, to the point where it becomes common, then yes it would be a thing where a cop could argue RAS, based on previous experience. Maybe. Without that, then no, it falls short of the constitution.

And even if it becomes common, it's very much like pulling over a driver who looks too young to check his license, where you'll need more RAS than seeing a car being driven. Similarly, I would think that there would need to be further criteria than "that person has a gun!" to initiate a stop, unless that stop is voluntary.

To quote another Brian line from 08 "this isn't nazi Germany". Not saying you're wrong in your assessment of how it might work out, just saying that's how I think we should approach this issue.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think your statement could be better framed that if 85% of those open carrying had a CPL, then perhaps a court would conclude that merely OCing in a place that restricts the possession of handguns, with an exception for those with a CPL, then you could make the argument that more facts other than mere possession in just such an area is warranted.
The fact of the matter is that if a person possesses a pistol in an area listed under MCL 750.234d, than an apparent violation is occurring.

Funny you don't think that OCing in a place listed under MCL 750.234d by itself meets RAS but yet after jumping in the car last summer you willfully gave over your license when his only reason for "stopping" you was that you had a pistol in the car... following your argument above, where was the officer's RAS?

SCOTUS has already ruled that the mere presence of a gun is not RAS where legal. Besides that the store is private property, and the parking lot would not fall into the scope of the law. JMHO...

First, the fact that MCL 750.234d REQUIRES a person to have a CPL to OC lawfully in, lets say a wal mart, then that would serve as RAS to check for a CPL, otherwise you are violating the law and committing a crime, so you cant argue that OC is lawful activity as being OC in a wal mart is ONLY lawful activity if the OCer possesses a CPL.

Second, Wal mart is NOT...I repeat NOT a Pistol Free Zone. Wal mart is simply an area where possession of a firearm is prohibited unless you have a CPL, then ANY FORM of carry is allowed. MCL 750.234d (which wal mart would fall under) is not the list of pistol free zones. This is apparently a large problem in the gun community, not knowing your Pistol Free Zone's from "possession" free zones where a CPL is required to possess (carry) a firearm.

anything that falls under MCL 750.234d is NOT a PFZ because firearms can be carried IN ANY MANNER by someone with a CPL

anything that falls under MCL 28.425o IS a PFZ because you may not carry your firearms into the specifically listed locations. (OC w/ CPL is otherwise lawful however some judges in this state do not feel this way and may pursue charges, IANAL)

WalkingWolf said:

SCOTUS has already ruled that the mere presence of a gun is not RAS where legal. Besides that the store is private property, and the parking lot would not fall into the scope of the law. JMHO...

Click to expand...

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.

Otherwise private property only counts on property that you own (MCL 750.227)


Also, the presence of a gun while in an area where you would otherwise be violating the law (MCL 750.234d) without having a CPL would give RAS for an officer to stop and ask for your CPL.

For example MSP update #86 says that they cannot stop you for OCing unless they have RAS that a crime is afoot, simply that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. The fact that you are possessing a firearm in an area that would otherwise be restricted unless you meet the exemptions would allow RAS that a crime is being committed (possessing a firearm on prohibited premises, MCL 750.234d) and a stop would be authorized.

Should have just told him "I have a certain set of skills.."

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.

Otherwise private property only counts on property that you own (MCL 750.227)


Also, the presence of a gun while in an area where you would otherwise be violating the law (MCL 750.234d) without having a CPL would give RAS for an officer to stop and ask for your CPL.

For example MSP update #86 says that they cannot stop you for OCing unless they have RAS that a crime is afoot, simply that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. The fact that you are possessing a firearm in an area that would otherwise be restricted unless you meet the exemptions would allow RAS that a crime is being committed (possessing a firearm on prohibited premises, MCL 750.234d) and a stop would be authorized.

Click to expand...

Read Deberry V State the ruling is based for an incident in Illinois the judge based part of his ruling on Texas concealed carry. Illinios has no concealed carry or open carry, so the case was not overturned BUT the judge made it clear where it is legal the presence of a gun is not enough for RAS. The police must have suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, and since carrying is legal with a CPL there is no RAS.

Last paragraph from Deberry V State;

"The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.   The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.   I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.   At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).   This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.   It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them.   However, we do not have that situation.   Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today."

DrTodd said:

Funny you don't think that OCing in a place listed under MCL 750.234d by itself meets RAS but yet after jumping in the car last summer you willfully gave over your license when his only reason for "stopping" you was that you had a pistol in the car... following your argument above, where was the officer's RAS?

Click to expand...

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?