Because enquiring minds want to know

Quick question that I think I know the answer to, but want the educated guesses of the masses to confirm...

If 1 person in a vehicle (driver) has a CPL, and the gun is on the dash/under the drivers seat/ in the center console. Does that person need to either take it with them, or lock it up prior to leaving the vehicle?

Example: I have a CPL, wife doesn't, kids don't (obviously). Stop to get gas, pistol is under the seat. By stepping out of the car, is there a crime by those in the car of having a loaded, uncased firearm in the vehicle?

Yup.

Thanks, that's what I figured, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any kind of AG opinion or something to the contrary.

That's a complicated question. Do they have possession?

Possession (as told by lawyers on MGO) requires knowledge of the gun's presence and ability to exercise dominion over the firearm. If they don't know the gun is there, it could be argued they don't have possession.

Of course, the safest course (legally) is to not have the gun there when you're not in the vehicle and they are.

casper said:

Yup.

Click to expand...

What would the charge(s) be for the occupants of the vehicle?

TIA

CCJ

If you get out of the car and shut the door, you being the firearm owner have surrendered control of the gun, and can not prevent others from accessing it. Of course if you were in the car and the gun was under the seat or in the console, a passenger could still reach for it if they knew it was there.

It's an attempt to define ownership, prevent unauthorized use, or what have you, and it's really almost useless to define it as a crime because it's a 'non-event', it's just sitting there.

I would imagine that the person charged would not be the people in the car who may or may not know about it, but you the owner of the gun, the owner of the permit.

IANAL, and I'm not sure even a lawyer could answer this but the main thing is that you lose control of it being outside the car. Now if the people inside knew about it and locked the doors, preventing you from getting it there could be a chance both you and the passengers would be arrested IF a LEO came on the scene and knew the fact.

Truth is, though, how likely is it that you pull up for gas, get out leaving the door open, pump the gas with a CC and then get back in and drive away?

Therefore, avoid leaving it behind in the car while you are elsewhere. Common sense approach.

Contrast this if you were driving and alone and you had the gun in the console or under the seat and got out - would the gun now be illegal because it was separated from its owner? Your passenger who doesn't know about it, gets in the car and suddenly it's a crime? It's crazy.

TheQ said:

That's a complicated question. Do they have possession?

Possession (as told by lawyers on MGO) requires knowledge of the gun's presence and ability to exercise dominion over the firearm. If they don't know the gun is there, it could be argued they don't have possession.

Of course, the safest course (legally) is to not have the gun there when you're not in the vehicle and they are.

Click to expand...

This is the most correct answer.

If I left a gun in my car and my wife decided to take it to the store real quick - unless she KNOWS it's there AND can access it, she's not in possession of the gun, legally speaking.

If, say, she KNEW about it but it was in a lockbox she didn't have a key for - she does not possess it.
If she DIDNT KNOW about it and it was wide open sitting in the glove box, she does not possess it.

Fortunately, I have a wife that has a CPL.

See

National Safe Deposit Co. v Stead (1914)

US v Nenadich (1988)

US v DeRose ( 1996)

CCJ

The good news is one day soon (hopefully) MI will have some sort of constitutional carry, in addition to a cpl, thus making your worries a thing of the past. Viva freedom! Viva Michigan...you can do it! You can do it!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HcRl4wSk

FreeInAZ said:

The good news is one day soon (hopefully) MI will have some sort of constitutional carry, in addition to a cpl, thus making your worries a thing of the past. Viva freedom! Viva Michigan...you can do it! You can do it!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HcRl4wSk

Click to expand...

Would "soon" be measured in months, years, decades or centuries? At the rate the current Michigan .gov is moving, I am betting between decades and centuries. :uhoh:

Ezerharden said:

Would "soon" be measured in months, years, decades or centuries? At the rate the current Michigan .gov is moving, I am betting between decades and centuries. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

My bet: nothing of consequence pro-gun happens until at least 2018 =\

Well let's hope sooner is no more than a year or two. In 5 years AZ went from some really stupid CCW (CPL) laws to much better ones and constitutional carry. Why? Some had to do with culture, but most had to do with a small group of rights advocates called AZCDL. Today they have over 9,000 paying members, and have aa huge influence in the capital building. I see no reason why MI cannot flow this path. A single large group could get huge things done in Lansing. One group moving in unity, simple if we could just stop the bickering long enough to pull it off.

TheQ said:

My bet: nothing of consequence pro-gun happens until at least 2018 =\

Click to expand...

That soon? I was thinking more like 2050.

Well let's hope both your and the Q's guesses are off. Think about it this way? If a NEW super group got together via coalition, or other means. Say their numbers reach 5,000 @ $30 per year = $150,000 not counting other fund raisers (raffles, etc...). That buys a lot of sway in a capital. Friends money talks! The rest is just static to law-makers who are often more concerned with raising $ instead of doing their duty to follow the will of the people.

FreeInAZ said:

Well let's hope both your and the Q's guesses are off. Think about it this way? If a NEW super group got together via coalition, or other means. Say their numbers reach 5,000 @ $30 per year = $150,000 not counting other fund raisers (raffles, etc...). That buys a lot of sway in a capital. Friends money talks! The rest is just static to law-makers who are often more concerned with raising $ instead of doing their duty to follow the will of the people.

Click to expand...

Once Snyder is reelected, he will have no motivation to do anything pro-gun as he will be term limited out. Even a coalition of 3 million wouldn't matter.

So just give up - is the message? Here in AZ the effort was not only lobbying, it was public messaging also. Guns save lives bill boards, public outreach programs, etc..etc... it's real easy to say what cannot be done. Others have faced very similar barriers in other states and won. So IMHO, there is no reason MI can't. The only thing truly stopping the people of MI are, the people of MI.

Ezerharden said:

That soon? I was thinking more like 2050.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, Ezerharden.

TheQ said:

Once Snyder is reelected

Click to expand...

I don't think that'll happen.

TheQ said:

Once Snyder is reelected, he will have no motivation to do anything pro-gun as he will be term limited out. Even a coalition of 3 million wouldn't matter.

Click to expand...

Is he motivated now? In fact, taking his comments when he vetoed SB 59 regarding his time as an RA, I wouldn't be surprised if he supports some "anti" legislation that on some off chance gets to his desk.

zigziggityzoo said:

I don't think that'll happen.

Click to expand...

I don't see the favored Democrat being any better for gun owners.