Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: DC Court of Appeals Strikes Down Law Making It a Felony to Be Present in a Car with..

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    DC Court of Appeals Strikes Down Law Making It a Felony to Be Present in a Car with..

    DC Court of Appeals Strikes Down Law Making It a Felony to Be Present in a Car When There is a Gun in the Car

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/26/dc-...t-car-gun-car/
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI.
    Posts
    266
    +1

  3. #3
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by 22Luke36 View Post
    I heard MOC was going to do something with car OC this fall, any truth in that?
    I think it is over due myself. However I have also heard that the MSP is very against the idea of a non CPL holder having a firearm.
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI.
    Posts
    266
    MSP doesn't want anyone to carry a fire arm, CPL or not. It's a good thing we still have the Constitution.
    Last edited by casper; 10-02-2013 at 12:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by casper View Post
    MSP doesn't want anyone to carry a fire arm, CPL or not. It's a good thing we still have the Constitution.
    I was under the impression that MSP was pretty pro-gun... No?
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  6. #6
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI.
    Posts
    266
    It depends what branch you deal with. But if they had their way, they would be the only ones armed. Safer that way ya know.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/doc.../11-CF-589.pdf

    opinion directly linked above


    I see issues with the opinion. First it says that people wouldn't know about the law but then says that gun owners would certainly be required to know gun laws. I would see that the law would be ruled by a higher court as being constitutional but that this defendant (if nothing in the record in respect to gun ownership has been established) is not guilty for the reasons given.

    Its a screwed up law for sure.

    Currently a minor victory, very minor at this point in time.

    I'm sure to the defendant is a huge victory...and it is, for him. So far.

    I could see this final result: that the affirmative defense part being continued to be struck down ; but that the rest would survive. If the law goes to the next step in appeals.

    So in this law...if you own a gun (not that its YOUR GUN unlawfully being transported), you should be aware of the law - if you don't, not.

    The opinion of this court may be reversed on the ground that they provide - maybe re-struck down on other 14th amendment issues of equal protection - maybe.

    And it highlights another issue I have with gun registration and forms related to guns (ATF 4473, DPS 3 forms in my state): these forms provide evidence in cases like this that you should have been aware of the gun laws.

    And also highlights the advice: do not talk to the cops ...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by 22Luke36 View Post
    Should have applied to the driver as well.
    Its a joke overall .... why do we need permission to carry at all?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    I was under the impression that MSP was pretty pro-gun... No?
    I agree with you Tucker6900, this http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf seems to be accurate about the current state of State gun laws and I don't see any negatives in it, Perhaps someone might be able to cite how they have been anti gun?
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  10. #10
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    As the Supreme Court explained in Lambert
    v. California,
    1
    it is incompatible with due process to convict a person of a crime
    based on the failure to take a legally required action—a crime of omission—if he
    had no reason to believe he had a legal duty to act, or even that his failure to act
    was blameworthy. The fundamental constitutional vice of § 22-2511 is that it
    criminalizes entirely innocent behavior—merely remaining in the vicinity of a
    firearm in a vehicle, which the average citizen would not suppose to be wrongful
    (let alone felonious)—without requiring the government to prove that the
    defendant had notice of any legal duty to behave otherwise. This is a defect that
    we cannot cure by interpreting the statutory language.
    so I guess ignorance of the law can be an excuse...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •