• 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.

New Twist On An Old Law

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
No knee jerking allowed. Go take 5.





We all know the the current law, MCL 750.227, which emasculates even the women in our state, denies everyone the right to defend themselves with really, anything that might be interpreted as a weapon. Law with it's threatenings cited below.

It is commonly believed that a law abiding citizen could be charged who was found to be in possession of some item in the car, say, a screwdriver, knife, hammer, what have you, and that the prosecution would then have to prove that there was intent to use the item as a weapon unlawfully. I think we all agree here.

But.

What if, the item were a firearm? (put your knee back now please).


When specific items are listed in the law as cited below, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged yada yada yada, we also find firearms specified on that list. But, when a firearm is found, the prosecution it seems, no longer has to prove intent. It is implied, and that is...inconsistent, if not unethical.

Applying the standard unilaterally to any item enumerated on the infringement cited below, firearms as well, the prosecution should NOT be able to gain a conviction on merely the presence of a firearm, but would have to prove intent, just as s/he would have to if any other item in question was being used to subvert the rights of, and permanently subject the defendant to a lifetime of defenseless persecution from enemies on both sides of the law.

Thoughts?





750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.
 
Last edited:

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
No knee jerking allowed. Go take 5.





We all know the the current law, MCL 750.227, which emasculates even the women in our state, denies everyone the right to defend themselves with really, anything that might be interpreted as a weapon. Law with it's threatenings cited below.

It is commonly believed that a law abiding citizen could be charged who was found to be in possession of some item in the car, say, a screwdriver, knife, hammer, what have you, and that the prosecution would then have to prove that there was intent to use the item as a weapon unlawfully. I think we all agree here.

But.

What if, the item were a firearm? (put your knee back now please).


When specific items are listed in the law as cited below, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged yada yada yada, we also find firearms specified on that list. But, when a firearm is found, the prosecution it seems, no longer has to prove intent. It is implied, and that is...inconsistent, if not unethical.

Applying the standard unilaterally to any item enumerated on the infringement cited below, firearms as well, the prosecution should NOT be able to gain a conviction on merely the presence of a firearm, but would have to prove intent, just as s/he would have to if any other item in question was being used to subvert the rights of, and permanently subject the defendant to a lifetime of defenseless persecution from enemies on both sides of the law.

Thoughts?





750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.


In 750.227(1) the phrase "Any other dangerous weapon" can ONLY mean items significantly similar to the items listed before it. The principle in legal terms is called "Ejusdem generis" which is latin for "of the same kind".

Ejusdem Generis, Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

Daggers, Dirks, Stillettos - all of these things are double-edged stabbing weapons. Therefore, "Any other dangerous weapon" means other things not listed that are ALSO double-edged stabbing weapons.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
That was a good explanation on section 1. What about 2, and the implications made in the OP?

Not sure what you're asking.

To be convicted of 750.227, a prosecutor does not have to prove you intended to use a weapon with malicious intent. He merely has to prove you were carrying the weapon as described and had intent to carry the weapon as described.

The criminal act is the carrying itself. Not whatever else you were aiming to do with it.
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
I meant that you described :........

.(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.


In your post, but did not address (2), ...........

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.


I may have misunderstood your post, it seems you contradicted yourself, but reading posts of yours over time, I doubt this to be the case. My question is in following...

zig-."To be convicted of 750.227, a prosecutor does not have to prove you intended to use a weapon with malicious intent. He merely has to prove you were carrying the weapon as described and had intent to carry the weapon as described.

The criminal act is the carrying itself. Not whatever else you were aiming to do with it."-zig

I'm confused.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
I may have misunderstood your post, it seems you contradicted yourself, but reading posts of yours over time, I doubt this to be the case. My question is in following...

zig-."To be convicted of 750.227, a prosecutor does not have to prove you intended to use a weapon with malicious intent. He merely has to prove you were carrying the weapon as described and had intent to carry the weapon as described.

The criminal act is the carrying itself. Not whatever else you were aiming to do with it."-zig

I'm confused.


The prosecutor has to prove intent to carry.

The prosecutor does not have to prove intent to use maliciously. Get it now?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
full section of law ...

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

That was redundant. Do you have anything to contribute?
 

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
After re-reading this statute, it appears to me that if someone carried in violation of their CPL like a pistol free zone they could be charged under this statute? Am I correct, or am I miss reading this?
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Yes, this could be applied to that situation. More likely to a non CPL holder exercising his or her second amendment rights; always remembering they are not limited to firearms.

This could be applied to a person walking while carrying a pocket knife, or even a person driving his own car carrying his own gun. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
lol. I thought you read the title, and then posted an opinion, then maybe, read the thread. I hate when people do that.

sry:uhoh:
 
Top