in Michigan the way he is carrying is still considered concealed carry. The holster has to be on the outside of the pants for it not to be concealed carry. The damn laws are so dumb.
-
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.
-
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.
OC question
- Thread starter wizzi01
- Start date
in Michigan the way he is carrying is still considered concealed carry. The holster has to be on the outside of the pants for it not to be concealed carry. The damn laws are so dumb.
I'd like to see your cite for that - believe you are very mistaken.
BTW - I moved your post from another thread where it became off-topic when that thread was moved to Maine.
Last edited:
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
I know of at least one non-appellate level case where someone carried IWB with shirt tucked in (all the way round) behind the firearm that was successfully convicted of CCW. They should have appealed but didn't.
Liberty-or-Death
Regular Member
I believe the MI appellate courts have upheld that complete invisibility is not required to be automatically considered concealed. If the inverse is true, then partial visibility should be considered OC. But the "casual observer"rule applies, and I can see how OC in an IWB could be easily missed in some circumstances.
μολών λαβέ
μολών λαβέ
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
Although I've seen OC in a drop leg missed in some circumstances too.
You can call Terry Johnson. He is the lawyer that told me this. Or you can leave your cpl at home and take your chances.
SpringerXDacp
New member
As a CPL holder, I don't think the outcome would be the same. Michigan requires an individual to possess both on his or her person an OP's/state ID and CPL while carrying a concealed pistol, on foot or carrying in a vehicle. If the individual does not possess the CPL at the time of the detainment/pistol seizure/arrest/charge of CCW, IMO, the CPL holder has MCL 28.425f to fall back on and will likely have the charge dismissed. The responding officer(s) will run the individuals OP's and confirm or deny a valid CPL. If the individual has a valid CPL, he or she will have up to 45 days to show proof of his or her CPL to the agency.
budlight
Regular Member
Before you go slamming other posters' let’s take a look at your post. First, all sentences start with a capital letter. Second, your first sentence looks more like a fragment to me. Third the usage of CUZ is not a word. Forth when referring to yourself and using the letter I, it needs to be capitalized. I’m not trying to be harsh, I just hate it when people slam others and their backyard is not clean either.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
He was not slamming, providing a cite is a OCDO RULE, spelling, capitalization, use of southern slang words are not. We can spull, use slang, and have beer cans in our backyard. It does NOT violate forum rules. You should read the rules of the site before biting your shoe, try salt it might taste better.
Carrying concealed weapons
Right out of the MSP legal update 86
Sure your cpl offers you some protections , but do not try and oc with an iwb while in a pfz.
It is one of those grey areas that I would not attempt, because there is a lot of stuff people do not casually observe that they should.
I mean hell the police harass some people openly carrying with an owb holster.
MCL 750.227 also makes it a felony for a person
to carry a concealed pistol on or about his or her
person unless the person is exempt under MCL
750.231 or MCL 750.231a. Complete invisibility
is not required. The carrying of a pistol in a
holster or belt outside the clothing is not carrying
a concealed weapon. Carrying a pistol under a
coat is carrying a concealed weapon. Op. Atty.
Gen. 1945, O-3158. According to the Court of
Appeals in People v. Reynolds, a weapon is
concealed if it is not observed by those casually
observing the suspect as people do in the
ordinary course and usual associations of life.
38 Mich App. 159 (1970).
Right out of the MSP legal update 86
Sure your cpl offers you some protections , but do not try and oc with an iwb while in a pfz.
It is one of those grey areas that I would not attempt, because there is a lot of stuff people do not casually observe that they should.
I mean hell the police harass some people openly carrying with an owb holster.
MCL 750.227 also makes it a felony for a person
to carry a concealed pistol on or about his or her
person unless the person is exempt under MCL
750.231 or MCL 750.231a. Complete invisibility
is not required. The carrying of a pistol in a
holster or belt outside the clothing is not carrying
a concealed weapon. Carrying a pistol under a
coat is carrying a concealed weapon. Op. Atty.
Gen. 1945, O-3158. According to the Court of
Appeals in People v. Reynolds, a weapon is
concealed if it is not observed by those casually
observing the suspect as people do in the
ordinary course and usual associations of life.
38 Mich App. 159 (1970).
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Note only does the above cite contradict itself, it does not say carrying in the waistband is illegal. It state that carry outside the belt is not illegal, and then goes on to say cover with a coat outside the belt is illegal. But nowhere does it say that IWB is illegal. I always take legislation as it is written. Unless there are clear court cases to point it one direction, it means what it says. And it does not say IWB is illegal, it does say carry under a coat is illegal, even with a belt holster outside the waist band. A weapon worn in a belt holster on the left side when viewed form the right, by this case would be concealed. A crossdraw rig from the rear would be concealed. The ruling is a poor ruling, the justices should have given a clear understanding instead of a vague line of BS.
Read post #2
Primus
Regular Member
Bam. Thanks for the cite. I was curious about it to. Do you have any more details to that case to give it context?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
hallelujah, the forum's grammar polizei are here, alive, and well protecting the mental well being of the forum membership's readers.
throw in the fact you must be a rookie grammar polizei as my first sentence happens to have a verb and direct object, therefore qualifies as a sentence.
cuz, conjunction Informal. because. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cuz
now, rookie budlight, let's look at what you posted ~ highlighted above...
posters' with an apostrophe ~ What is possessive with the word poster?
Forth ~ sure you don't mean fourth in lieu of the word you used?
budlight, as a suggestion for your future grammar polizei reports... when you feel the need to cast the first grammar stone at mine or anybody's front windows, you might wish to ensure your own patio window is smudge free!
by the way where is the cite i asked about...oh and this is IAW forum policy. oh thanks wizz
ipse
Last edited:
Liberty-or-Death
Regular Member
Oh, for Pete's sake, boys, there's no need to get pissy. I think slacker grammar is atrocious too, but behaving like the Real Housewives of OCDO is worse. Cut it out, it makes us look bad.
μολών λαβέ
μολών λαβέ
Didja ever notice that the GP never prevent garmmer crime? They just show up with their chalk, tape and cameras to preserve the evidence.
All of that aside, put your best foot forward as it is your and our public image and yes that is important.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Didja ever notice that the GP never prevent garmmer crime? They just show up with their chalk, tape and cameras to preserve the evidence.
All of that aside, put your best foot forward as it is your and our public image and yes that is important.
Most times I have noticed that the GP are people with hurt feelings, instead of addressing the issue, they feel they must strike a blow for their cause anyway possible. It is immature.