OC question

solus · May 17, 2014

Liberty-or-Death said:
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

naw'llll i aint wone of petes boys...they life down the hollarrrr...and how'd ya now momma's name was prissy? u kin?

you fine missy atrocious wright purdy too...

note to grape, at least it is grammar discussed instead of those who get stuck on stupid making comments about which way is fastest on the draw, etc.

ipse

Grapeshot · May 17, 2014

solus said:
--snipped--

note to grape, at least it is grammar discussed instead of those who get stuck on stupid making comments about which way is fastest on the draw, etc.

There are will always be some crayons that are not the sharpest in any box.

budlight · May 17, 2014

solus said:
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

Once again, you don’t even know how to capitalize at the beginning of a sentence. Are you for real?? You must be an elementary school drop out…..that happens in Red Neck Territory, along with other things.

budlight · May 17, 2014

solus said:
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

By the way, I didn't cast the first stone, you did! I didn't call anyone out, you did!

WalkingWolf · May 17, 2014

budlight said:
By the way, I didn't cast the first stone, you did! I didn't call anyone out, you did!

I REPEAT! Solus called him out for avoiding, refusing to provide a cite, A FORUM RULE! You whimpered about issues that are NOT forum rules. Now you are trying to put off YOUR lack of comprehension of site policy, or outright ignorance on another member.

Doo Yoooo git da gist of datt?

Liberty-or-Death · May 17, 2014

No one likes to read flaming pissy fights. Ruins the forum experience.

μολών λαβέ

hhofent · May 17, 2014

The only thing better grammar does is make you sound more professional. Not smarter, mind you, just like taking a grammar class doesn't make you smarter in any other way.

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

WalkingWolf · May 17, 2014

I suggest we start a thread in the social lounge for Grammar Police. We can it Rapid Response Grammar Correction Team, or Panties in a Wad Squad...

Shadow Bear · May 17, 2014

Hopefully everyone got the butt hurt out of their system.

My current position on IWB as 'open carry' is- try it at your own risk. There is no established case law either way. We do know of one case where an individual was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon for 'open carrying' with an IWB holster. The judge agreed that the fact that a police officer noticed the firearm does not mean that it was 'observable' because a LEO is not 'casually observing' as noted below. The defendant plead to a lesser charge.

MCL 750.227 allows you to carry a concealed pistol if you are in your home, place of business, or on other land possessed by you. If you do not possess the land, you may lawfully carry the pistol as long as you carry it non-concealed. Michigan appellate courts have held complete invisibility is not required for the weapon to be considered concealed. The weapon is concealed if it is not observed by those casually observing the person as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life. Attorney General's opinion #3158 dated February 14, 1945, states a pistol carried in a holster or belt outside of the clothing in plain view is not considered concealed, but carrying under a coat would constitute concealed.

Additionally, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act prohibits against carrying or transporting a firearm in areas frequented by wild animals and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has rules and regulations regarding where firearms are prohibited on certain land. Contact the Michigan Department of Natural Resources with any questions you may have regarding these laws, rules, and regulations. (ref http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,...-,00.html#Concealed_Weapons__Non_CPL_Holders_) and (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rm...eg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-227)

SpringerXDacp · May 17, 2014

solus said:
shame cuz without a cite, then your entire conversation is hyperbole and without merit except for the hearsay.
and to think i was looking forward to learning something about partial covered carry...

ipse

Unfortunately, there's no law, case law or otherwise, which defines, allows or even prohibits IWB, exposed carry, in Michigan (assuming the individual has no CPL and is not in a vehicle). For now, it's simply a matter of interpretation by a respond LE. The OP is just a messenger in this case and is just relaying what an attorney told him -- don't shoot the messenger. :lol: I too, would like to know (cite) where this attorney obtained this information.

There was a member here several years ago who was originally charged with CCW while in IWB, exposed carry (no CPL obviously). For lack of funds, risk of the five-year felony, etc, he pled to a lesser charge. Not sure if this is the same individual Ziggy above speaks of.

Shadow Bear · May 17, 2014

The evident statutory purpose is reflected in the general rule applied in other jurisdictions that absolute invisibility is not indispensable to concealment of a weapon on or about the person of a defendant, and that a weapon is concealed when it is not discernible by the ordinary observation of persons coming in contact with the person carrying it, casually observing him, as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life.

PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES http://www.leagle.com/decision/196830512MichApp293_1269.xml/PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES

SpringerXDacp · May 17, 2014

Shadow Bear said:
The evident statutory purpose is reflected in the general rule applied in other jurisdictions that absolute invisibility is not indispensable to concealment of a weapon on or about the person of a defendant, and that a weapon is concealed when it is not discernible by the ordinary observation of persons coming in contact with the person carrying it, casually observing him, as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life.

PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES http://www.leagle.com/decision/196830512MichApp293_1269.xml/PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES

As I said, there's no law/case law in this state that defines, allows or prohibits IWB, exposed carry. Hence: "It's a matter of interpretation." Is a person who sits strong-side to the wall (OWB open carry), in a booth at a restaurant, carrying concealed as his or her pistol is not discernible by the ordinary observation of persons (wait staff/clientele) coming in contact with the person carrying it? I don't know. I guess that's up to the officer(s)/judge/jury to decide. Again, interpretation.

Grapeshot · May 18, 2014

Shadow Bear said:
The evident statutory purpose is reflected in the general rule applied in other jurisdictions that absolute invisibility is not indispensable to concealment of a weapon on or about the person of a defendant, and that a weapon is concealed when it is not discernible by the ordinary observation of persons coming in contact with the person carrying it, casually observing him, as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life.

PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES http://www.leagle.com/decision/196830512MichApp293_1269.xml/PEOPLE v. JOHNNIE W. JONES

SpringerXDacp said:
As I said, there's no law/case law in this state that defines, allows or prohibits IWB, exposed carry. Hence: "It's a matter of interpretation." Is a person who sits strong-side to the wall (OWB open carry), in a booth at a restaurant, carrying concealed as his or her pistol is not discernible by the ordinary observation of persons (wait staff/clientele) coming in contact with the person carrying it? I don't know. I guess that's up to the officer(s)/judge/jury to decide. Again, interpretation.

As a general observation, I would add: "Available to be seen" - whether the viewer sees it or not should not be the determining factor.

IMO, it makes no difference whether sitting strong side to the wall. in a phone booth, on the other side of a tree/bush. The point being if an observer looked directly at the location of the gun, he or she could see it and discern what it was - end of story.

TheQ · May 18, 2014

Concealment is a question of fact and exists when the weapon is “not discernible by the ordinary observation of [those] coming in contact with [the accused], casually observing him, as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life.” People v Johnnie W Jones, 12 Mich App 293, 296; 162 NW2d 847 (1968).

budlight · May 20, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
I suggest we start a thread in the social lounge for Grammar Police. We can it Rapid Response Grammar Correction Team, or Panties in a Wad Squad...

I have one better....lets start one for the "Cite Police" who can't ask nicely and bash others for not posting a cite. I have no problem with somebody calling this out, but it needs to be done in a PROFESSIONAL manner.

budlight · May 20, 2014

Shadow Bear said:
Hopefully everyone got the butt hurt out of their system.

My current position on IWB as 'open carry' is- try it at your own risk. There is no established case law either way. We do know of one case where an individual was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon for 'open carrying' with an IWB holster. The judge agreed that the fact that a police officer noticed the firearm does not mean that it was 'observable' because a LEO is not 'casually observing' as noted below. The defendant plead to a lesser charge.

MCL 750.227 allows you to carry a concealed pistol if you are in your home, place of business, or on other land possessed by you. If you do not possess the land, you may lawfully carry the pistol as long as you carry it non-concealed. Michigan appellate courts have held complete invisibility is not required for the weapon to be considered concealed. The weapon is concealed if it is not observed by those casually observing the person as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life. Attorney General's opinion #3158 dated February 14, 1945, states a pistol carried in a holster or belt outside of the clothing in plain view is not considered concealed, but carrying under a coat would constitute concealed.

Additionally, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act prohibits against carrying or transporting a firearm in areas frequented by wild animals and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has rules and regulations regarding where firearms are prohibited on certain land. Contact the Michigan Department of Natural Resources with any questions you may have regarding these laws, rules, and regulations. (ref http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,...-,00.html#Concealed_Weapons__Non_CPL_Holders_) and (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rm...eg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-227)

Need a cite for the Michigan Appellate Court's ruling.....this is required by the Cite Police.

WalkingWolf · May 20, 2014

budlight said:
I have one better....lets start one for the "Cite Police" who can't ask nicely and bash others for not posting a cite. I have no problem with somebody calling this out, but it needs to be done in a PROFESSIONAL manner.

Citations are a site rule, don't like it, find another playground. Spelling is not a site rule.

Primus · May 20, 2014

budlight said:
I have one better....lets start one for the "Cite Police" who can't ask nicely and bash others for not posting a cite. I have no problem with somebody calling this out, but it needs to be done in a PROFESSIONAL manner.

budlight said:
Need a cite for the Michigan Appellate Court's ruling.....this is required by the Cite Police.

Lol are you mailing citations for lack of citations? Or summons?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Grapeshot · May 20, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Citations are a site rule, don't like it, find another playground. Spelling is not a site rule.

That is the way it is.

budlight · May 20, 2014

Grapeshot said:
That is the way it is.

So I am calling out citations.......is that against form rules too?

OC question

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

New member

Michigan Moderator

New member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member