Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: CC on private property without CPL?

  1. #1

    CC on private property without CPL?

    I was wondering could you technically conceal carry without a cpl on your own personal property such as your backyard? Seems like it would be OK to cc inside your own home without a cpl but what about your yard or property? Just a thought

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Detroit5906 View Post
    I was wondering could you technically conceal carry without a cpl on your own personal property such as your backyard? Seems like it would be OK to cc inside your own home without a cpl but what about your yard or property? Just a thought
    Yes.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zah...me=mcl-750-227

    "(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."

    Do not inadvertently wander into the public/road right-of-way while carrying concealed:

    "(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."

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    Yes, as long as the private property is not your own car. Then magically, your second and fourth amendment rights disappear. Article 1 section 6 of the Michigan constitution says it's legal, but the legislature broke its oath to the constitution by passing a law conflicting with your right to do it, so I guess that it's somehow illegal. Despite the fact that the constitution is a supreme law. It would be ok if the police judges and prosecutors upheld the oaths that each of them took to protect your constitutional rights, but they don't seem to understand that whole concept anymore. Sad really, carrying out such a patriotic duty by not enforcing such a law like they promised would be such a proud moment. You know, flags and fireworks and stuff. But hey, they were just doing their jobs right?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    Know what's your private property. Mine stops at the curb and includes the sidewalk. Depending on your municipality, you may (or may not) find a detailed description of your parcel here:

    https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/SelectUnit.aspx

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    Your law stops at my threshold.

  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Plan B View Post
    Yes, as long as the private property is not your own car. Then magically, your second and fourth amendment rights disappear. Article 1 section 6 of the Michigan constitution says it's legal, but the legislature broke its oath to the constitution by passing a law conflicting with your right to do it, so I guess that it's somehow illegal. Despite the fact that the constitution is a supreme law. It would be ok if the police judges and prosecutors upheld the oaths that each of them took to protect your constitutional rights, but they don't seem to understand that whole concept anymore. Sad really, carrying out such a patriotic duty by not enforcing such a law like they promised would be such a proud moment. You know, flags and fireworks and stuff. But hey, they were just doing their jobs right?


    Unless your car is located ON your property (i.e. you have a possessory interest in the property)

    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.

    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post

    Unless your car is located ON your property (i.e. you have a possessory interest in the property)

    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.

    His implication is that 'your car is your personal property and the law be damned'

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    No, my position is that the constitution is greater than an unconstitutional law. Private property is private property, even Grapeshot would agree with me there.

    The attitude behind your post would be inconsistent with the attitude that lead you to post your location as you have. I agree with your location, we're all in the same boat.
    Last edited by Plan B; 12-03-2014 at 06:17 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Plan B View Post
    No, my position is that the constitution is greater than an unconstitutional law. Private property is private property, even Grapeshot would agree with me there.

    The attitude behind your post would be inconsistent with the attitude that lead you to post your location as you have. I agree with your location, we're all in the same boat.
    What I said is what you said.

    How is:
    "your car is your personal property and the law be damned"
    different from:
    "the constitution is greater than an unconstitutional law. Private property is private property."

    I know you have an insatiable desire to be confrontational, but you should realize that I do not disagree with your logic. I was merely attempting to clarify.

    Though I feel it would be irresponsible not to point out that, right, wrong or sideways, the guys with the tin ornaments and funny costumes will give you trouble for it regardless of what the Constitution says.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    I took it as sarcasm.

    I'm saying, in a nutshell, that the people who are making (and supporting) laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, and those who are enforcing those laws, are the criminals. The person who is simply exercising a right that not only predated government itself, but also that each individual in that government swore an oath to uphold, makes the representative of the .gov the criminal, not the accused.

    There was no penalty attached to either the constitution or its oaths and the breaking of them, because at the time the concepts were instituted, any punishment would have been considered rude and redundant, as those people had sworn against their own lives to do as they said they would. The tradition would be then, that the person taking the oath is promoting their promise above the value of their own life.

    This generation has lost sight of that concept, and as a result, we have legislated anarchy. I'm trying to eliminate that anarchy.

    I keep preaching oaths because the oath is the key to peace between the government and its people. It;s the glue that holds the whole thing together. All the talk about revolution and most of the rebellions going on these days would immediately cease if the people in the .gov would uphold their oaths. Police being but one of the many groups of people tasked with maintaining our country. People wont fight for rights they have. They wont hate a government that treats them as adults and with respect.
    Last edited by Plan B; 12-05-2014 at 12:11 AM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    If I can get one cop to uphold his oath to not enforce an unconstitutional law one day, then thats a real person who wasn't doing anything but trying to protect himself or herself that wont have to go to prison, losing everything, losing the right to legally own a gun for life, then have I done a wrong thing?
    Last edited by Plan B; 12-05-2014 at 12:02 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    I believe that 'legislated anarchy' is a contradiction in terms.

    Legislation:
    1.
    the act of making or enacting laws.
    2.
    a law or a body of laws enacted.

    Anarchy:
    noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law.
    2.
    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
    The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Plan B View Post
    If I can get one cop to uphold his oath to not enforce an unconstitutional law one day, then thats a real person who wasn't doing anything but trying to protect himself or herself that wont have to go to prison, losing everything, losing the right to legally own a gun for life, then have I done a wrong thing?
    That's your choice and not morally wrong.

    My only point was that if someone is asking a question, and you neglect to inform them of potential consequences of their choices, then you are putting *them* in that position instead of yourself, which is morally reprehensible.

    If you inform someone of the potential consequences, and they make the choice for themselves to stand against it anyway, as you've described, then I stand behind that decision.

    Don't let your choices and moral convictions place someone in a position of danger, let them place themselves in danger if that is their decision.
    Last edited by Evil Creamsicle; 12-05-2014 at 12:33 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Creamsicle View Post
    I believe that 'legislated anarchy' is a contradiction in terms.

    Legislation:
    1.
    the act of making or enacting laws.
    2.
    a law or a body of laws enacted.

    Anarchy:
    noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law.
    2.
    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
    The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
    The purpose of law, is to have order. What we have isn't order.
    It was meant to emphasize the contradiction that is in place now. We have a constitution, and law that contradict. We have a system in place designed to keep the country strong, (oaths) and people dont follow them. As a result, you have people who by exercising a right in following along with the letter of the constitution, who are going against the letter of the law. We have people who must make a choice between abiding by the supreme law, or in choosing to abide by the superficial ones. This is legislated anarchy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Creamsicle View Post
    That's your choice and not morally wrong.

    My only point was that if someone is asking a question, and you neglect to inform them of potential consequences of their choices, then you are putting *them* in that position instead of yourself, which is morally reprehensible.

    If you inform someone of the potential consequences, and they make the choice for themselves to stand against it anyway, as you've described, then I stand behind that decision.

    Don't let your choices and moral convictions place someone in a position of danger, let them place themselves in danger if that is their decision.

    I agree. Had the others not been available to comment, I would have told him. I would have said it accurately though, intentionally avoiding political correctness.


    Sad to say, telling someone they have the right to do what the constitution says clearly that they can do, isnt even bel;ievable. Not even by those who support it. It's always 'Yeah it's a right but. " Ugh, make up your minds gun people.
    Last edited by Plan B; 12-06-2014 at 11:54 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    An oath is only as strong as the moral fiber of the person swearing to it.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  16. #16
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    CC on private property without CPL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    An oath is only as strong as the moral fiber of the person swearing to it.
    And there is the source of many of the issues today.

    Many public servants, have misconstrued that to mean: the public is there to serve them. Not the other way around.

    It should be mandated that all government employees take & pass a course on the bill of rights and the constitution no less than yearly, if not more.

    Why? The money spent there would be returned 10x in better service & less law suits IMHO.
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 12-08-2014 at 01:39 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    ↑ yeah... that!!!
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

Posting Permissions

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