Disturbing the peace charge

imported post

This has been asked before I know but I can't find any references. I'm putting together a few pages of the majors concerns about open carry in Michigan. I have references to brandishing, areas off limits, etc.. What I can't seem to find is any case law on a successful conviction of disturbing the peacefor lawfully open carrying. Anyone know of any in Michigan?

Thanks, Brian

imported post

Venator wrote:

This has been asked before I know but I can't find any references. I'm putting together a few pages of the majors concerns about open carry in Michigan. I have references to brandishing, areas off limits, etc.. What I can't seem to find is any case law on a successful conviction of disturbing the peacefor lawfully open carrying. Anyone know of any in Michigan?

Thanks, Brian

Click to expand...

Been searching case law on DP and brandishing, but no luck yet.

There's a bunch on minors, felons, etc in possession (CCW violations)but no DP.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Venator wrote:

This has been asked before I know but I can't find any references. I'm putting together a few pages of the majors concerns about open carry in Michigan. I have references to brandishing, areas off limits, etc.. What I can't seem to find is any case law on a successful conviction of disturbing the peacefor lawfully open carrying. Anyone know of any in Michigan?

Thanks, Brian

Click to expand...

Been searching case law on DP and brandishing, but no luck yet.

There's a bunch on minors, felons, etc in possession (CCW violations)but no DP.

Click to expand...

WHich leads me to believe that a DP charge for open carrying doesn't hold up. I'll keep looking. If you come across a case please let me know.

imported post

Brian: If you find the info please let me know also. That's what the Owosso police chief told me could happen if someone called in, man with a gun. I asked him why would I be charged for doing something legal. Charge the person who called. He said, "You would be charged as the initiating factor" that caused the call.

Jerry

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Brian: If you find the info please let me know also. That's what the Owosso police chief told me could happen if someone called in, man with a gun. I asked him why would I be charged for doing something legal. Charge the person who called. He said, "You would be charged as the initiating factor" that caused the call.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

Just more BS from LEO's I'm all up for a open carry date in Owosso, we can go talk to to Chief and explain some things to him.

I will say that my local Chief said the say thing, but after an hours conversation he has informed all his officers to ask the dispatcher some questions before they get all excited about a man openly carrying a firearm. Our Chief has really responded well to my inquiry. He has emailed the other Chiefs in Clinton County as well as the 911 dispatch board about the legality of open carry. That is what's really needed, to inform the 911 county boards about open carry and have a protocol in place for a man with a gun call. As a resident of your county you are welcome to bring items up to the board when they meet. I've got a start in Clinton County. You can do the same in yours.

imported post

Now that's an option I never thought of. I'll have to check the board meeting dates.

Thanks

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Now that's an option I never thought of. I'll have to check the board meeting dates.

Thanks

Click to expand...

That's why I'm here baby!

imported post

It seems to me that it's fairly simple. If the state definition of DTP could be interpreted to include carrying a pistol in a holster while acting otherwise normal, it's a legit concern. Otherwise, it's not.

Only trouble is I'm having a hard time finding the relivant law. Anybody know what law DTP falls under?

imported post

Michigander wrote:

It seems to me that it's fairly simple. If the state definition of DTP could be interpreted to include carrying a pistol in a holster while acting otherwise normal, it's a legit concern. Otherwise, it's not.

Only trouble is I'm having a hard time finding the relevant law. Anybody know what law DTP falls under?

Click to expand...

I have found this info on the subject. First is the City of Lansing ordnance, followed by the State law. Remember a local unit can have additional things in an ordnance of D the P. Most of the locals I have seen follow closely the State law.


[align=center]DISTURBING THE PEACE/[/b]Disorderly conduct[/b][/b][/align]


Not aware of any convictions in regards to legally open carrying a handgun.

[/b]

CITY OF [/b]LANSING[/b][/b]

CHAPTER 664. PEACE DISTURBANCES[/b]*



*Cross references: Disorderly conduct generally - see M.C.L.A. Secs. 750.167 et seq.; Gambling - see M.C.L.A. Secs. 750.301 et seq.; Prostitution - see M.C.L.A. Secs. 750.448 et seq.; Legislation re peace disturbances - see CHTR. Sec. 3-310; Noise by motor vehicles - see TRAF. 5.92, 5.98; GEN. OFF. 654.05, 654.07(f); Drug houses - see GEN. OFF. 622.03; Noise generally - see GEN. OFF. Ch. 654; Peace disturbances in schools - see GEN. OFF. 680.02; Peace disturbances by street musicians - see B.R. & T. 864.07. Disorderly person” defined; subsequent violations by person convicted of refusing or neglecting to support family. Sec. 167.

(1) A person is a disorderly person if the person is any of the following:

(a) A person of sufficient ability who refuses or neglects to support his or her family.

(b) A common prostitute.

(c) A window peeper.

(d) A person who engages in an illegal occupation or business.

(e) A person who is intoxicated in a public place and who is either endangering directly the safety of another person or of property or is acting in a manner that causes a public disturbance.

(f) A person who is engaged in indecent or obscene conduct in a public place.

(g) A vagrant.

(h) A person found begging in a public place.

(i) A person found loitering in a house of ill fame or prostitution or place where prostitution or lewdness is practiced, encouraged, or allowed.

(j) A person who knowingly loiters in or about a place where an illegal occupation or business is being conducted.

(k) A person who loiters in or about a police station, police headquarters building, county jail, hospital, court building, or other public building or place for the purpose of soliciting employment of legal services or the services of sureties upon criminal recognizances.

(l) A person who is found jostling or roughly crowding people unnecessarily in a public place.

(2) When a person, who has been convicted of refusing or neglecting to support his or her family under this section, is then charged with subsequent violations within a period of 2 years, that person shall be prosecuted as a second offender, or third and subsequent offender, as provided in section 168, if the family of that person is then receiving public relief or support.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 84, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 750.167 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 110, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 144, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 328, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 340, Eff. Jan. 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 109, Eff. Jan. 15, 1978

imported post

I don't think OC qualifies as A person who is engaged in indecent or obscene conduct in a public place, but I suppose it could be argued by a cop who wants to nail you, even though the cop would be guilty of the same crime by his or her own definition. Probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it is a legitimate concern as far as I can tell.

On the plus side, what the city law says is absolutely meaningless for our purposes on account on Ferndale vs MCRGO, and that act from 1990.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

I don't think OC qualifies as A person who is engaged in indecent or obscene conduct in a public place, but I suppose it could be argued by a cop who wants to nail you, even though the cop would be guilty of the same crime by his or her own definition. Probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it is a legitimate concern as far as I can tell.

On the plus side, what the city law says is absolutely meaningless for our purposes on account on Ferndale vs MCRGO, and that act from 1990.

Click to expand...

I think indecent or obscene would be defined if not by law than by the dictionary. Generally these apply to things of an amoral sexual nature, but not always. One could argue that a gun is obscene, but would it be to the average person or to the community as a whole? Maybe. If it was truly obscene then in my opinion all guns would be made illegal under that definition. They would have to go a long way with that charge and as you say most likely it wouldn't hold up.

Keep in mind that the preemption law inregards to firearms is only in the possession of firearms. Other ordnances are legal. Also an ordinance is legal in regards to discharging a firearm and hunting in certain areas. AN ordinance I suppose could be made that outlaws ammunition in the city limits. I don't know if that would be legal or not. In regards to knife laws, no state law details blade length that is allowed to be concealed, but several local ordinances mention 3" or over is illegal. You can see how it gets complicated.

imported post

I looked around and I ended up at a few different places. First, a link brought be back to this exactthread. Second, another forum with people throwing around opinions like they were law. Third, a reader comment on a rebuttle letter to "Brian Jeffs' informative." And lastly, Wikipedia article that says, "An interesting note is that there are no state laws governing the practice of Open Carry, but one must do so at one's own risk, and it is highly advisable not to carry in any urban or residential areas. A Licence is required to carry openly, this is the same licence required to carry concealed. However, without a uniform (security guard) you would probably be charged with disturbing the peace." about OC in Massachusetts.

All of them worthless...

imported post

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-6263-22600--,00.html

You could always ask MSP their opinion.

Dear MSP, are you aware of...."any case law on a successful conviction of disturbing the peacefor lawfully open carrying"

....just an idea

imported post

kmcdowel wrote:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-6263-22600--,00.html

You could always ask MSP their opinion.

Dear MSP, are you aware of...."any case law on a successful conviction of disturbing the peacefor lawfully open carrying"

....just an idea

Click to expand...

Have you read this from the Michigan State Police?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_-_May_2007_198956_7.pdf

What do ya think?

imported post

bosscobra wrote:

Have you read this from the Michigan State Police?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_-_May_2007_198956_7.pdf

What do ya think?

Click to expand...

Yes, that has beenmentioned a few times here. See the following links:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/3363.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/8338.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/3510-2.html

As you may have noticed, it is mentioned in April's legal update as well. What do I think...If you are concerned about how you would handle a LEO confrontation, you may want to carry this. I don't, but I'm confidentthat I have a good enough grasp ofMichigan laws to handle myself.

Let's try not to get OT here...

imported post

kmcdowel wrote:

I looked around and I ended up at a few different places. First, a link brought be back to this exactthread. Second, another forum with people throwing around opinions like they were law. Third, a reader comment on a rebuttle letter to "Brian Jeffs' informative." And lastly, Wikipedia article that says, "An interesting note is that there are no state laws governing the practice of Open Carry, but one must do so at one's own risk, and it is highly advisable not to carry in any urban or residential areas. A Licence is required to carry openly, this is the same licence required to carry concealed. However, without a uniform (security guard) you would probably be charged with disturbing the peace." about OC in Massachusetts.

All of them worthless...

Click to expand...

I have posted corrections on the Michigan Sportsman forum (link above called Second). With their site you can't post urls until you have 15 posts, that's a good way to discurage posts that have a link to facts. I can't stand the ignorance on open carryexpounded on that site. We work hard to get correct and accurate information on open carry on this site. But that site even when someone who obviously posts correct information, the know it all's shoot it down with outdated or incorrect data. Just sad.



The guy that is posting more of the misinformation is a retired LOE, so take his opinions for what they are.

imported post

Venator wrote:

kmcdowel wrote:

I looked around and I ended up at a few different places. First, a link brought be back to this exactthread. Second, another forum with people throwing around opinions like they were law. Third, a reader comment on a rebuttle letter to "Brian Jeffs' informative." And lastly, Wikipedia article that says, "An interesting note is that there are no state laws governing the practice of Open Carry, but one must do so at one's own risk, and it is highly advisable not to carry in any urban or residential areas. A Licence is required to carry openly, this is the same licence required to carry concealed. However, without a uniform (security guard) you would probably be charged with disturbing the peace." about OC in Massachusetts.

All of them worthless...

Click to expand...

I have posted corrections on the Michigan Sportsman forum (link above called Second). With their site you can't post urls until you have 15 posts, that's a good way to discurage posts that have a link to facts. I can't stand the ignorance on open carryexpounded on that site. We work hard to get correct and accurate information on open carry on this site. But that site even when someone who obviously posts correct information, the know it all's shoot it down with outdated or incorrect data. Just sad.



The guy that is posting more of the misinformation is a retired LOE, so take his opinions for what they are.

Click to expand...

This guy has erased my comments and sent me a warning about my posts. He is abig baby that is taking his ball home because the other guys play too rough...booohooo.

imported post

Venator wrote:

Venator wrote:

kmcdowel wrote:

I looked around and I ended up at a few different places. First, a link brought be back to this exactthread. Second, another forum with people throwing around opinions like they were law. Third, a reader comment on a rebuttle letter to "Brian Jeffs' informative." And lastly, Wikipedia article that says, "An interesting note is that there are no state laws governing the practice of Open Carry, but one must do so at one's own risk, and it is highly advisable not to carry in any urban or residential areas. A Licence is required to carry openly, this is the same licence required to carry concealed. However, without a uniform (security guard) you would probably be charged with disturbing the peace." about OC in Massachusetts.

All of them worthless...

Click to expand...

I have posted corrections on the Michigan Sportsman forum (link above called Second). With their site you can't post urls until you have 15 posts, that's a good way to discurage posts that have a link to facts. I can't stand the ignorance on open carryexpounded on that site. We work hard to get correct and accurate information on open carry on this site. But that site even when someone who obviously posts correct information, the know it all's shoot it down with outdated or incorrect data. Just sad.



The guy that is posting more of the misinformation is a retired LOE, so take his opinions for what they are.

Click to expand...

This guy has erased my comments and sent me a warning about my posts. He is abig baby that is taking his ball home because the other guys play too rough...booohooo.

Click to expand...

You have Two posts on that website and both are still there, what was erased?????The forum is about DNR laws and not debates ,even if it turned into one... He is retired DNR and has provided a lot of knowledge,so cut him some slack..

--------------------------------------------------

Back to the question..I just checks a number of sources (find-law,books) and can not find Michigan case law on open carry-disorderly. You would be hard pressed to find a prosecutor that would charge someone. Now a city that is a different story as they pay for own prosecution under local ordinance. Thus would be there dime or10's of thousands of dollars as the case my be....
Mal.

Click to expand...

imported post

Unfortunate that we even have to consider a disturbing the peace charge. Instead, we should be bragging about all of our 'maintaining the peace' awards.

What type of violation is 'disturbing the peace?' Seems like it would be a civil infraction regulated locally rather than by the state. So, the laws would be different depending on where you are at (assuming it is local and not a state law). Per Wikipedia (which doesn't mean much) it usually defined as "the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions."

If I make a personal choiceto lawfully exercising any of my rights, and that somehow unsettles the proper order in a public space, it is not me who should be punished. Rather, it is the person who cries, "He's got a gun;" implying I am breaking some sort of law, andarousing a sense of panic in the people around him.

If I were in a very conservative area and were to see a gay couple holding hands, and yelled, "Their holding hands!!!!!" whichresulted in'unsettling ofthe proper order in a public space, who is at fault? The couple exercising their right to hold hands, or me, who caused the disorder.

imported post

kmcdowel wrote:

Unfortunate that we even have to consider a disturbing the peace charge. Instead, we should be bragging about all of our 'maintaining the peace' awards.

What type of violation is 'disturbing the peace?' Seems like it would be a civil infraction regulated locally rather than by the state. So, the laws would be different depending on where you are at (assuming it is local and not a state law). Per Wikipedia (which doesn't mean much) it usually defined as "the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions."

If I make a personal choiceto lawfully exercising any of my rights, and that somehow unsettles the proper order in a public space, it is not me who should be punished. Rather, it is the person who cries, "He's got a gun;" implying I am breaking some sort of law, andarousing a sense of panic in the people around him.

If I were in a very conservative area and were to see a gay couple holding hands, and yelled, "Their holding hands!!!!!" whichresulted in'unsettling ofthe proper order in a public space, who is at fault? The couple exercising their right to hold hands, or me, who caused the disorder.

Click to expand...

Disorderly conductis a misdemeanor under state law in Michigan. Is covered by most local ordinance (if the local has them). A handful have them as civil infraction, but mosthave them as misdemeanor. Thus marking it an arrest-able offense..

As Venator said, most local follow state law but add more...