Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Contacted Royal Oak Police Chief And His Deputy Chief

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    I sent a copy of the Ohio Police Chief's Letter to their AG (reference the front page of "Hot Topic") to our city's Chief's office, andtold him I be interestedto hear if our officers are being educated on such matters. Also said "Id be waiting for any response", yeah, like that'll happen.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    If you send a formal letter to a PD, especially one that is as respectable as I found the ROPD to be, you should probably expect a response. Particularly if you explain that you intend to start open carrying regularly in Royal Oak, others do too, and that you are worried about getting arrested or detained unlawfully. It's a legit concern for both you and the department.

    I might be wrong, I haven't written to any PD's on open carry, but in the past when I interacted with the ROPD on unrelated matters, they were prompt, courteous, polite and professional.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    I received a reply from the Royal Oak PD:

    Mr.

    [size=This issue has been addressed in legal updates, most recently in Michigan State Police Update May of 2007 where it is explained that it is legal in Michigan for a person to carry a pistol in public as long as it is carried with lawful intent and not concealed. Of course, there are limits in that a person may not “open carry” a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Once a person enters a passenger compartment with a pistol they are carrying it concealed in violation of MCL 750.227]. In order to carry in a passenger compartment, a person must either be licensed to carry a concealed pistol or otherwise be exempted from Section 227 (e.g., a police officer). [/size]



    In addition, a person may not carry a pistol into any of the places listed in MCL 750.234d. Also, a person may not carry a pistol in a manner that violates the brandishing a firearm statute(MCL 750.234e). Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance.



    To say that it is absolutely legal is a misnomer, there are many restrictions that apply when and if one is to consider carrying a pistol in view.



    It is our goal to ensure that our officers are up to date on the latest laws and procedures to ensure a safe environment for people to live and visit. Thank you for your concern.



    Sincerely,



    Christopher M. Jahnke

    Deputy Chief

    Royal Oak Police

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    NervisRek wrote:
    I received a reply from the Royal Oak PD:

    Mr.

    [size=This issue has been addressed in legal updates, most recently in Michigan State Police Update May of 2007 where it is explained that it is legal in Michigan for a person to carry a pistol in public as long as it is carried with lawful intent and not concealed. Of course, there are limits in that a person may not “open carry” a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Once a person enters a passenger compartment with a pistol they are carrying it concealed in violation of]]]]MCL 750.227]. In order to carry in a passenger compartment, a person must either be licensed to carry a concealed pistol or otherwise be exempted from Section 227 (e.g., a police officer). [/size]



    In addition, a person may not carry a pistol into any of the places listed in MCL 750.234d. Also, a person may not carry a pistol in a manner that violates the brandishing a firearm statute(MCL 750.234e). Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance.



    To say that it is absolutely legal is a misnomer, there are many restrictions that apply when and if one is to consider carrying a pistol in view.



    It is our goal to ensure that our officers are up to date on the latest laws and procedures to ensure a safe environment for people to live and visit. Thank you for your concern.



    Sincerely,



    Christopher M. Jahnke

    Deputy Chief

    Royal Oak Police
    I bet he thinks his local ordinances are enforceable. Did he know a person with a CPL can carry openly in the places listed in 750.234d. Send him the MSP legal update for May 2007 in which they incorrectly stated in April..."Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance."

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    NervisRek wrote:
    I received a reply from the Royal Oak PD:

    Mr.

    [font="Times New Roman"][size=This issue has been addressed in legal updates, most recently in Michigan State Police Update May of 2007 where it is explained that it is legal in Michigan for a person to carry a pistol in public as long as it is carried with lawful intent and not concealed. Of course, there are limits in that a person may not “open carry” a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Once a person enters a passenger compartment with a pistol they are carrying it concealed in violation of]]]]]MCL 750.227]. In order to carry in a passenger compartment, a person must either be licensed to carry a concealed pistol or otherwise be exempted from Section 227 (e.g., a police officer). [/size]



    In addition, a person may not carry a pistol into any of the places listed in MCL 750.234d. Also, a person may not carry a pistol in a manner that violates the brandishing a firearm statute(MCL 750.234e). Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance.



    To say that it is absolutely legal is a misnomer, there are many restrictions that apply when and if one is to consider carrying a pistol in view.



    It is our goal to ensure that our officers are up to date on the latest laws and procedures to ensure a safe environment for people to live and visit. Thank you for your concern.



    Sincerely,



    Christopher M. Jahnke

    Deputy Chief

    Royal Oak Police
    I bet he thinks his local ordinances are enforceable. Did he know a person with a CPL can carry openly in the places listed in 750.234d. Send him the MSP legal update for May 2007 in which they incorrectly stated in April..."Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance."
    IF this quote is accurate, then he is a liar! He quote a the legal update from May, 2007 almost verbatum untill he omited this part after his quote of it not being legal to carry when it violates local ordinance.

    Second, in the April edition we noted that a pistol cannot be carried in public where it violates local ordinance. This is true, but only where the ordinance is specifically authorized by state law.
    Just send him the stuff that Brian usually sends, and leave it at that. No need to talk to someone who demonstrates such bad faith.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    My reply to the Deputy Chief. This reply was after his work hours so I'll see if he answers this, and what his answer can be.

    Doesn't the pre-emption law of 1990 exclude any "local ordinance"?

    PREEMPTION LAW in part:
    In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    NervisRek wrote:
    My reply to the Deputy Chief. This reply was after his work hours so I'll see if he answers this, and what his answer can be.

    Doesn't the pre-emption law of 1990 exclude any "local ordinance"?

    PREEMPTION LAW in part:
    In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

    I guess I wouldn't have phrased it as a question.

    I would have said:

    The 1990 preemption law makes local ordinances on firearms unenforceable and was upheld bya Michigan Court ofAppeal's decision.

    PREEMPTION LAW in part:
    In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.


    Then see if he responds.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    I agree with Brian on this. Trying to open up a dialog is fine, but understand that he has already demonstrated bad faith (if what you already posted is accurate) Hate to say it but, If he lied in his first correspondence with you, do you really think he is going to act in good faith when faced with this? He referred to an MSP update when he stated that;
    Finally, a pistol can’t be carried in public where it violates local ordinance.
    That was after he referenced the MSP update (practically quote verbatim with the exclusion of the part that says just the opposite).

    Expect his next response to be something along the lines of how you'll be detained (unlawfully, so learn your rights as well as the law, and how to assert them properly), charged with DC,DSP,it’s tactically unsound,blah blah blah blah. Bottom line is he is trying to intimidate you.

    Seriously, review the opening post on the following thread:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html

    Pay special attention to the section titled
    "WHAT WE SEND TO LEO DEPARTMENTS: "

    Just as (if not more) important, know your rights and how to properly assert them. Do you think Rosa Parks didn’t do her homework before sitting at the front of the bus? She worked with a civil rights group. And, others had previously attempted the same thing she did, only without the backing of the NAACP! She knew what was going to happen, and was ready when it did happen.

    You also know what can happen, so it is vitally important that you know your rights, know the law, and have a good voice recorder.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Keep in mind that PD's are not used to someone knowing the law. They are used to telling someone what they think thelaw is or what you should do. They get asked all kinds of questions about all kinds of law and seldom do they get a citizen to question it further...the average citizen thinks "after all he is a police officer he should know the law, right?"

    So this chief sent you what best supports his chance of controlling you by appealing to authority The MSP (and deleting pertinent info), thinking that you know nothing about this topic and will go away thinking that the local ordinance is lawful. It works 99% of the time. But as OC becomes more popular, 99% will begin dropping to 75% then 50%, then the damn citizens will want to exercise those other pesky rights and begin demanding that we (the police) follow the Constitution, and that won't be good for anybody.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Keep in mind that PD's are not used to someone knowing the law. They are used to telling someone what they think thelaw is or what you should do. They get asked all kinds of questions about all kinds of law and seldom do they get a citizen to question it further...the average citizen thinks "after all he is a police officer he should know the law, right?"

    So this chief sent you what best supports his chance of controlling you by appealing to authority The MSP (and deleting pertinent info), thinking that you know nothing about this topic and will go away thinking that the local ordinance is lawful. It works 99% of the time. But as OC becomes more popular, 99% will begin dropping to 75% then 50%, then the damn citizens will want to exercise those other pesky rights and begin demanding that we (the police) follow the Constitution, and that won't be good for anybody.
    +1
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

Posting Permissions

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