Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Open carry on a motorcycle?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    RTM Fennville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    What if you have a pistol in a holster and T shirt tucked in so the pistol is well exposed to any to see and you get on a motorcycle? Technically, there is nothing on the motorcycle to conceal the pistol from view. Notwithstanding you put a lether jacket over the top of it, and then it would be concealed. But for regular blue jeans and T shirt, riding to a shooting range, is it concealed or open carry?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Darth AkSarBen wrote:
    What if you have a pistol in a holster and T shirt tucked in so the pistol is well exposed to any to see and you get on a motorcycle? Technically, there is nothing on the motorcycle to conceal the pistol from view. Notwithstanding you put a lether jacket over the top of it, and then it would be concealed. But for regular blue jeans and T shirt, riding to a shooting range, is it concealed or open carry?

    Welcome to OCDO Darth. This is a previous thread on OC on a motorcycle:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/14620.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Once you get on a motorcycle, whether the gun is visually exposed or not, it is considered by law as CONCEALED.

    If you do this, you better have a CPL.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    RTM Fennville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Well, the concensu is pretty much CPL on this site with all the Open Carry folks. CPL only on motorcycle, although seems a bit unusual given that a motorcycle is about as open as one walking.

    I suppose on one's bicycle, it is alright, since this is not a motorized vehicle, but rather self propelled?



  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Darth AkSarBen wrote:
    Well, the concensu is pretty much CPL on this site with all the Open Carry folks. CPL only on motorcycle, although seems a bit unusual given that a motorcycle is about as open as one walking.

    I suppose on one's bicycle, it is alright, since this is not a motorized vehicle, but rather self propelled?

    Right, a motorcycle is a vehicle and you need to have a CPL to open or conceal carry a handgun. Bicycles are ok to OC with or without a CPL.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    What I would like to know, if anyone can tell me is, with the O/C in Mich, since I ride a motorcycle alot and am 60+ years old, and the bike has a large enough rear locked tail compartment that can store a pistol & holster, would that then be legal to carry? Also these newer bikes come with sensors which the older bikes did not have. I'd hate to break down some where's and have other problems besides just motorcycle problems.

    Thanks, Orton

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Orton wrote:
    What I would like to know, if anyone can tell me is, with the O/C in Mich, since I ride a motorcycle alot and am 60+ years old, and the bike has a large enough rear locked tail compartment that can store a pistol & holster, would that then be legal to carry? Also these newer bikes come with sensors which the older bikes did not have. I'd hate to break down some where's and have other problems besides just motorcycle problems.

    Thanks, Orton
    Welcome to OCDO Orton. If you do not have a CPL then the following applies:

    You can open carry on federal forrest lands, state forrest lands, state parks, anywhere it is legal to open carry. You can't have loaded weapons in National Parks. The sleeping Bear National Lake shore allows hunting so you can have a firearm there during state hunting seasons.

    But in order to transport you firearm without a CPL you are limited to lawful purposes which are defined by law. You can't just drive around with an unloaded cased handgun in your car unless you meet the criteria below. While in transport means going straight to and from, no stopping at the store, no going shopping, no going for a drive. You can't transport your handgun in a vehicle and say go out shopping and strap on the old firearm when you get to the mall. It is very hard to open carry in Michigan because of the below conditions. You can start out from your home or business on foot or on a bike or on a motorcycle and open carry.

    Those with CPL's can transport their handguns and either open or conceal carry, because they are allowed to transport their handguns without having to meet the below conditions.

    From the Michigan State Police Web Site.

    7. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?

    Answer A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

    The law defines ‘lawful purpose’ as:

    • While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
    • While transporting a pistol to or from home or place of business and a place of repair.
    • While moving goods from one place of residence or business to another place of residence or business.
    • While transporting a licensed pistol to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed (registering the pistol) or to have a law enforcement official take possession of the pistol.
    • While en route to or from home or place of business to a gun show or place of purchase or sale.
    • While en route to or from home to a public shooting facility or land where the discharge of firearms is permitted.
    • While en route to or from home to private property where the pistol is to be used as permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

    Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A



    Orton, without a CPL you may transport unloaded and in a case in your locked tail compartment.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    RTM Fennville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I disagree, SpringerXDacp. Since Michigan is an Open Carry state, and we are encouraged to open carry, I should be able to carry my pistol in the trunk of my car, and to to a park and then get the pistol out of the trunk, load it and holster it and walk around, providing it is not a National Monument, etc.

    I can also stop in a parking lot and again put my loaded pistol into a holster and carry it OPEN into stores like Home Depot, Menards, etc as long as it is not posted outside that there are no firearms allowed in the store. Which means I can legally transport my pistol to where I might be wanting to open carry.

    Is this not right? Is this an Open Carry forum about Michigan Open Carry and encouragement of Open carry?

    How else can you open carry a pistol, living in Fennville, and wanting to OC in Holland, Ferndale, or other if you don't carry it, unloaded in the trunk of your car, or your locked motorcycle carrier trunk? The crucial part is it must be inaccessible from the driver/passenger stance, and unloaded.

    So my belief is yes you can carry it in your locked MC accessory trunk, as it is defined as vehicles that do not have a trunk, that it must be carreid stowed away from readily access by driver/passengers.






  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    Orton wrote:
    What I would like to know, if anyone can tell me is, with the O/C in Mich, since I ride a motorcycle alot and am 60+ years old, and the bike has a large enough rear locked tail compartment that can store a pistol & holster, would that then be legal to carry? Also these newer bikes come with sensors which the older bikes did not have. I'd hate to break down some where's and have other problems besides just motorcycle problems.

    Thanks, Orton
    Welcome to OCDO Orton. If you do not have a CPL then the following applies:

    You can open carry on federal forrest lands, state forrest lands, state parks, anywhere it is legal to open carry. You can't have loaded weapons in National Parks. The sleeping Bear National Lake shore allows hunting so you can have a firearm there during state hunting seasons.

    But in order to transport you firearm without a CPL you are limited to lawful purposes which are defined by law. You can't just drive around with an unloaded cased handgun in your car unless you meet the criteria below. While in transport means going straight to and from, no stopping at the store, no going shopping, no going for a drive. You can't transport your handgun in a vehicle and say go out shopping and strap on the old firearm when you get to the mall. It is very hard to open carry in Michigan because of the below conditions. You can start out from your home or business on foot or on a bike or on a motorcycle and open carry.

    Those with CPL's can transport their handguns and either open or conceal carry, because they are allowed to transport their handguns without having to meet the below conditions.

    From the Michigan State Police Web Site.

    7. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?

    Answer A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

    The law defines ‘lawful purpose’ as:
    • While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
    • While transporting a pistol to or from home or place of business and a place of repair.
    • While moving goods from one place of residence or business to another place of residence or business.
    • While transporting a licensed pistol to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed (registering the pistol) or to have a law enforcement official take possession of the pistol.
    • While en route to or from home or place of business to a gun show or place of purchase or sale.
    • While en route to or from home to a public shooting facility or land where the discharge of firearms is permitted.
    • While en route to or from home to private property where the pistol is to be used as permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
    Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A



    Orton, without a CPL you may transport unloaded and in a case in your locked tail compartment.
    Cite to authority:


    THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)

    Act 328 of 1931 ***** 750.231a THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 7, 2009: See 750.231a.amended *****


    750.231a Exceptions to § 750.227(2); definitions.
    Sec. 231a.
    (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
    (b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.
    (c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.
    (d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.
    (e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
    (2) As used in this section:
    (a) “Antique firearm” means either of the following:
    (i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
    (ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
    (b) “Lawful purpose” includes the following:
    (i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
    (ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
    (iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
    (iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed on the pistol as is required by section 9 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.429, or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
    (v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
    (vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
    (vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.


    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4m3zx3n2coffgj45cacgwh55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-231a&query=on&highlight=pistol%20AND%20en% 20AND%20route


    Some would read the "includes" as saying "includes, but is not limited to". More importantly, open carry is permitted under the law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Darth AkSarBen wrote:
    I disagree, SpringerXDacp. Since Michigan is an Open Carry state, and we are encouraged to open carry, I should be able to carry my pistol in the trunk of my car, and to to a park and then get the pistol out of the trunk, load it and holster it and walk around, providing it is not a National Monument, etc.

    I can also stop in a parking lot and again put my loaded pistol into a holster and carry it OPEN into stores like Home Depot, Menards, etc as long as it is not posted outside that there are no firearms allowed in the store. Which means I can legally transport my pistol to where I might be wanting to open carry.

    Is this not right? Is this an Open Carry forum about Michigan Open Carry and encouragement of Open carry?

    How else can you open carry a pistol, living in Fennville, and wanting to OC in Holland, Ferndale, or other if you don't carry it, unloaded in the trunk of your car, or your locked motorcycle carrier trunk? The crucial part is it must be inaccessible from the driver/passenger stance, and unloaded.

    So my belief is yes you can carry it in your locked MC accessory trunk, as it is defined as vehicles that do not have a trunk, that it must be carreid stowed away from readily access by driver/passengers.




    Darth, I will post this again, in pertinent part:

    7. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?

    Answer A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

    The law defines ‘lawful purpose’ as:


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    Darth AkSarBen wrote:
    I disagree, SpringerXDacp. Since Michigan is an Open Carry state, and we are encouraged to open carry, I should be able to carry my pistol in the trunk of my car, and to to a park and then get the pistol out of the trunk, load it and holster it and walk around, providing it is not a National Monument, etc.

    I can also stop in a parking lot and again put my loaded pistol into a holster and carry it OPEN into stores like Home Depot, Menards, etc as long as it is not posted outside that there are no firearms allowed in the store. Which means I can legally transport my pistol to where I might be wanting to open carry.

    Is this not right? Is this an Open Carry forum about Michigan Open Carry and encouragement of Open carry?

    How else can you open carry a pistol, living in Fennville, and wanting to OC in Holland, Ferndale, or other if you don't carry it, unloaded in the trunk of your car, or your locked motorcycle carrier trunk? The crucial part is it must be inaccessible from the driver/passenger stance, and unloaded.

    So my belief is yes you can carry it in your locked MC accessory trunk, as it is defined as vehicles that do not have a trunk, that it must be carreid stowed away from readily access by driver/passengers.




    Darth, I will post this again, in pertinent part:

    7. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?

    Answer A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

    The law defines ‘lawful purpose’ as:
    That's an opinion written by whoever wrote the text for that website. Michigan law makes no such definition. Suggesting that "includes" translates to "defines" is a reach when they often include definitions in the text of the law.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Nikon is posting an amended law that WILL take place in January. There does seem to be a change in wording in regards to examples of lawful purpose. I think it's more clear that the listed lawful purposes are just a few examples, and leaves room that any lawful purpose allows you to transport your handgun. That's a good thing. It would have been better to just have said for any lawful purpose and leave it at that.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    SNIP
    That's an opinion written by whoever wrote the text for that website. Michigan law makes no such definition. Suggesting that "includes" translates to "defines" is a reach when they often include definitions in the text of the law.
    Ghost, Orton asked about lawful transport on a motorcycle (I assumed, by his wording, he does not have a CPL) and I provided Lawful Transport per MSP.

    Garth, for whatever reason, is disagreeing with what I posted. I don't even know where to start with that one.

    Now, if you folks disagree with the info I provided, i.e. MSP Link, then take it up with MSP, not me. In other words, don't shoot the messenger.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    SNIP
    That's an opinion written by whoever wrote the text for that website. Michigan law makes no such definition. Suggesting that "includes" translates to "defines" is a reach when they often include definitions in the text of the law.
    Ghost, Orton asked about lawful transport on a motorcycle (I assumed, by his wording, he does not have a CPL) and I provided Lawful Transport per MSP.

    Garth, for whatever reason, is disagreeing with what I posted. I don't even know where to start with that one.

    Now, if you folks disagree with the info I provided, i.e. MSP Link, then take it up with MSP, not me. In other words, don't shoot the messenger.
    Your right. I didn't mean to come of like that, and I apologize.

    With a statement like that on the MSP website, it's to be expected that others are going to use it as definitions of law, even though it really isn't.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    RTM Fennville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Springer, what I was disagreeing with was this statement in your post: "You can't just drive around with an unloaded cased handgun in your car unless you meet the criteria below. While in transport means going straight to and from, no stopping at the store, no going shopping, no going for a drive. You can't transport your handgun in a vehicle and say go out shopping and strap on the old firearm when you get to the mall. It is very hard to open carry in Michigan because of the below conditions. You can start out from your home or business on foot or on a bike or on a motorcycle and open carry."

    You said you can't transport your handgun to a mall and go shopping or have it along. If there is open carry, which is not a most malls, but other places, than you have the lawful purpose at hand. One cannot start out on foot and walk to the park that they just had a peaceful Open Carry outing from my house, it is not practical. You also mentioned " ... on foot or on a bike or on a motorcycle and open carry." bike and foot are alright, but it has been determined that motorcycle is not permitted, unless you have CPL.

    I was disagreeing to the part about the "You can't just drive around with an unloaded cased handgun in our car..." who is to say you are not on your way to a range or coming back from one? Or on your way to a place you intend to 'open carry'?






  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the information, from what I'm understanding is I will need a CPL to transport pistol either in my bike or cars trunk to be legal, if I'm not going to a range or as mentioned above.

    Thanks again, Orton

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Orton wrote:
    Thanks for the information, from what I'm understanding is I will need a CPL to transport pistol either in my bike or cars trunk to be legal, if I'm not going to a range or as mentioned above.

    Thanks again, Orton
    No, you can transport your unloaded and secured firearm in a trunk or in a box on your motorcycle for all lawful purposes without a CPL. If you OC or CC on a motorcycle you need a CPL.
    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Nikon is posting an amended law that WILL take place in January. There does seem to be a change in wording in regards to examples of lawful purpose. I think it's more clear that the listed lawful purposes are just a few examples, and leaves room that any lawful purpose allows you to transport your handgun. That's a good thing. It would have been better to just have said for any lawful purpose and leave it at that.
    Actually, that's the version that is in force now. It says that you can see 750.231a.amended to view the amended version that goes into effect in January.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Code:
    While the below case involved a CCW and not Open carry that fact remains that the court looked at the definition of “Carry” and “in” and made it’s ruling on that as well as other factors. Whether one would have a defense of “carry” openly on your person on a motorcycle I believe has yet to be tested. Certainly an argument could be made either way.
    Code:
    750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
    Code:
    Sec. 227.
    Code:
    (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.
    Code:
    (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.
    Code:
    (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.
    Code:
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION
    Code:
    July 23, 1999
    Code:
    Plaintiff-Appellee, 9:15 a.m.
    Code:
    v No.205525
    Code:
    Saginaw Circuit Court
    Code:
    KENNETH STEVE NIMETH, LC No.96-012742 FH
    Code:
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Code:
    Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and O’Connell, JJ.
    Code:
    PER CURIAM.
    Code:
    Defendant was convicted by a jury of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle, MCL 750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2), and possession of a firearm by a felon (hereinafter felon in possession), MCL 750.224f; MSA 28.424(6). Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, to concurrent prison terms of two to five years on each conviction.1 We affirm defendant’s convictions and remand for resentencing.
    Code:
    In the early morning hours of September 2, 1996, a Saginaw City Police Detective was dispatched to investigate a report of a felonious assault. Persons located at the residence where the alleged assault occurred told the officer that defendant’s brother had been there carrying a handgun and threatening to shoot everyone. Defendant was also at the residence at the time of the assault. Thereafter, defendant and his brother left, riding in tandem on defendant’s motorcycle. The police broadcast a bulletin for officers to be on the lookout for two men riding on a motorcycle, one of whom was believed to be armed with a handgun.
    Code:
    Approximately one hour later, a patrol officer witnessed such a motorcycle in an area about two blocks from the residence. Defendant was operating the motorcycle. After radioing the location, the officer pulled the two over. Other officers responded to the scene. Defendant and his brother were handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. The officer who first spotted the two then examined the motorcycle. When he bent down, the officer noticed a handgun wedged in a space by the engine. Defendant and his brother were subsequently arrested.
    Code:
    Defendant argues on appeal that he was erroneously convicted of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle because there was no evidence that the gun in question was in the motorcycle at the time of his arrest. We disagree. MCL 750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2) reads part:
    Code:
    A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about 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,
    Code:
    shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
    Code:
    Defendant contends that it is impossible to carry something in a motorcycle unless it is kept in a closed compartment or receptacle that is either a part of the motorcycle or attached to the motorcycle (e.g., a saddlebag). While the gun may have been on the motorcycle, since there was no evidence that the gun was in a sealed compartment, defendant argues he cannot be convicted under the statute.
    Code:
    Defendant’s argument is based on a strained reading of MCL 750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2). “Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.” People v Williams, 226 Mich App 568, 580; 576 NW2d 390 (1997). “The overriding goal guiding judicial interpretation of statutes is to discover and give effect to legislative intent.” People v Parker, 230 Mich App 677, 685; 584 NW2d 753 (1998). “Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase therein should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used.” People v Hack, 219 Mich App 299, 305; 556 NW2d 187 (1996).
    Code:
    Defendant’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous premise that the word in can only be properly used to describe the condition of being sealed inside some type of receptacle specifically designed to hold or carry items. The word in is defined as meaning: “1.a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of . . . . b. From the outside to a point within; into . . . .” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed, 1996), p 910. As this definition indicates, something may be considered to be in an object as long as it is “[w]ithin the limits, bounds, or area of” that object. Accordingly, any space created within the area of a motor vehicle, be it by design or happenstance, can serve as a receptacle for an item. Further, there is nothing in this definition that indicates that a gun must be completely enclosed to be considered in a motor vehicle.2 A gun lodged in a space existing near the engine of a motorcycle falls squarely within the plain meaning of the term, and is thus considered to be in the motorcycle for purposes of the statute.
    Code:
    Additionally, we note that the general purpose behind the concealed weapon statute3 is “to prevent the possibility that quarreling persons would suddenly draw a hidden weapon without notice to other persons.” People v DeLeon, 177 Mich App 306, 308; 441 NW2d 85 (1989). Accord People v Cunningham, 20 Mich App 699, 703; 174 NW2d 599 (1969). Defendant’s reading of MCL 750.227(2); MSA 28.424(2) limits the reach of the statute to such an extent that it would effectively undermine this goal and subvert legislative intent. A gun lodged under the seat of a motorcycle in a space near the engine is readily accessible to anyone riding on that motorcycle, and thus could be unexpectedly drawn and used. Indeed, we believe the threat posed in such a situation is far greater than if the pistol were sealed inside a saddlebag.
    Code:
    Next, defendant argues that even if the statute is applicable, there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to establish both that the gun was in the motorcycle, and that he was carrying or in possession of the weapon. We disagree. “In determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, an appellate court is required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution [to] determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Jaffray, 445 Mich 287, 296; 519 NW2d 108 (1994). “Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom may be sufficient to prove the elements of a crime.” People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458, 466; 502 NW2d 177 (1993). “To support a conviction for carrying a weapon in [a vehicle], the prosecution must show: (1) the presence of a weapon in a vehicle operated or occupied by the defendant, (2) that the defendant knew or was aware of its presence, and (3) that he was ‘carrying’ it” People v Courier, 122 Mich App 88, 90; 332 NW2d 421 (1982).
    Code:
    After reviewing the record in its entirety, we are persuaded that there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that defendant was carrying the weapon at the time of his arrest. See People v Adams, 173 Mich App 60, 63; 433 NW2d 333 (1988); Courier, supra at 91. Evidence was presented at trial establishing that the gun was lodged in the motorcycle in a location that made the weapon readily accessible to defendant. The evidence also established that defendant owned the motorcycle and was driving it at the time he was stopped by the police. We conclude that it is reasonable to infer from this evidence that defendant was indeed carrying the gun. See People v Emery, 150 Mich App 657, 667; 389 NW2d 472 (1986).
    Code:
    Next, defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed because the prosecution failed to negate every reasonable theory consistent with defendant’s innocence. Defendant misunderstands the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution. As the Michigan Supreme Court observed in People v Konrad, 449 Mich 263, 273 n 6; 536 NW2d 517 (1995): “Even in a case relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution need not negate every reasonable theory consistent with defendant’s innocence, but merely introduce evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable jury in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide.” Accord People v Wolford, 189 Mich App 478, 480; 473 NW2d 767 (1991). Accordingly, defendant’s assertion lacks merit.
    Code:
    Defendant further contends that MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424 is unconstitutionally vague. Again, we disagree. “We review de novo a challenge to a statute’s constitutionality under the void-for-vagueness doctrine.” People v Wilson, 230 Mich App 590, 594; 585 NW2d 24 (1998). A statute is considered to be unconstitutionally vague if it: “(1) does not provide fair notice of the type of conduct prohibited; or (2) encourages subjective and discriminatory application by delegating to those empowered to enforce the [statute] the unfettered discretion to determined whether the [statute] has been violated.” People v Hancock, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 201012; issued 6/18/99). Accord Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352, 352; 103 S Ct 1855; 75 L Ed 2d 903 (1983).
    Code:
    Defendant’s argument is based on the meaning he assigns to the word in. We have already rejected this meaning as not being in accord with the common understanding of the term. Therefore, contrary to defendant’s assertions, we believe the plain meaning of the statute serves to provide both fair notice of the type of conduct prohibited by the statute, and prevent abuses in its application. Hancock, supra at ___; People v Vronko, 228 Mich App 649, 653; 579 NW2d 138 (1998).
    Code:
    Defendant also argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the gun was seized pursuant to an illegal arrest. We hold this argument to be without merit. Given that defendant and his brother were suspected of having been involved in a felonious assault, and the police were operating under the belief that one of the two men was still armed with a handgun, we believe the officer’s detention of defendant was a reasonable safety precaution. See People v Zuccarini, 172 Mich App 11, 14; 431 NW2d 446 (1988). Also, the record establishes that the officer’s investigatory stop of defendant was based on a particularized suspicion that defendant had been one of the men involved in the felonious assault earlier in the evening. People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 482; 540 NW2d 718 (1995). The officer who stopped defendant testified that he did so because defendant was spotted in a location near where the assault occurred, riding in tandem on a motorcycle with another man. Finally, the record clearly indicates that the police were justified in seizing the gun, which was plainly visible in the motorcycle. People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101; 549 NW2d 849 (1996).
    Code:
    In a related matter, defendant asserts that defense counsel’s failure to move for suppression of the gun evidences ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. To establish that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that “(1) the performance of counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Plummer, 229 Mich App 293, 307; 581 NW2d 753 (1998). Because we have determined that the gun was justifiably seized, we conclude that defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s inaction. See People v Warren, 228 Mich App 336, 356; 578 NW2d 692 (1998) (“Defense counsel is not required to make a useless
    Code:
    motion.”).
    Code:
    Next, defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court allowed into evidence testimony that he and his brother had allegedly been involved in a felonious assault several hours before defendant was arrested. Specifically, defendant contends that the testimony constitutes bad acts evidence, and that the admission of the testimony did not satisfy the standards articulated in People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52; 508 NW2d 114 (1993).4 Initially, we note that defendant failed to raise a specific and timely objection at trial to the testimony. Consequently, appellate review is precluded “unless the error could have been decisive of the outcome or unless it falls under the category of cases . . . where prejudice is presumed or reversal is automatic.” People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 552; 520 NW2d 123 (1994).
    Code:
    The Grant standard is not even applicable, however, if the introduction of the evidence was not error in the first place. We see no error in the admission of this testimony. The testimony established why defendant was pulled over and why he was secured before the police searched his motorcycle. The evidence was, therefore, both relevant and offered for a proper purpose. VanderVliet, supra at 74. We also do not believe that the probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Id. at 74 -75. Further, we note that in addition to not objecting to the evidence, defendant did not request that the trial court give a limiting instruction to the jury. Id. at 75.5
    Code:
    Defendant next claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct at two points in the trial. First, defendant asserts that during his closing argument the prosecutor (1) argued facts not in evidence, (2) interjected his personal beliefs regarding the case, (3) shifted the burden of proof, and (4) introduced improper “gang” evidence into the proceedings. Second, defendant asserts that the prosecutor acted improperly when he introduced evidence that defendant had been convicted of escape from prison. Because defendant’s allegations are unpreserved, appellate review is precluded unless the prejudicial effect could not have been cured by a cautionary instruction or if the failure to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice. People v
    Code:
    Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687; 521 NW2d 557 (1994).
    Code:
    Having reviewed in context the challenged remarks made during the prosecutor’s closing argument, we conclude that our failure to consider the issue would not result in a miscarriage of justice. In each instance cited by defendant, the prosecutor was properly arguing and commenting upon the evidence introduced at trial. People v Pegenau, 447 Mich 278, 299; 523 NW2d 325 (1994). The prosecutor did not argue facts not in evidence, but rather commented on the evidence that had been presented. Nor did the prosecutor interject his personal beliefs on either defendant’s guilt or the facts of the case. We also reject the notions that by commenting on defendant’s theory of the case the prosecutor somehow shifted the burden of proof, or that by asking one of the testifying police officers about his employment the prosecutor interjected into the trial irrelevant and improper evidence.
    Code:
    We also reject defendant’s second allegation of misconduct. In order to prove a defendant’s guilt on the charge of felon in possession, the prosecution must establish that the defendant was convicted of a felony as set forth in MCL 750.224f(2); MSA 28.421(6)(2); Parker, supra at 677. In the absence of any evidence that defendant offered to admit or stipulate to his prior felony conviction, see Old Chief v United States, 519 US 172, 186; 117 S Ct 644; 136 L Ed 2d 574 (1997), the prosecutor was within his right to introduce the challenged evidence. See United States v Kincaid, 145 F3d 771, 783 (CA 6, 1998).
    Code:
    Finally, we agree with defendant that the trial court acted improperly when it sua sponte amended the judgment of sentence to reflect that the sentences imposed were to run consecutive to the sentence for which defendant was on parole when he committed the current crimes. People v Thomas, 223 Mich App 9, 11; 566 NW2d 13 (1997). We therefore remand for resentencing.
    Code:
    Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. We remand for
    Code:
    resentencing. We do not retain jurisdiction.
    Code:
    /s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
    Code:
    /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
    Code:
    /s/ Peter D. O’Connell
    Code:
    1 Defendant was sentenced on June 4, 1997. The original judgment of sentence was filed with the clerk of the court on June 6, 1997. On June 27, 1997, the trial court sua sponte amended the judgment of sentence to indicate that the prison terms for the current offenses were to run consecutive to a prior sentence imposed for felony escape from a prison.
    Code:
    2 It appears to us that under defendant’s reading of the statute, a gun laying on the front seat of a convertible might be considered to be in the car if the top was up, but not if the top was down. Indeed, stretched to its logical, albeit absurd limits, defendant’s definition would preclude a finding that a gun was in a car if it was lying in the passenger compartment and one or more of the windows happened to be ajar.
    Code:
    3 MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424.
    Code:
    4 Under VanderVliet, bad acts evidence may be admitted if the following standards are satisfied:
    Code:
    First, that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b); second, that it be relevant under Rule 402 as enforced through Rule 104(b); third, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; fourth, that the trial court may, upon request, provide a limiting instruction to the jury. [VanderVliet, supra at 55.]
    Code:
    5 Defendant mistakenly characterizes the testimony as hearsay. Because it was admitted for the purpose of establishing why defendant was stopped, detained, and searched, and not for the truth of the matter asserted, it is by definition nonhearsay.
    Code:
    MRE 801.


    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.

Posting Permissions

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