• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OPEN CARRY COURT CASE, IWB concealed?

pmcqueen37

pmcqueen37

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
246
Location
Dearborn Heights, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
Now the case goes to downtown Detroit with new judges and possibly a new prosecutor. With a jury pool of voting Detroiters.
Click to expand...
Actually if this goes to the Frank Murphy Hall of justice in downtown Detroit, the Jury would be made up of residence of all of Wayne County not just Detroit.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

pmcqueen37 wrote:
Venator wrote:
Now the case goes to downtown Detroit with new judges and possibly a new prosecutor. With a jury pool of voting Detroiters.
Click to expand...
Actually if this goes to the Frank Murphy Hall of justice in downtown Detroit, the Jury would be made up of residence of all of Wayne County not just Detroit.
Click to expand...
True. I didn't mean to exclude anyone.
 
H

hud

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
52
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, ,
imported post

It appears to me that the only question that needs to be resolved is the definition of "concealed" carry. Either thegun is concealed, or it is open. One or the other. If the gun can be seen, how can it be defined as concealed? If the gun can't be seen, how can it be defined as open carry? Doesn't look like a whole lot of gray area there, to me. Is the legislature now going to have to re-define the terms, to include types of holsters, just to keep charge-happy prosecutors in line?
 
dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

defcon1 wrote:
It appears to me that the only question that needs to be resolved is the definition of "concealed" carry. Either thegun is concealed, or it is open. One or the other. If the gun can be seen, how can it be defined as concealed? If the gun can't be seen, how can it be defined as open carry? Doesn't look like a whole lot of gray area there, to me. Is the legislature now going to have to re-define the terms, to include types of holsters, just to keep charge-happy prosecutors in line?
Click to expand...
yes
 
LaVere

LaVere

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
264
Location
The remains of Flint, Michigan, USA
imported post

I was under the assumption that it was and is clear. What is not clear is why law enforcement doesn't know the law or choose to ignore it.

Even if the patrol offices is unclear, the desk Sargent and certainly the watch commander should know or have immediate resources to find out.






 
Taurus850CIA

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

Anyone have a copy of AG opinion #3158 from 1945? It could prove useful. Mich legislature website only goes back to 1963.
 
J

joshuaeberly

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
165
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

I wonder if this was in the brief for the defendant. if it was, you guys in the area need to make sure that you vote for another judge, looks pretty much cut and dried to me, how about you?
 
Taurus850CIA

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

Thx, DrTodd. It refers to another opinion that contains the wording that I was looking for.

The late Wm. W. Potter rendered an opinion in April of 1927 on the
subject of your first questions and I quote the following from that
opinion:
"The statute does not mean or import that no part of the weapons
should be concealed, but the offense is only committed when the
weapon is so concealed that it is impossible for one approaching in
view of the person carrying the weapon to see any part of it.

Cut and dried. Let's hope the jury sees it that way.
 
Taurus850CIA

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

xd-40 wrote:
cut and dried enough that it never should've made it past the preliminary hearing.
Click to expand...
I agree.

edit to hide ignorance....;)

Isn't there still the issue with "illegal transport" though?
 
J

joshuaeberly

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
165
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

I wasn't at the scene, and don't have many details, but it would seem to me that IF the transportation was legal, these charges are a bunch of trumped up bullcrapp.

IF the transportation was illegal, shouldn't the officer be facing charges, for allowing it to happen?
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

xd-40 wrote:
I wonder if this was in the brief for the defendant. if it was, you guys in the area need to make sure that you vote for another judge, looks pretty much cut and dried to me, how about you?
Click to expand...
It was. The judge felt the law was if a "reasonable person" can see it it's OC. He was concerned that the only person that saw it was a LEO who he considers a trained observer and is not a "reasonable" person. The judge wants a jury of reasonable people to decide if it was OC or CC when it's in a waist band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top