Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Question----- about giving ID/CPL to Police.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    In the state of Michigan, when are you REQUIRED to disclose that you have a CPL, give ID, etc. And if you have sites to the legislature or whatever that would be great.....maybe its already on here somewhere...IDK.

    I would appreciate some help!



  2. #2
    Regular Member Jblack44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Here's what posted on the MSP site





    [size=+0]Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:

    1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately discloseto the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle.


    • Failure to disclose this information to a police officer carries the following penalties:


    • First offense = State Civil Infraction - $500 fine and 6-month CCW license suspension.
    • Second offense = State Civil Infraction - $1000 fine and CCW license revocation.
    1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall have the license in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.


    • Failure to possess CCW license when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and a $100.00 fine.
    1. Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show bothof the following to a police officer:


    • His or her license to carry a concealed pistol
    • His or her driver license or personal identification card


    • Failure to show CCW license and Michigan driver license or Michigan personal identification card when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and $100.00 fine.
    1. A pistol carried in violation of numbers 1, 2, or 3 is subject to immediate seizure by a police officer.


    • If a weapon is seized for failure to possess a CCW license while carrying a concealed pistol:


    • Individual has 45 days in which to display their license to carry a concealed pistol to the law enforcement agency that seized the pistol and the pistol shall be returned.

    • If the individual does not display their license to carry a concealed pistol within 45 days the pistol is subject to forfeiture.
    To Ensure Safety During Police Encounters

    If you are stopped by a law enforcement officer you should:


    • Keep your hands where an officer can see them.
    • Cooperate fully with the police officer.
    • If you have a gun with you, tell the police officer as soon as possible.
    • Do not make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon.
    • If in a vehicle at night, turn on your vehicle's dome light.
    In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized.
    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for." Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Basically, as JBlack said:

    When you're stopped, you must disclose immediately. If you're not stopped, you don't have to disclose. The law doesn't clearly define what constitutes a stop.

    And that's all we really have to go on.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    okay...but "stopped" by an officer one must be in violation of a law correct? or the officer should have reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a law...correct?


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    WE weren't stopped though... Rob was stopped and detained, and we were told to "back off" because we were protesting Rob's detainment the officers then started interacting with us, therefore were we required to disclose at that point? we were not stopped, nor were we in violation of any law...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    In the state of Michigan, when are you REQUIRED to disclose that you have a CPL, give ID, etc. And if you have sites to the legislature or whatever that would be great.....maybe its already on here somewhere...IDK.

    I would appreciate some help!

    Stephgrinage,the key word in Section 5f is "carrying", remember this while reading through this section.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(u22...me=mcl-28-425f

    28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.

    Sec. 5f.

    (1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.

    (2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:

    (a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.

    (b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.

    (3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

    (4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00.

    (5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined as follows:

    (a) For a first offense, by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months, or both.

    (b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked.

    (6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this section, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that issued the license of that determination.

    (7) A pistol carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:

    (a) The individual has his or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.

    (b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol.

    (8) As used in this section, "peace officer" includes a motor carrier officer appointed under section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d, and security personnel employed by the state under section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.




    History: Add. 2000, Act 381, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 719, Eff. July 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 194, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009
    Popular Name: CCW
    Popular Name: Concealed Weapons
    Popular Name: Right to Carry
    Popular Name: Shall Issue

    © 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    okay...but "stopped" by an officer one must be in violation of a law correct? or the officer should have reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a law...correct?
    No. You can be stopped by an officer at his whim. And if you're stopped, you must disclose. And if s/he asks, you must provide ID and CPL.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?
    For a legal stop, yes. But the law doesn't specify that the stop must be legal.

    However, if the stop was illegal to begin with, you could most likely get the infraction dismissed.

    In addition, for your particular case, I feel as if you weren't stopped to begin with. Otherwise, you'd have been asked for ID and assigned an officer at the beginning of the altercation.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Jblack44 wrote:
    Here's what posted on the MSP site





    [size=+0]Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:
    The problem with that page is that it is only referring to "concealed" carrying, yet doesn't state so.

    SpringerXDacp posted the relevant law. It says that you must disclose when carrying "concealed". That is why some people who OC do so sterile.

    As far as the question about "when", you are required to do so. It doesn't matter if you are breaking a law, because you may well be breaking a law unawares.

    If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".


  11. #11
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?
    Not for a voluntary stop. There's a difference between voluntary stop, detention, and arrest. A LEO doesn't need anyRAS or PC to initiate a voluntary stop with you. Of course, you may immediately dismiss yourself by askingif you are free to go. RAS or PC is required for detention or arrest.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:

    If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".
    ghostrider,

    I too would suggest erring on the side of informing them right away if stopped. The issue in an automobile (and therefore concealed) is a given as I am hard pressed to think of a situation when an officer would be talking to you without having stopped you. Technically, on foot, I would think that it would have to be more than the officer trying to ask a few questions. I usually just keep walking; in general, I refuse to talk to the police in anything other than an official capacity. No "good day, officer" from me. If I'm told to stop, then I would inform him.

    While hunting last November, I had a DNR officer walk slowly up to me and ask how it was going. He then sat with me and, as he was in the process of taking a seat, I informed him I was carrying concealed. He thanked me and said it was nice of me but not mandatory, as he was not doing an investigatory stop. He just wanted to take a rest and I didn't seem to mind him being there. After I informed him, he did not ask for my deer license, my cpl, nor did he ask to see my pistol. He left on very friendly terms, even offering to send me some new maps of the area I was hunting (it's on state land). I know that I didn't adhere to my general rule of "no talking", but I felt it was ok to do in the situation because he could have asked to see my license per MI hunting rules and checked my firearm per Michigan hunting rules.

    So, I think that me telling him was a positive and I will probably continue to do so in similar situations. Your situation is regrettably a little different. I would have probably informed if I felt I was being "stopped" but I think the events that transpired before the interaction would have answered the question of whether informing the officer was required. Were YOU told to stop and were YOU detained? Those are the important questions.
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    stephgrinage23 wrote:
    isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?
    Not for a voluntary stop. There's a difference between voluntary stop, detention, and arrest. A LEO doesn't need anyRAS or PC to initiate a voluntary stop with you. Of course, you may immediately dismiss yourself by askingif you are free to go. RAS or PC is required for detention or arrest.
    Also, that isn't something you contend with the officer on the street. That is for your lawyer to sort out later. Some officers won't even tell you their RS, and that doesn't mean you are not required to disclose.

    Trust me when I say that I understand your distrust of police, but don't let that distrust cloud your judgment to the point that it gets you in some violation of a law that could jeopardize your permit privileges.

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

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:

    If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".
    ghostrider,

    I too would suggest erring on the side of informing them right away if stopped. The issue in an automobile (and therefore concealed) is a given as I am hard pressed to think of a situation when an officer would be talking to you without having stopped you. Technically, on foot, I would think that it would have to be more than the officer trying to ask a few questions. I usually just keep walking; in general, I refuse to talk to the police in anything other than an official capacity. No "good day, officer" from me. If I'm told to stop, then I would inform him.

    While hunting last November, I had a DNR officer walk slowly up to me and ask how it was going. He then sat with me and, as he was in the process of taking a seat, I informed him I was carrying concealed. He thanked me and said it was nice of me but not mandatory, as he was not doing an investigatory stop. He just wanted to take a rest and I didn't seem to mind him being there. After I informed him, he did not ask for my deer license, my cpl, nor did he ask to see my pistol. He left on very friendly terms, even offering to send me some new maps of the area I was hunting (it's on state land). I know that I didn't adhere to my general rule of "no talking", but I felt it was ok to do in the situation because he could have asked to see my license per MI hunting rules and checked my firearm per Michigan hunting rules.

    So, I think that me telling him was a positive and I will probably continue to do so in similar situations. Your situation is regrettably a little different. I would have probably informed if I felt I was being "stopped" but I think the events that transpired before the interaction would have answered the question of whether informing the officer was required. Were YOU told to stop and were YOU detained? Those are the important questions.
    When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.

    A seizure occurs when there is either (a) ‘a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful,’ or (b) submission to ‘a show of authority.’” Brown, 448 F.3d at 245 (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 1550 (1991)....

    ...(holding that the defendant was seized after he initially yielded to the police officer’s authority by turning to face the police car and placing his hands on the vehicle, even though he attempted to flee a short time later).
    http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0161P.pdf



    This link has been posted several times, and is a great resource not only because of how it clarifies things, but also because it provides starting points to further research the topic of search and seizure.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Here's a question....

    I heard from someone that they were stopped by a sheriff for OCing. This individual was OCing 1 firearm, and CCing 2 firearms. Obviously since this person was CCing at least 1 firearm they would have to provide a CPL, but from what I was told the sheriff told this person that they must either CC or OC; they can't do both. I have yet to read this anywhere. Has anyone else heard ifthis is true or not?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    Here's a question....

    I heard from someone that they were stopped by a sheriff for OCing. This individual was OCing 1 firearm, and CCing 2 firearms. Obviously since this person was CCing at least 1 firearm they would have to provide a CPL, but from what I was told the sheriff told this person that they must either CC or OC; they can't do both. I have yet to read this anywhere. Has anyone else heard if*this is true or not?
    Simply not true.

    There is nothing in MCL or federal law that states this. Ask this officer to cite law when spewing crap from his mouth.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    I figured that it was possibly crap!

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I am not a lawyer.

    I am going to opine that the law is unconstitutionally vague.

    The word stop is often used interchangeablywithTerry-stop and detention. I've seen cops on this forum do it. But, I've also seen it used in the context of a consensual encounter by police on this forum, though less often.

    I'm betting that 4th Amendment case law which sets out the standardsfor an involuntary encounter/detention/Terry-stop overridethevagueness in the law. The US Supreme Court, even the state courts, have longheld the requirements fora detention aka Terry-stop.The point upon which things hinge, I should think, is the voluntary nature of an encounter that is not a detention orarrest. It makes little sense thatstatutes could/would override the 4A during a consensual encounterwhere there is no safety issue for the officer as discussed in numerous4A court opinions ondetentions and traffic stops. Those opinions always reference officer safetyand only authorize weapon seizureafter the point the officer has RAS. Atleast the ones I've read.

    Also, it would be unconstitutional to require a prohibited possessor to notify (5th Amendment). Next, it would tend to absurdity. For example, cop asks for a donation to a charity. "I am armed officer." Or, cop says hello at the coffee counter at 7-Eleven. "I am armed officer."

    However, until it shows up in a court case, I imagine some cop or prosecutor somewherecould try to charge it for even a consensual encounter.

    Also, certain cops like to play their cards close to their chest. May even change the story. "Oh, yes, your honor.I told him I was detaining him to investigate the stolen ice-cream. No, he did not notify me even then." We all know how some cops can be weasels about revealing whether a detention is occurring. "Am I being detained officer?" "I just need you to answer a few questions that it would be in your best interest to answer."

    Don't overlook, as mentioned above, that the OCer will likely have no way to know for sure whether the cop has genuine RAS. Recall that the courts reserve to themselves the power to determine RAS whenever it is in question in a given case. Imagine thinking the cop had no RAS,but ajudge decides he did. Suddenly thechargefor failure to notify sticks? My personal rule of thumb is to never do anything I can be charged for based on my estimation of the LEOs RAS. Get it wrong and you could have an arrest for obstruction.

    I might like to suggest a little legislative initiative for next year to get the law clarified by changing the word stop to something that has fewer possible meanings, for example, investigative detention or Terry-stop.

    In the meantime, I wonder how it would work to very quickly ask whether you are free to go and notify if you are not. Or notify if you feel you are not free to leave regardless of whether the officer answers the question.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.
    The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

    Thanks for the correction.
    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.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.
    The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

    Thanks for the correction.
    It was only directed at him. The other two were just ordered to stay back. They weren't even assigned an officer to watch/question them, even though multiple were present.

  21. #21
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    Quick question-
    If you're the passenger in a vehicle and the driver is pulled over, do you have to disclose? I assume not, because it's not you that's being stopped but I just want to make sure before I mess up.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    EM87 wrote:
    Quick question-
    If you're the passenger in a vehicle and the driver is pulled over, do you have to disclose? I assume not, because it's not you that's being stopped but I just want to make sure before I mess up.
    Most lawyers tell you to err on the side of caution and disclose.

    There has yet to be case law that defines this for us. As for me? I'll probably disclose.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.
    The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

    Thanks for the correction.
    It was only directed at him. The other two were just ordered to stay back. They weren't even assigned an officer to watch/question them, even though multiple were present.

    In that case (specifically) I wouldn't feel inclined to disclose, since I would not feel like the officer was stopping me. It's not like he struck up a conversation, he just maintained a perimeter.


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    EM87 wrote:
    Quick question-
    If you're the passenger in a vehicle and the driver is pulled over, do you have to disclose? I assume not, because it's not you that's being stopped but I just want to make sure before I mess up.
    Absolutely disclose. If you are a passenger in a vehicle that is stopped, it is reasonable to assume that you are not going to just leave. This is a recent ruling, and many officers have interpreted it to mean that all passengers fall under detainment during the stop. As a result, they believe that the passengers are not free to leave.

    When it doubt, disclose.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.
    The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

    Thanks for the correction.
    It was only directed at him. The other two were just ordered to stay back. They weren't even assigned an officer to watch/question them, even though multiple were present.
    So I guess I did read it correctly? My original point still stands, then. If the PO says anything to me, I ignore it until I am told to stop or am given any other clear indication that I am not free to go. This eliminates the question of the relative "voluntariness" of my interaction by bringing it up to the "Terry Stop", articulable suspicion, level. But informing them of the pistol is the last thing I say until I start asking whether I may leave.

    I know this can be very difficult for all of us at some point or another. We are confident we are "right" when it comes to understanding firearms law and want to avoid escalating the situation. Or perhaps we believe that by informing the officer that they are mistaken in regards to the particular law, they will say "Gee, I guess I am wrong, have a nice day."

    Has this ever happened? I can't recall any posts listed in MI/OC where it has. IMHO, 99.9% of the time all one is going to do is say something that "will be used against you in a court of law".

    An official stop by an LEO necessitates disclosure of concealed carry; but that is all they should get. If you want to inform during those "gray" interactions others have mentioned, I think that may be prudent also. But, when you do inform, make sure that those words are your last until you ask if you are free to go.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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