Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Potential problem for Non-CPL Vehicle Transport

  1. #1
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Court of Appeals decided that there is no form of vehicle transport which could not be determined to be CCW. Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly? If so, please post your response.

    This is being posted as a warning for NON-CPL HOLDERS to be very, very, very careful. Read and comment as you wish.

    I attempted to see what happened in the end to the person involved; it appears he was convicted, with the MI SC refusing to hear his argument.

    http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20010511_C229080(24)_229080.OPN.PDF

    EDIT: Tried to edit title, unable to do so.
    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942

    Post imported post

    2 Those exceptions require the firearm to be unloaded, in a wrapper or container, in the trunk ofthe vehicle (or inaccessible to the occupants if the vehicle has no trunk), and being transportedunder certain limited circumstances. MCL 750.231a(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f).
    This would appear to also indicate that the list of lawful transportation is exclusive, not inclusive...




  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Were these weapons loaded? That would make all the difference. I scanned it quickly and didn't see one way or the other. Let me know if they were loaded or unloaded.
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942

    Post imported post

    From what I've read it didn't specify. That's what I was looking for myself. But that last bit caught my eye...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    michigan, ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    well this certainly is going to make me re-think my everyday habits... thats jacked though if they were stored properly. i'm a little freaked out by that.

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

    Post imported post

    If this case was so questionable as to what exactly constituteslawful transport, why didn't legislation mirror these issues in the last two amendments to Section 231a which took place after the fact?







  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sterling hgts, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    looks like nobody will be able to go hunting without a cpl

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    FatboyCykes wrote:
    2 Those exceptions require the firearm to be unloaded, in a wrapper or container, in the trunk ofthe vehicle (or inaccessible to the occupants if the vehicle has no trunk), and being transportedunder certain limited circumstances. MCL 750.231a(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f); MSA 28.428(1)(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f).
    This would appear to also indicate that the list of lawful transportation is exclusive, not inclusive...


    It was back then, it is not now.
    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.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    I have to think that the guns were loaded. Otherwise the statute is pretty clear that lawful transport is legal. Also this was in 2001 and the law was changed slightly in 2006 so that this shouldn't happen today. I would worry too much about it. As long as the guns are unloaded and secured as stated in the law you should be okay.

    A guy was cited in Traverse City for something like this and the judge dropped it saying he can't enforce a law that was changed a few years ago. I'm not saying a LEO won't write you up for it, but I have to think that the charges won't stick.
    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
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I believe the guns were unloaded, as it is not mentioned anywhere in the decision that the problem was as simple as being loaded vs unloaded.

    I think I've figured it out; need to think it over a little more. The issue is more the procedure used at the Circuit Court than a fact not mentioned in the decision.


    I do think that Venator is correct that there was a change, but if my reasoning is correct, then it could still happen today BUT would probably be rarer.

    Venator... I'll PM you my thoughts and see what you think and then put the problem out there.


    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I agree that it's old and irrelevant news, but regardless, it is no business of a cops if you have a handgun unloaded and cased in your trunk. If you do, and a cop goes and finds it without permission to search, it will fall under the fruit of the poisonous tree exemption, and ANYTHING found in your car would be inadmissible in court. So deny any cop the ability to search you or your property, and keep your mouth shut. It will take a world of worry off your shoulders.

    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.

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

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    I agree that it's old and irrelevant news, but regardless, it is no business of a cops if you have a handgun unloaded and cased in your trunk. If you do, and a cop goes and finds it without permission to search, it will fall under the fruit of the poisonous tree exemption, and ANYTHING found in your car would be inadmissible in court. So deny any cop the ability to search you or your property, and keep your mouth shut. It will take a world of worry off your shoulders.
    If it is as you and Venator say, I'll drop it.

    You are correct, don't give permission to search.
    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
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Okemos, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    I would not doubt that he was charged and possibly convicted, just last week I was charged with disorderly conduct ccw for a small cheap sword locked in my trunk so be careful.

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

    Post imported post

    Jonny008 wrote:
    I would not doubt that he was charged and possibly convicted, just last week I was charged with disorderly conduct ccw for a small cheap sword locked in my trunk so be careful.
    How did they get into your trunk to find it?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Jonny008 wrote:
    I would not doubt that he was charged and possibly convicted, just last week I was charged with disorderly conduct ccw for a small cheap sword locked in my trunk so be careful.
    How did they get into your trunk to find it?
    +1 for being secure in your belongings

    Exactly, he started on a slippery slope when he gave them permission.

    "I will neither consent, nor resist officer"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Thankfully, I have a CPL so I don’t have to worry about any of this transport stuff.

    Are the following the most-recent and applicable “lawful purposes” for transport of a pistol by a non-CPL holder (assuming unloaded, cased and in the trunk)?

    (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 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.
    If they are, paragraph (vi) seems to say that if a non-CPL holder transports (unloaded, cased and in the trunk) his/her pistol to publically-owned property where federal or state law, or local ordinance prohibits the discharge of a firearm (an ordinance found in effect in many cities and at most municipal parks), the individual is in violation of state CCW law.

    Same with paragraph (vii) regarding private property, except there is nothing mentioned about discharging a weapon, just its use. If, say, a municipality has an ordinance prohibiting weapons in the local malls, the ordinance itself may be in violation of preemption, but a non-CPL holder transporting the pistol to the mall (unloaded, cased, in the trunk) would still be in violation of state CCW law.

    Also, by assumption, a non-CPL holder “just driving around” with a pistol, even though unloaded, cased and in the trunk, would also be in violation of state CCW law being that the driver was not transporting it with any of the purposes expressed by statute as being lawful.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    Thankfully, I have a CPL so I don’t have to worry about any of this transport stuff.

    Are the following the most-recent and applicable “lawful purposes” for transport of a pistol by a non-CPL holder (assuming unloaded, cased and in the trunk)?

    (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 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.
    If they are, paragraph (vi) seems to say that if a non-CPL holder transports (unloaded, cased and in the trunk) his/her pistol to publically-owned property where federal or state law, or local ordinance prohibits the discharge of a firearm (an ordinance found in effect in many cities and at most municipal parks), the individual is in violation of state CCW law.

    Same with paragraph (vii) regarding private property, except there is nothing mentioned about discharging a weapon, just its use. If, say, a municipality has an ordinance prohibiting weapons in the local malls, the ordinance itself may be in violation of preemption, but a non-CPL holder transporting the pistol to the mall (unloaded, cased, in the trunk) would still be in violation of state CCW law.

    Also, by assumption, a non-CPL holder “just driving around” with a pistol, even though unloaded, cased and in the trunk, would also be in violation of state CCW law being that the driver was not transporting it with any of the purposes expressed by statute as being lawful.
    In answer to your question, the exceptions that you listed are the present day exceptions, but it is a list that is NOT limited to those purposes explicitly listed. See below.

    Actually, I hesitated posting again here so as not to unnecessarily concern anybody. I came to the same conclusion you came to: no matter how its is transported, you better be transporting it in the car for a "lawful purpose".

    I didn't post my thoughts because I did not want to suggest any possible ways to charge CCW; we have enough hassles. But, the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak. The point really needs to be stressed that we need to make sure non-cpl transport of handguns is for a "lawful purpose". The only point I think could be made is that lawful purposes are not limited to the examples given in the law, rather it says that lawful purposes includes the following, not that it is limited to the following:

    750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
    (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 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.

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    In answer to your question, the exceptions that you listed are the present day exceptions, but it is a list that is NOT limited to those purposes explicitly listed. See below.

    Actually, I hesitated posting again here so as not to unnecessarily concern anybody. I came to the same conclusion you came to: no matter how its is transported, you better be transporting it in the car for a "lawful purpose".

    I didn't post my thoughts because I did not want to suggest any possible ways to charge CCW; we have enough hassles. But, the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak. The point really needs to be stressed that we need to make sure non-cpl transport of handguns is for a "lawful purpose". The only point I think could be made is that lawful purposes are not limited to the examples given in the law, rather it says that lawful purposes includes the following, not that it is limited to the following:

    750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
    (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 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.
    Seems to me though that any LEO/prosecutor on a mission to arrest/charge a non-CPL OCer for CCW would be well aware of how the lawful transport statute is written and wouldn’t be relying on message boards for ideas on how to enforce it. Non-CPL OCers would be better-served, in my opinion, if all aspects of OC were discussed openly, including illuminating any potential gray areas that might serve as a “got ya” trap for them.

    From Random House:

    in⋅clude –verb (used with object), -clud⋅ed, -clud⋅ing.

    1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.

    2.to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.

    3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.

    Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L inclūdere to shut in, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -clūdere, comb. form of claudere to shut (cf. close ) Related forms: in⋅clud⋅a⋅ble, in⋅clud⋅i⋅ble, adjective

    Synonyms: 1. embody. Include, comprehend, comprise, embrace imply containing parts of a whole. To include is to contain as a part or member, or among the parts and members, of a whole: The list includes many new names. To comprehend is to have within the limits, scope, or range of references, as either a part or the whole number of items concerned: The plan comprehends several projects. To comprise is to consist of, as the various parts serving to make up the whole: This genus comprises 50 species. Embrace emphasizes the extent or assortment of that which is included: The report embraces a great variety of subjects. Antonyms: 1. exclude, preclude. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

    Too many laws are written vaguely and leave open to interpretation the intent behind the law. If, as you suggest, the list is not all-inclusive, then the wording in the law should be changed – to something along the lines of “lawful purpose includes, but is not limited to, the following:”

    If the intent is for the list to be all-inclusive, then the wording should still be changed – to something like “lawful purpose includes only the following:”

    Either that or an AG opinion on the matter.


  19. #19
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    I interpret " lawfull purpose " this way. Article 1 Sec. 6 , " Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state ". Simple enough?
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    MissRoadWarrior wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    In answer to your question, the exceptions that you listed are the present day exceptions, but it is a list that is NOT limited to those purposes explicitly listed. See below.

    Actually, I hesitated posting again here so as not to unnecessarily concern anybody. I came to the same conclusion you came to: no matter how its is transported, you better be transporting it in the car for a "lawful purpose".

    I didn't post my thoughts because I did not want to suggest any possible ways to charge CCW; we have enough hassles. But, the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak. The point really needs to be stressed that we need to make sure non-cpl transport of handguns is for a "lawful purpose". The only point I think could be made is that lawful purposes are not limited to the examples given in the law, rather it says that lawful purposes includes the following, not that it is limited to the following:

    750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
    (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 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.
    Seems to me though that any LEO/prosecutor on a mission to arrest/charge a non-CPL OCer for CCW would be well aware of how the lawful transport statute is written and wouldn’t be relying on message boards for ideas on how to enforce it. Non-CPL OCers would be better-served, in my opinion, if all aspects of OC were discussed openly, including illuminating any potential gray areas that might serve as a “got ya” trap for them.

    My response: It's not so much that the prosecutor could use this if an OCer were stopped while "transporting/carrying", that's a given. It's how it COULD be used when dealing with an OCer in general, that's my concern. I am not aware of it actually being done (well, actually 1 thread not so long ago..), but there were other issues involved.

    From Random House:

    in⋅clude –verb (used with object), -clud⋅ed, -clud⋅ing.

    1. to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.

    2.to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.

    3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.

    Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L inclūdere to shut in, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -clūdere, comb. form of claudere to shut (cf. close ) Related forms: in⋅clud⋅a⋅ble, in⋅clud⋅i⋅ble, adjective

    Synonyms: 1. embody. Include, comprehend, comprise, embrace imply containing parts of a whole. To include is to contain as a part or member, or among the parts and members, of a whole: The list includes many new names. To comprehend is to have within the limits, scope, or range of references, as either a part or the whole number of items concerned: The plan comprehends several projects. To comprise is to consist of, as the various parts serving to make up the whole: This genus comprises 50 species. Embrace emphasizes the extent or assortment of that which is included: The report embraces a great variety of subjects. Antonyms: 1. exclude, preclude. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

    Too many laws are written vaguely and leave open to interpretation the intent behind the law. If, as you suggest, the list is not all-inclusive, then the wording in the law should be changed – to something along the lines of “lawful purpose includes, but is not limited to, the following:”

    If the intent is for the list to be all-inclusive, then the wording should still be changed – to something like “lawful purpose includes only the following:”

    Either that or an AG opinion on the matter.
    Yes, that would be better, I agree. But we really have to deal with what we have. Grammatically, though, the way most of us would interpret the law is that any legal purpose is valid. So, what to do? The safest bet would be that you make sure any transport falls under the explicit exemptions. That way, whether they interpret the the exceptions as just those listed OR that those listed comprise only some of the legal purposes, the person is covered.




    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.

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    hamaneggs wrote:
    I interpret " lawfull purpose " this way. Article 1 Sec. 6 , " Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state ". Simple enough?
    And it would be nice if you were the judge assigned to an OCer's case or, even better, a MI Supreme Court Justice. I'm guessing you're neither.:?
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    hamaneggs wrote:
    I interpret " lawfull purpose " this way. Article 1 Sec. 6 , " Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state ". Simple enough?
    And it would be nice if you were the judge assigned to an OCer's case or, even better, a MI Supreme Court Justice. I'm guessing you're neither.:?
    I'll vote for him.

Posting Permissions

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