• 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.

Potential problem for Non-CPL Vehicle Transport

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

FatboyCykes

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
942
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
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...
 

Venator

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

sictransitgloria

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
23
Location
michigan, ,
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.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
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?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

Venator

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

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

Jonny008

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
39
Location
Okemos, Michigan, USA
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.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
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?
 

BreakingTheMold

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
298
Location
Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
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 :lol:

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

"I will neither consent, nor resist officer"
 

MissRoadWarrior

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

MissRoadWarrior

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Cascade Township, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
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?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
Top