Oakland County Transporting without CPL

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Ken Kd wrote:

After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Ken Kd wrote:

After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

Click to expand...

You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


BTW:
I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:

To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].

Click to expand...

Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Ken Kd wrote:

After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

Click to expand...

You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


BTW:
I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:

To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].

Click to expand...

Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem... I think ghostrider is right. Yes, perhaps "technically" I could find a dictionary that does not give "transport" as an alternative definition of "carry". However, instead of playing roadside semantics with the officer, why not just keep quiet? Why add to your grief? Legally, if you look at the law, it generally states that deference will be given to the prosecution in these sorts of cases. This means that when in doubt, the decision is going to go the officer's way. The safest way to handle the situation: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Your eloquence will get you nowhere but in trouble.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Ken Kd wrote:

After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

Click to expand...

You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


BTW:
I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:

To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].

Click to expand...

Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.

Click to expand...

Codification can override traditional dictionary definitions. In the absence of case or codified law that establishes a definition, then the dictionary is used (such as with "brandishing", in Michigan). In that you need a CPL to CARRY, but not to TRANSPORT, the law has established a concise difference between the two. You do not need to disclose weapons being transported in the vehicle... only weapons that you are carrying concealed. If weapons being transported in a vehicle were considered to be "carried", then you would be guilty of CCW if you did not have a CPL.

So my contention is that, under the definition of law, he was not carrying a weapon. As for what the jury might think, I think the point is moot. I can't see any prosecutor with half a brain seeking a conviction. And even if some bonehead did, a good defense attorney would need only explain how the defendant did NOT commit CCW under the definition of law. The jury can think the defendant is an idiot, a moron, a sassy wordsmith, and/or disrespectful... none of that matters because that's not what he'd be on trial for.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Therein lies the problem... I think ghostrider is right. Yes, perhaps "technically" I could find a dictionary that does not give "transport" as an alternative definition of "carry". However, instead of playing roadside semantics with the officer, why not just keep quiet? Why add to your grief? Legally, if you look at the law, it generally states that deference will be given to the prosecution in these sorts of cases. This means that when in doubt, the decision is going to go the officer's way. The safest way to handle the situation: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Your eloquence will get you nowhere but in trouble.

Click to expand...

In my example, my response would not offer the officer anymore information than he already had through his casual observation. Under the law, you are required to disclose if you are carrying concealed. By telling the officer "You can see that I'm transporting weapon cases but I am not carrying on my person" would not give the officer anymore information than he already had (other than the fact that you're not carrying concealed).

He could've simply played dumb and not answered at all, sure. But sometimes keeping absolutely quiet adds to your grief, especially when the LEO may not understand the law. In my experience, dropping subtle hints that you're well informed can tip the scales of an encounter in your favor... it can cause them to take a step back and reevaluate the situation from a more rational perspective. I'd assume that officers are like most other people in the world in that they prefer to operate on softer targets.

If this gentleman's story is accurate, then it would seem that regardless of his response (whether he admitted he was transporting or he sat in silence) that he probably would have been dealt the same response by the LEO. Sitting in silence would likely give the officer the assumption that the driver is guilty of something... an indication of softness. One of the principles of police interrogation is that silence is usually a sign of guilt. When you've got an officer who is ignorant of the law looking at weapon cases in plain sight and attempting interaction with a silent driver... it's a recipe for disaster.

By formulating a careful response, the officer might've assumed the cases were empty and the whole process might've been avoided. Or the officer might've identified him as someone who knows the law and may have sought guidance from a more experienced LEO before violating his rights. Then again, maybe not. Either way, his situation probably wouldn't get any worse by choosing a carefully formulated response that limited details to information the officer already had.

I generally choose words carefully. People don't always listen carefully. This can become an advantage for me. It is my eloquence that has kept me out of trouble so far. I appreciate everyone's advice on many matters... insight is a valuable tool. But understandings someone's level of experience in a matter is important when digesting their opinions. I've heard from a few people here how "foolish" (and that's putting it nicely) I am, and others are, for operating certain ways... but I'd be keenly interested in knowing how many of them have actually been in situations that require them to think on their feet in the face of LEO demands. I'd be keenly interested in knowing how often they've faced detention, arrest, and/or felony or misdemeanor charges for asserting their rights. I'm not a virgin in any of the above... and I've still got a sparkling clean criminal history. Whatever it is I do, or however it is that I handle myself, obviously works for me... my experiences have served me well, I think. Other experiences may differ, but I merely offer advice based on how I would've handled things based on my real experience.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Ken Kd wrote:

After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

Click to expand...

Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

Click to expand...

You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


BTW:
I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:

To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].

Click to expand...

Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.

Click to expand...

Codification can override traditional dictionary definitions. In the absence of case or codified law that establishes a definition, then the dictionary is used (such as with "brandishing", in Michigan). In that you need a CPL to CARRY, but not to TRANSPORT, the law has established a concise difference between the two. You do not need to disclose weapons being transported in the vehicle... only weapons that you are carrying concealed. If weapons being transported in a vehicle were considered to be "carried", then you would be guilty of CCW if you did not have a CPL.

So my contention is that, under the definition of law, he was not carrying a weapon

Click to expand...

FYI, it all depends. There are conditions upon which you need a CPL to carry, conditions you don't. (Reminder: this is an OC forum so your argument "Need a CPL to carry" is KNOWN to be false). Also, there are circumstances that you need a cpl to "transport", times you don't. Michigan law does not say " Hey, in the trunk, unloaded, encased means that you were not carrying" There have been and will continue to be individuals who "transport", encased, unloaded, in a trunk, who will be charged and convicted of CCW. The terms "carry" and "transport"are not mutually exclusive.

Instead of arguing the point, though, and trying to play "dictionary detective", just realize your definition means squat. I'm sure that someone who follows your advice will probably have plenty of time to sit and read page after page of the dictionary as they try to convince themselves: "if the judge only listened..." Time in jail can be used for all sorts of solitary pursuits. However, I think they really would have been better served by keeping their mouth shut.

Talk away if you feel you must, after all you are sooo experienced and so eloquent that none of us here could begin to match your verbal prowess. But since NONE of us are obviously as gifted as you, perhaps in your omniscience regarding the law and human behavior you could see the prudence of us poor ignoramii keeping our mouths shut.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

FYI, it all depends. There are conditions upon which you need a CPL to carry, conditions you don't. (Reminder: this is an OC forum so your argument "Need a CPL to carry" is KNOWN to be false). Let's keep this conversation in context... I'm referring to carrying while driving in a VEHICLE. This requires a CPL. Transporting while in a vehicle does not.

Also, there are circumstances that you need a cpl to "transport", times you don't. I disagree. Perhaps if you're "transporting" a pistol through Meijer... then yeah. But let's be real... in that instance, you are CARRYING, not TRANSPORTING. There is a codified distinction between the two. This is why you don't need a CPL to transport in your vehicle... only if you're CARRYING. Carrying could be an unloaded gun on your hip or a loaded gun in your glovebox. Transporting would be neither of those.

Michigan law does not say " Hey, in the trunk, unloaded, encased means that you were not carrying" There have been and will continue to be individuals who "transport", encased, unloaded, in a trunk, who will be charged and convicted of CCW. The terms "carry" and "transport"are not mutually exclusive. Please link me to something proving this. I'm looking for proof that someone who was lawfully transporting a firearm, according to Michigan law, was convicted of CCW.

Instead of arguing the point, though, and trying to play "dictionary detective", just realize your definition means squat. I'm not the one pulling out dictionaries to make my case. I merely referred to the law as it relates to not needing a CPL to transport, but needing one to carry while driving. This clearly shows that the law has made a distinction.

Talk away if you feel you must, after all you are sooo experienced and so eloquent that none of us here could begin to match your verbal prowess. I'm going to move my response to this on another thread so this one doesn't get all mucked up. But I'm glad you brought it up because I do have some stuff to get off my chest.

Click to expand...

imported post

Maybe you don't know this yet, but when someone makes claims on this board that are not previously verified, they need to cite a reference those claims. This protects the credibility of both the poster, and the board in general. It is also important because we don't want people getting misinformation (regardless of who is posting it) that could land them in trouble.

You've made some disputable claims. As such, you need to cite references substantiating such claims.



Veritas wrote:

Codification can override traditional dictionary definitions. True, but it has not done so in this case. In the absence of case or codified law that establishes a definition, then the dictionary is used (such as with "brandishing", in Michigan). Which is why we refer to the dictionary definition of "carry".In that you need a CPL to CARRY, but not to TRANSPORT, the law has established a concise difference between the two. Michigan law makes no such distinction between "carry", and "transport". Cite please. You do not need to disclose weapons being transported in the vehicle... only weapons that you are carrying concealed. Cite Please.(MCL 750.227 makes it illegal to transport a pistol in a vehicle with some exceptions (on private land...etc). MCL 28.425f provides further exceptions to MCL 750.227).

Some may suggest that being in the trunk and loaded is not "concealed" even though a CPL is required for them to do so. However, that is an area where one could become a "test case" for the law. If weapons being transported in a vehicle were considered to be "carried", then you would be guilty of CCW if you did not have a CPL. Cite Please.

So my contention is that, under the definition of law, Cite please. he was not carrying a weapon. As for what the jury might think, I think the point is moot. I can't see any prosecutor with half a brain seeking a conviction. Maybe not, but we've got one who though a clearly visible IWB holstered gun was concealed, so I wouldn't assume that it isn't possible. And even if some bonehead did, a good defense attorney would need only explain how the defendant did NOT commit CCW under the definition of law. That's the key right there. Unfortunately for the defendant, this requires financial compensation to the lawyer. The jury can think the defendant is an idiot, a moron, a sassy wordsmith, and/or disrespectful... none of that matters because that's not what he'd be on trial for. Those things matter to a jury, but that's nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand. What will matter is if the jury/judge thinks "carry", and "transport" are synomous, and they are.

Click to expand...

I'll grant you that by your logic, a person would not be required to disclose a pistol that is loaded and cased inside the trunk of a vehicle. However, I also think that it would lead to a charge of failure to notify of a concealed pistol were the pistol discovered.


The law makes no distinction between "carry", and "transport". This is because they are synonymous. Where the law does make a distinction is what is, and is not allowed when transporting in a vehicle (That would be MCL’s ;750.227, and 750.231a)
. That distinction is based upon not only the location, but also the manner (as in loaded/unloaded, or cased/cased) in which it is transported.

If the gun is unloaded in a case in the passenger compartment, the person must have a CPL, and the gun must be a pistol. If the pistol is cased and in the trunk, but loaded, then the person must have a CPL. If the pistol is cased and unloaded in the trunk, then no CPL is necessary, but it must be transported for a lawful purpose. If a rifle/shotgun is loaded and cased in the trunk, then the person is in violation of the law regardless of his/her CPL status. (I think it's illegal to transport a long gun in the passenger compartment, but don't currently know the statute to reference.)

imported post

Another thing to remember, is that the 'Lawful Purposes' Include there examples, not exclude everything not mentioned. So even if your not doing something listed(say, me carrying unloaded in a case to come to an OC picnic).

Some officers might have a problem understanding how the law reads. The main point being 'Lawful Purpose', means, don't be planning on breaking the law with your pistol.

Similar to the knife law, " [size="-1"][font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][font="Arial, Helvetica"]with intent to use the knife unlawfully against another, shall not go armed with a knife having a blade over 3 inches in length."


[/font][/font][/size]Also, even if you have loaded firearms in your trunk, you have to give him permission before he can search it.

I think you should file a formal complaint, just to avoid the future harassment of yourself and other law abiding citizens.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Maybe you don't know this yet, but when someone makes claims on this board that are not previously verified, they need to cite a reference those claims. This protects the credibility of both the poster, and the board in general. It is also important because we don't want people getting misinformation (regardless of who is posting it) that could land them in trouble.

You've made some disputable claims. As such, you need to cite references substantiating such claims.



Veritas wrote:

Codification can override traditional dictionary definitions. True, but it has not done so in this case. In the absence of case or codified law that establishes a definition, then the dictionary is used (such as with "brandishing", in Michigan). Which is why we refer to the dictionary definition of "carry".In that you need a CPL to CARRY, but not to TRANSPORT, the law has established a concise difference between the two. Michigan law makes no such distinction between "carry", and "transport". Cite please. You do not need to disclose weapons being transported in the vehicle... only weapons that you are carrying concealed. Cite Please.(MCL 750.227 makes it illegal to transport a pistol in a vehicle with some exceptions (on private land...etc). MCL 28.425f provides further exceptions to MCL 750.227).

Some may suggest that being in the trunk and loaded is not "concealed" even though a CPL is required for them to do so. However, that is an area where one could become a "test case" for the law. If weapons being transported in a vehicle were considered to be "carried", then you would be guilty of CCW if you did not have a CPL. Cite Please.

So my contention is that, under the definition of law, Cite please. he was not carrying a weapon. As for what the jury might think, I think the point is moot. I can't see any prosecutor with half a brain seeking a conviction. Maybe not, but we've got one who though a clearly visible IWB holstered gun was concealed, so I wouldn't assume that it isn't possible. And even if some bonehead did, a good defense attorney would need only explain how the defendant did NOT commit CCW under the definition of law. That's the key right there. Unfortunately for the defendant, this requires financial compensation to the lawyer. The jury can think the defendant is an idiot, a moron, a sassy wordsmith, and/or disrespectful... none of that matters because that's not what he'd be on trial for. Those things matter to a jury, but that's nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand. What will matter is if the jury/judge thinks "carry", and "transport" are synomous, and they are.

Click to expand...

I'll grant you that by your logic, a person would not be required to disclose a pistol that is loaded and cased inside the trunk of a vehicle. However, I also think that it would lead to a charge of failure to notify of a concealed pistol were the pistol discovered.


The law makes no distinction between "carry", and "transport". This is because they are synonymous. Where the law does make a distinction is what is, and is not allowed when transporting in a vehicle (That would be MCL’s ;750.227, and 750.231a)
. That distinction is based upon not only the location, but also the manner (as in loaded/unloaded, or cased/cased) in which it is transported.

If the gun is unloaded in a case in the passenger compartment, the person must have a CPL, and the gun must be a pistol. If the pistol is cased and in the trunk, but loaded, then the person must have a CPL. If the pistol is cased and unloaded in the trunk, then no CPL is necessary, but it must be transported for a lawful purpose. If a rifle/shotgun is loaded and cased in the trunk, then the person is in violation of the law regardless of his/her CPL status. (I think it's illegal to transport a long gun in the passenger compartment, but don't currently know the statute to reference.)

Click to expand...

Let's keep this real simple: When I say "transport", I'm referring to lawful TRANSPORTING. This means an unloaded weapon, not in the passenger compartment, locked and ammunition stored separately. I've defined this already.

Anything else (loaded, accessible to passenger(s), ammo not stored separately, etc, etc) is considered carrying and requires a CPL. But for someone who is LAWFULLY TRANSPORTING, no CPL is necessary... and therefore no disclosure of what you are transporting is necessary.

I'm not getting into all the ways that transporting is ambiguous... I'm merely referring to the law regarding transporting as it's currently written. This issue is being twisted and morphed beyond any useful purpose.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

When I say "transport", I'm referring to lawful TRANSPORTING. This means an unloaded weapon, not in the passenger compartment, locked and ammunition stored separately. I've defined this already.

Click to expand...

Your correct in saying that, "(You've) defined this already." However, you do not "define" law, and the law makes such definition.

If it's so defined in law, you need to cite it.

Furthermore, "lawfully TRANSPORTING" is not defined in law as "unloaded weapon, not in the passenger compartment, locked and ammunition stored separately." If it is, then please cite it.


Veritas wrote:

...Anything else (loaded, accessible to passenger(s), ammo not stored separately, etc, etc) is considered carrying and requires a CPL...

Click to expand...

Please cite where the law defines it as "carrying".

Just because you consider it "carrying" does not mean that the law does so. Your playing semantics with the word "carry/transport", and that's fine if it's what you want to do (and you may even succeed in court with it), but it's still just your opinion, and not law.



Veritas wrote:

But for someone who is LAWFULLY TRANSPORTING, no CPL is necessary... and therefore no disclosure of what you are transporting is necessary.

Click to expand...

This is again based on your definition of "carry/transport", which you have yet to substantiate with any references or cites. That's fine if it's what you want to go with, but to say, "it's law" without a proper cite, it's just opinion stated as fact.



Veritas wrote:

...I'm merely referring to the law regarding transporting as it's currently written.

Click to expand...

What law is that? You have yet to reference any law whatsoever. All you've done is spout your beliefs, and say they are law, but no references have been made.

Look. I know your a smart guy, so I'm sure you know how to look this stuff up. I have looked them up (as referenced), and I found nothing to support what your saying.

IF you did find cites in the law to support your stance, then it would be something to consider, but you won't even do that. All your doing is saying "it's the law because I said so", and I'm sure you'll agree that you've heard that one before.

I'm not saying "your wrong". I believe you are wrong (and I've actually cited the law in explaining why), but if you can substantiate you viewpoint by citing the actual law, then it would be something to consider. Until you do that, then it can only be read as an opinion that is based upon your opinion.


Not trying to bash you hear, but when you post advice that could potentially get someone in trouble, it needs more than that.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Veritas wrote:

When I say "transport", I'm referring to lawful TRANSPORTING. This means an unloaded weapon, not in the passenger compartment, locked and ammunition stored separately. I've defined this already.

Click to expand...

Your correct in saying that, "(You've) defined this already." However, you do not "define" law, and the law makes such definition.

If it's so defined in law, you need to cite it.

Furthermore, "lawfully TRANSPORTING" is not defined in law as "unloaded weapon, not in the passenger compartment, locked and ammunition stored separately." If it is, then please cite it.


Veritas wrote:

...Anything else (loaded, accessible to passenger(s), ammo not stored separately, etc, etc) is considered carrying and requires a CPL...

Click to expand...

Please cite where the law defines it as "carrying".

Just because you consider it "carrying" does not mean that the law does so. Your playing semantics with the word "carry/transport", and that's fine if it's what you want to do (and you may even succeed in court with it), but it's still just your opinion, and not law.



Veritas wrote:

But for someone who is LAWFULLY TRANSPORTING, no CPL is necessary... and therefore no disclosure of what you are transporting is necessary.

Click to expand...

This is again based on your definition of "carry/transport", which you have yet to substantiate with any references or cites. That's fine if it's what you want to go with, but to say, "it's law" without a proper cite, it's just opinion stated as fact.



Veritas wrote:

...I'm merely referring to the law regarding transporting as it's currently written.

Click to expand...

What law is that? You have yet to reference any law whatsoever. All you've done is spout your beliefs, and say they are law, but no references have been made.

Look. I know your a smart guy, so I'm sure you know how to look this stuff up. I have looked them up (as referenced), and I found nothing to support what your saying.

IF you did find cites in the law to support your stance, then it would be something to consider, but you won't even do that. All your doing is saying "it's the law because I said so", and I'm sure you'll agree that you've heard that one before.

I'm not saying "your wrong". I believe you are wrong (and I've actually cited the law in explaining why), but if you can substantiate you viewpoint by citing the actual law, then it would be something to consider. Until you do that, then it can only be read as an opinion that is based upon your opinion.


Not trying to bash you hear, but when you post advice that could potentially get someone in trouble, it needs more than that.

Click to expand...

Veritas,

I believe that I have substantiated that the courts (MI Supreme Court via Appeals Court, no less) have defined the term. Just take a look at the PM I sent you and give me your thoughts. (It's in another thread here for those of you who care to see what I used to substantiate my claim)

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps you are wrong... just show me the error and I will acknowledge it, as I have been proven wrong here before and certainly will be proven wrong in the future. Will you do the same?

imported post

If you are asked a direct question by a LEO, you have the right to remain silent! if the officer continues to push the issue and demands an answer, is that not a direct attack against your 5A rights?

When a question is posed to me by aLEO that I feel would best left unanswered, I reply with another question. For instance a LEO may ask "Where are you coming from, going to" (They are just fishing for you to provide their best evidence to arrest you) My usual answer is, "Why does that matter" or " I am going this direction (pointing my finger in the same direction as my travel) or I point behind me and say "I came from that direction"
or you could just ask why he/she is asking that question. Or Just keep your friggin mouth shut! If arrest is imminent, or you have a LEO that is looking for any reason to arrest, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! you are never going to win a roadside argument anyways. You are not going to educate an officer either. Just shut up and offer nothing but what is required by law. If you are asked to step out of the vehicle, get out and lock the door, and place the keys in your pocket. this does not give them opportunity for something that is now being named a "Terry frisk of vehicle" (yup, the term is being usedin some courts right now)

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

If you are asked a direct question by a LEO, you have the right to remain silent! if the officer continues to push the issue and demands an answer, is that not a direct attack against your 5A rights?

When a question is posed to me by aLEO that I feel would best left unanswered, I reply with another question. For instance a LEO may ask "Where are you coming from, going to" (They are just fishing for you to provide their best evidence to arrest you) My usual answer is, "Why does that matter" or " I am going this direction (pointing my finger in the same direction as my travel) or I point behind me and say "I came from that direction"
or you could just ask why he/she is asking that question. Or Just keep your friggin mouth shut! If arrest is imminent, or you have a LEO that is looking for any reason to arrest, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! you are never going to win a roadside argument anyways. You are not going to educate an officer either. Just shut up and offer nothing but what is required by law. If you are asked to step out of the vehicle, get out and lock the door, and place the keys in your pocket. this does not give them opportunity for something that is now being named a "Terry frisk of vehicle" (yup, the term is being usedin some courts right now)

Click to expand...

Manny officers will still search under the guise of officer safety. The reasoning being that if you are standing outside your vehicle, you can still access it. I doubt it would fly in court, but I really don't care to get there. I think that is why it's important to not only do what you say in locking the car, but to also consistently mention that you do not consent. Officers can and will take your car keys out of your pocket. Terry allows them to insure their safety, so they justify it that way.

Remember, the reasoning behind much of this is not to, "keep the officer from searching.", but it is to, "protect yourself in court if he does search". The chance of preventing an officer from doing such a search is slim. The time for a citizen to educate an officer is not done on the street (it happens, but it's rare), but is instead done off the street (usually in the justice system).

imported post

This is getting way beyond the scope... but I will attempt to explain where I'm coming from:

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Click to expand...

This is the law referring to carry within a vehicle (concealed or otherwise). Nowhere in the carry law is the word "transport" used.

The law carves out exceptions under certain conditions and clearly calls it "transport".

750.231a Exceptions to MCL 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.

Click to expand...

In the sections where the word "transport" is used, there is no mention of the word "carry". This suggests that there is a distinct difference between the two.

To summarize: You do not need a CPL to lawfully transport inside a vehicle. You do need a CPL if you are carrying inside a vehicle. Whether or not you're "carrying" or "transporting" depends on where your pistol is located, under what condition it is kept, and your intent for having it. Regarding your intent, it need only be lawful.

Under 750.231a, "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.

Click to expand...

The section highlighted in red can easily apply to folks who transport a pistol to open carry events on private property. However, it may leave a loophole for things like public parks, city land, county land, etc, etc.

This is where it becomes noteworthy to mention that the law uses the word "includes" when referring to subsections (i) through (vi). It does not indicate exclusivity. Under the US Constitution, rights not specifically enumerated are assumed to be the rights of the People, unless specific power is taken by the States to make laws against it. The Constitution enumerates our right to keep and bear arms. Michigan law requires a license to drive a vehicle, so we give up certain rights to accept this privilege. However, Michigan says that we can transport pistols while driving for a LAWFUL purpose that "includes" a list... but it does not indicate that the list is exclusive. Since there are no exclusive prohibitions (other than what is deemed unlawful), then it can be assumed that anything NOT ILLEGAL is a lawful purpose to TRANSPORT a pistol in accordance with 750.231a.

However 750.227 clearly makes carrying a pistol in a vehicle (under definition of law) without a CPL an unlawful act. Once again, there are absolute distinctions made between "carrying" and "transporting" a pistol in a vehicle.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Officers can and will take your car keys out of your pocket. Terry allows them to insure their safety, so they justify it that way. It is not justifiable to remove things from someone's pocket that do not feel like weapons during a pat down. I would love to see an oficer justify how he thought my car keys... you know the ones that he just SAW me put in my pocket... were a weapon of some sort.

You see it all the time on COPS... an officer say's they're patting someone down for safety but feels a bulge in their pocket. "What's that? Remove it from your pocket." The citizen generally complies because they think they are required to... they're usually not. I would never remove anything from my pocket upon being patted down. If an officer felt that something in my pocket were a weapon, then it would behoove them, for his/her own safety, to remove it themselves. Then when it turns out to NOT be a weapon... I can argue illegal search. By pulling it out myself, I've just consented to a search.

Click to expand...

imported post

Veritas,

If you look at the case I sent you, (People v. Wilson, 2001) it is obvious that "carry" and "transport", in regards to a vehicle, are points on a continuum; they are not mutually exclusive.

I'll go back to my original point: you say "Officer, I am not carrying any weapons". Are you using what the MI Supreme Court, as listed in the above case, has decided needs to be determined when you make such a statement? Let's assume that you believe you had considered the points given by the MI Supreme Court, which means that you have considered: (i.e.The elements of CCW in a vehicle are)

(1) the pistol was in a vehicle operated or occupied by the defendant;
(2) the defendant knew that the pistol was in the vehicle; and
(3) the defendant took part in carrying or keeping the pistol in the vehicle.

So in court, in answer to the above questions, based upon the facts as presented by you in your post, the answers are: (1) yes; (2) yes, and (3) yes. So let's see. You make the statement "Officer I am not carrying any weapons BUT, according to the facts (from you), it appears that you were carrying.

Now, before you get upset, realize that in the details you gave, you did not list any possible exceptions that are given and that have been given elsewhere. Do you now see how the accusation that you "lied" to the officer could be substantiated? Perhaps it is not "purposeful", but I don't think the officer would really care if it was intentional or not.

Just one more point. In People v Butler, (1982) I think my belief is further supported by this quote:

Hard and fast rules regarding what circumstantial evidence is sufficient
to sustain a conviction of carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle have not
evolved. The decisions have, however, emphasized the relevancy of the
following factors either alone or in combination: (1) the accessibility or
proximity of the weapon to the person of the defendant, (2) defendant's
awareness that the weapon was in the motor vehicle, (3) defendant's
possession of items that connect him to the weapon, such as ammunition,
(4) defendant's ownership or operation of the vehicle, and (5) the length of
time during which defendant drove or occupied the vehicle. [Butler, supra at
390 n 11.]

There you have it. I think under either of the two processes shown above, there is the possibility, if not certainly, that you were "carrying", based on the information you gave us. I will admit the Butler quote MAY give you some wiggle room, but still a statement decided in court. Prosecutors have won cases,with a lot less.

That being said, I know that I can sometimes misunderstand what others are trying to say. I took your statements to mean that, since you were "transporting" you could not be "carrying." Therefore, it would follow that if you are "carrying", you are not "transporting". You meet all of the points needed to determine whether someone is "carrying" and, if as you say, the terms are mutually exclusive, please show me how you came to your conclusion.

I will admit that you "could" have been correct had the court never laid out the process for a determination of "carrying", but they did. I know that a dictionary is helpful, but since the court has defined it, I don't think any court in Michigan would negate what the State Supreme Court has opined and instead, side with Webster. Do you? Can you please show me cases where this has happened? Please cite.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Officers can and will take your car keys out of your pocket. Terry allows them to insure their safety, so they justify it that way. It is not justifiable to remove things from someone's pocket that do not feel like weapons during a pat down. I would love to see an oficer justify how he thought my car keys... you know the ones that he just SAW me put in my pocket... were a weapon of some sort.

You see it all the time on COPS... an officer say's they're patting someone down for safety but feels a bulge in their pocket. "What's that? Remove it from your pocket." The citizen generally complies because they think they are required to... they're usually not. I would never remove anything from my pocket upon being patted down. If an officer felt that something in my pocket were a weapon, then it would behoove them, for his/her own safety, to remove it themselves. Then when it turns out to NOT be a weapon... I can argue illegal search. By pulling it out myself, I've just consented to a search.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's justifiable. I'm just saying that they will justify it that way. Officers do stuff like this all the time (like your Detroit experience) knowing that it isn't legal for them to do it. They just do it anyway knowing that there is little chance of it coming back on them.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

I'll go back to my original point: you say "Officer, I am not carrying any weapons". Are you using what the MI Supreme Court, as listed in the above case, has decided needs to be determined when you make such a statement? Let's assume that you believe you had considered the points given by the MI Supreme Court, which means that you have considered: (i.e.The elements of CCW in a vehicle are)

(1) the pistol was in a vehicle operated or occupied by the defendant;
(2) the defendant knew that the pistol was in the vehicle; and
(3) the defendant took part in carrying or keeping the pistol in the vehicle.

So in court, in answer to the above questions, based upon the facts as presented by you in your post, the answers are: (1) yes; (2) yes, and (3) yes.

I would answer (1) Yes, (2) Yes, (3) No. I was not carrying or keeping... I was transporting.

Just one more point. In People v Butler, (1982) I think my belief is further supported by this quote:

Hard and fast rules regarding what circumstantial evidence is sufficient
to sustain a conviction of carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle have not
evolved. The decisions have, however, emphasized the relevancy of the
following factors either alone or in combination: (1) the accessibility or
proximity of the weapon to the person of the defendant, (2) defendant's
awareness that the weapon was in the motor vehicle, (3) defendant's
possession of items that connect him to the weapon, such as ammunition,
(4) defendant's ownership or operation of the vehicle, and (5) the length of
time during which defendant drove or occupied the vehicle. [Butler, supra at
390 n 11.]

In People v. Wilson, no doubt People v. Buttler played a role in the decision to charge him with CCW. In "Wilson", however, we are missing some very pertinent data. For instance... the pistol was in his suitcase locked in his trunk. But was it loaded? How long did he drive with the pistol located where it was? Where was his ammunition kept? Is it possible he had access to ammunition inside the cab of the vehicle? These factors could have changed the entire paradigm based on the "Butler" quote.

I took your statements to mean that, since you were "transporting" you could not be "carrying." Therefore, it would follow that if you are "carrying", you are not "transporting". You understand my contention properly.

Click to expand...

imported post

I wasn't able to add this to my last post for some reason:

MI AG Cox, in 2003, made the following opinion that discusses a somewhat similar issue (pertaining to a pistol inside of a vehicle in which a non-CPL holder is the sole passenger):
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MIAGOp7136.pdf

(excerpt)

The element of "carrying" depends on the particular facts of each case. It cannot be stated, as a definitive matter of law, what conduct constitutes carrying for the purposes of section 227(2). Nevertheless, Michigan courts have articulated several factors to be considered in resolving whether the essential element of "carrying" a weapon in a vehicle has been established. Factors that have been considered include:

(1) the defendant's awareness of the weapon;
(2) the accessibility or proximity of the weapon to the defendant;
(3) the defendant's possession of items which connect him to the weapon, such as ammunition;
(4) the defendant's ownership or operation of the vehicle; and
(5) the length of time during which the defendant drove or occupied the vehicle.

People v Emery, 150 Mich App at 667.

The fact that a pistol is lawfully contained does not necessarily exempt a person from possible prosecution under section 227(2). See, for example, People v Wilson, 2001 Mich App LEXIS 1144 (unpublished), in which the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was subject to prosecution under section 227(2), notwithstanding that the pistol was locked in the truck of a vehicle.

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your second question, that a person who is not licensed to carry a concealed pistol may lawfully occupy a vehicle in which a pistol has been left that is lawfully contained and that belongs to another person who has exited the vehicle, only if the occupant is not carrying the weapon, a determination that depends on the facts of each case.

Click to expand...

The AG has noted that "as a definitive matter of law" that the conduct pertaining to carrying exemptions (in other words: transporting) under 227(2) are unclear. However, he cited (5) points that the courts have considered to determine whether or not the 227(2) exception applies. It's my assumption that if these (5) points can not be argued AGAINST the dependent, then the carry exception applies and he would be considered transporting.

This being said, there is some data missing from "Wilson", as mentioned in my previous post, that very well might've dealt with (3), (4), and (5) above. Do we know if he kept his pistol inside a suitcase (possibly loaded) while he drove around in his vehicles for weeks and weeks? Perhaps he had an ammo magazine in his pocket? It's also noteworthy to mention that the court merely opened the door for PROSECUTION. Do we know if he was actually found guilty?

Now... using the original posters example... I would still answer similarly. If I were charged with CCW, I would argue thus:

(1) the defendant's awareness of the weapon; Sure I'm aware... I stowed it and locked it myself.

(2) the accessibility or proximity of the weapon to the defendant; I was careful to stow it in area not immediately accessible to the passenger compartment.

(3) the defendant's possession of items which connect him to the weapon, such as ammunition; The ammunition was stored seperately from the locked weapon... and the ammunition is not immediately accessible to me in the passenger compartment.

(4) the defendant's ownership or operation of the vehicle; and Indeed, I own the vehicle.

(5) the length of time during which the defendant drove or occupied the vehicle. I was leaving the gun store and heading home... the total time in my vehicle was approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

If a prosecutor were to attempt a CCW conviction, I'd be utterly shocked. I'd be further shocked if I were actually found guilty. Then, of course, I'd appeal the decision. It is obvious that 227(2) "carry exceptions" (aka "transport") would apply.