Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
ghostrider wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
Understood.
-
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.
-
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.
Oakland County Transporting without CPL
- Thread starter Ken Kd
- Start date
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
You know what would solve this debate really quick? if the state of MI had the definition of "Carry/Carrying" and "Transport/transporting" in their statutes.
Guys, I am a cheesehead, but I do visit the U.P. of MI quite often, and I like to keep abreast of what laws affect me while visiting.
You know what would solve this debate really quick? if the state of MI had the definition of "Carry/Carrying" and "Transport/transporting" in their statutes.
Guys, I am a cheesehead, but I do visit the U.P. of MI quite often, and I like to keep abreast of what laws affect me while visiting.
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
Nutczak wrote:
I agree completely.
RubberArm
Regular Member
imported post
It may not have any bearing on this discussion, but I did find that MCL 750.224f lists transport and carry in the same sentences. INAL, but I read this to indicate that transport and carry and are two distinct instances:
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.224f Possession of firearm by person convicted of felony; circumstances; penalty; applicability of section to expunged or set aside conviction; “felony” and “specified felony” defined.
Sec. 224f.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person convicted of a felony shall not possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm in this state until the expiration of 3 years after all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The person has paid all fines imposed for the violation.
(b) The person has served all terms of imprisonment imposed for the violation.
(c) The person has successfully completed all conditions of probation or parole imposed for the violation.
(2) A person convicted of a specified felony shall not possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm in this state until all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The expiration of 5 years after all of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The person has paid all fines imposed for the violation.
(ii) The person has served all terms of imprisonment imposed for the violation.
(iii) The person has successfully completed all conditions of probation or parole imposed for the violation.
(b) The person's right to possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm has been restored pursuant to section 4 of Act No. 372 of the Public Acts of 1927, being section 28.424 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(3) A person who possesses, uses, transports, sells, purchases, carries, ships, receives, or distributes a firearm in violation of this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(4) This section does not apply to a conviction that has been expunged or set aside, or for which the person has been pardoned, unless the expunction, order, or pardon expressly provides that the person shall not possess a firearm.
(5) As used in this section, “felony” means a violation of a law of this state, or of another state, or of the United States that is punishable by imprisonment for 4 years or more, or an attempt to violate such a law.
(6) As used in subsection (2), “specified felony” means a felony in which 1 or more of the following circumstances exist:
(i) An element of that felony is the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
(ii) An element of that felony is the unlawful manufacture, possession, importation, exportation, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.
(iii) An element of that felony is the unlawful possession or distribution of a firearm.
(iv) An element of that felony is the unlawful use of an explosive.
(v) The felony is burglary of an occupied dwelling, or breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, or arson.
(emphasis added)
source: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s1u4conqt1zf4l20d5imzb55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-224c
It may not have any bearing on this discussion, but I did find that MCL 750.224f lists transport and carry in the same sentences. INAL, but I read this to indicate that transport and carry and are two distinct instances:
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.224f Possession of firearm by person convicted of felony; circumstances; penalty; applicability of section to expunged or set aside conviction; “felony” and “specified felony” defined.
Sec. 224f.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person convicted of a felony shall not possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm in this state until the expiration of 3 years after all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The person has paid all fines imposed for the violation.
(b) The person has served all terms of imprisonment imposed for the violation.
(c) The person has successfully completed all conditions of probation or parole imposed for the violation.
(2) A person convicted of a specified felony shall not possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm in this state until all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The expiration of 5 years after all of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The person has paid all fines imposed for the violation.
(ii) The person has served all terms of imprisonment imposed for the violation.
(iii) The person has successfully completed all conditions of probation or parole imposed for the violation.
(b) The person's right to possess, use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive, or distribute a firearm has been restored pursuant to section 4 of Act No. 372 of the Public Acts of 1927, being section 28.424 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(3) A person who possesses, uses, transports, sells, purchases, carries, ships, receives, or distributes a firearm in violation of this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(4) This section does not apply to a conviction that has been expunged or set aside, or for which the person has been pardoned, unless the expunction, order, or pardon expressly provides that the person shall not possess a firearm.
(5) As used in this section, “felony” means a violation of a law of this state, or of another state, or of the United States that is punishable by imprisonment for 4 years or more, or an attempt to violate such a law.
(6) As used in subsection (2), “specified felony” means a felony in which 1 or more of the following circumstances exist:
(i) An element of that felony is the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
(ii) An element of that felony is the unlawful manufacture, possession, importation, exportation, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.
(iii) An element of that felony is the unlawful possession or distribution of a firearm.
(iv) An element of that felony is the unlawful use of an explosive.
(v) The felony is burglary of an occupied dwelling, or breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, or arson.
(emphasis added)
source: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s1u4conqt1zf4l20d5imzb55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-224c
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
RubberArm wrote:
That is interesting.
Like I've said, everyone has to decide what's best for them given the dynamics of an individual situation.
I've watched a video/audio of how an officer can/does translate into the courtroom what is said on the street.
Remember, if it ever goes to court, there is a high probability that you will not even be speak, so what you say will be in the police report as reported by the officer.
I'm guessing that telling an officer that you are not "carrying" any weapons, will be written into the police report (as well as articulated in court by the officer) as not, "transporting" any weapons.
This is a good example of what can transpire:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/24435.html
Playing semantics on the side of the road might well be self gratifying, but one must consider how it will play out in court.
Veratis has confidence born from representing himself in court. Most people won't do that, and therefore won't speak in court, because the defense lawyer will rarely let their client on the stand.
I just had a conversation with someone about pocket knives used for utility when stopped and asked by an LEO if they are carrying a weapon. My friend suggested that one might say something along the lines of the following:
As a side note:
People should understand that this type of conversation is mainly academic study. Every situation, and every person is different. What works for one person may not work for the other person. Not answering the officer's questioning is not supposed to be used against you. One thing is certain: If you don't say anything, at least they can't get you for lying to the police.
RubberArm wrote:
That is interesting.
Like I've said, everyone has to decide what's best for them given the dynamics of an individual situation.
I've watched a video/audio of how an officer can/does translate into the courtroom what is said on the street.
Remember, if it ever goes to court, there is a high probability that you will not even be speak, so what you say will be in the police report as reported by the officer.
I'm guessing that telling an officer that you are not "carrying" any weapons, will be written into the police report (as well as articulated in court by the officer) as not, "transporting" any weapons.
This is a good example of what can transpire:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/24435.html
Playing semantics on the side of the road might well be self gratifying, but one must consider how it will play out in court.
Veratis has confidence born from representing himself in court. Most people won't do that, and therefore won't speak in court, because the defense lawyer will rarely let their client on the stand.
I just had a conversation with someone about pocket knives used for utility when stopped and asked by an LEO if they are carrying a weapon. My friend suggested that one might say something along the lines of the following:
On The Street:
Officer: Do you have any weapons on you?
Suspect: I have a knife that is used at work for day to day tasks, and is not carried as a weapon.
In Court:
Officer: He told me he didn't have any weapons on him, and then I discovered that he had a knife.
Suspect: ....(not talking because he's exercising his right to silence).
Officer: Do you have any weapons on you?
Suspect: I have a knife that is used at work for day to day tasks, and is not carried as a weapon.
In Court:
Officer: He told me he didn't have any weapons on him, and then I discovered that he had a knife.
Suspect: ....(not talking because he's exercising his right to silence).
As a side note:
People should understand that this type of conversation is mainly academic study. Every situation, and every person is different. What works for one person may not work for the other person. Not answering the officer's questioning is not supposed to be used against you. One thing is certain: If you don't say anything, at least they can't get you for lying to the police.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
oops damn cell phone
oops damn cell phone
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
I really don't wish to go much further into this, but I think people are missing the point. Something is done (behavior), and someone names it. You say "I am transporting", the PO thinks, you are "carrying". The same facts are being observed. But since the terms "carrying" and "transport" are not set in stone, but are basically a judgement call, and the court gets to decide "the call", I argue that stating emphatically to an officer, on the side of the road, that you are not carrying could be construed as lying. ( Yes, in court,I may say why I thought that my "carrying" was actually transport". But you are not in court. And since there is no explicit definition that would differentiate the difference between the two terms, stating that you are "not carrying" could be construed as telling a lie.
Be that as it is, go ahead, state you are not carrying. As a person who has served in a LEO capacity, I can tell you that statement may rear it's head and bite you in the ass.
Let's just change the facts a bit, perhaps it will make my point a bit clearer.
You are walking down the street and are Terry Stopped by an officer because you fit the description of a person who robbed a local store (a legal Terry Stop). The officer asks you your name. You say "Jimbob". The officer asks, "and your last name?" You say "Smith", assuming this is your last name. The officer continues talking to you and, after a while discovers that your your name is really "Jack Smith". He says, "I thought you said your name was "Jimbob". Your reply, "Ohhh, I gave you the name some of my friends call me". Did you tell the "truth". Did you give him your nickname to thwart his investigation? I admit, you probably did so inadvertently, maybe because you were nervous. But do you think the cop is going to accept your excuse? If he doesn't, does your response put the question in his mind as to what other responses given could be "untrue" Can your answer have been given for any other reason? Are there ways that you could have avoided the whole issue?? I believe there are.
Therefore, I suggested that silence, especially at the initiation of the conversation with the officer, would be a possible alternative. Do I acknowledge that there are other ways to deal with the question? I sure do. But better choices were, at least in the recollection of events were not given: I don't think emphatically stating: "I am not carrying any weapons" is going to help your case, especially if the officer is intent on finding something to charge you with. But as I said, do as you wish.
I really don't wish to go much further into this, but I think people are missing the point. Something is done (behavior), and someone names it. You say "I am transporting", the PO thinks, you are "carrying". The same facts are being observed. But since the terms "carrying" and "transport" are not set in stone, but are basically a judgement call, and the court gets to decide "the call", I argue that stating emphatically to an officer, on the side of the road, that you are not carrying could be construed as lying. ( Yes, in court,I may say why I thought that my "carrying" was actually transport". But you are not in court. And since there is no explicit definition that would differentiate the difference between the two terms, stating that you are "not carrying" could be construed as telling a lie.
Be that as it is, go ahead, state you are not carrying. As a person who has served in a LEO capacity, I can tell you that statement may rear it's head and bite you in the ass.
Let's just change the facts a bit, perhaps it will make my point a bit clearer.
You are walking down the street and are Terry Stopped by an officer because you fit the description of a person who robbed a local store (a legal Terry Stop). The officer asks you your name. You say "Jimbob". The officer asks, "and your last name?" You say "Smith", assuming this is your last name. The officer continues talking to you and, after a while discovers that your your name is really "Jack Smith". He says, "I thought you said your name was "Jimbob". Your reply, "Ohhh, I gave you the name some of my friends call me". Did you tell the "truth". Did you give him your nickname to thwart his investigation? I admit, you probably did so inadvertently, maybe because you were nervous. But do you think the cop is going to accept your excuse? If he doesn't, does your response put the question in his mind as to what other responses given could be "untrue" Can your answer have been given for any other reason? Are there ways that you could have avoided the whole issue?? I believe there are.
Therefore, I suggested that silence, especially at the initiation of the conversation with the officer, would be a possible alternative. Do I acknowledge that there are other ways to deal with the question? I sure do. But better choices were, at least in the recollection of events were not given: I don't think emphatically stating: "I am not carrying any weapons" is going to help your case, especially if the officer is intent on finding something to charge you with. But as I said, do as you wish.
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
Point taken. This entire discussion has been thought provoking... in a positive way.
I might have contacts that can solicit an AG opinion as to whether or not there is a difference between "carry" and "transport". I'll see what I can do. No promises, however.
Point taken. This entire discussion has been thought provoking... in a positive way.
I might have contacts that can solicit an AG opinion as to whether or not there is a difference between "carry" and "transport". I'll see what I can do. No promises, however.
BreakingTheMold
Regular Member
imported post
And bicycles and horses: Is there a difference between On, and In in regards to CCW?
And bicycles and horses: Is there a difference between On, and In in regards to CCW?
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
I think I read somewhere that open carry on a motorcycle is not considered concealing. I also believe that, in Michigan, a bicycle is not considered a motor vehicle (like it is in Ohio). I'm relatively positive that a horse isn't.
So if it's true that carrying while on a motorcycle is not concealed, then I would imagine that carrying on a non-motor vehicle bicycle, and a horse, would not be concealed either.
I may be wrong though.
I think I read somewhere that open carry on a motorcycle is not considered concealing. I also believe that, in Michigan, a bicycle is not considered a motor vehicle (like it is in Ohio). I'm relatively positive that a horse isn't.
So if it's true that carrying while on a motorcycle is not concealed, then I would imagine that carrying on a non-motor vehicle bicycle, and a horse, would not be concealed either.
I may be wrong though.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
Veritas wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Good luck with that.I think I read somewhere that open carry on a motorcycle is not considered concealing. I also believe that, in Michigan, a bicycle is not considered a motor vehicle (like it is in Ohio). I'm relatively positive that a horse isn't.
So if it's true that carrying while on a motorcycle is not concealed, then I would imagine that carrying on a non-motor vehicle bicycle, and a horse, would not be concealed either.
I may be wrong though.
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
DrTodd wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Like I said... I "think" I read it and I very well could be wrong.Veritas wrote:Good luck with that.I think I read somewhere that open carry on a motorcycle is not considered concealing. I also believe that, in Michigan, a bicycle is not considered a motor vehicle (like it is in Ohio). I'm relatively positive that a horse isn't.
So if it's true that carrying while on a motorcycle is not concealed, then I would imagine that carrying on a non-motor vehicle bicycle, and a horse, would not be concealed either.
I may be wrong though.
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
Just an update... I'm trying to see if I can get a legal opinion about the difference between "carry" and "transport". But as I was discussing it with someone, a thought crossed my mind about People v. Wilson (2001) in which Wilson was charged with CCW by having a pistol inside a suitcase in his trunk.
I said before that I'm unsure whether the pistol was loaded or whether or not he had ammunition on his person (or inside the passenger area of the vehicle); as either of these may have negated the transporting exemptions. I still don't know if this is the case or not. But what I did think about was the fact that his pistol was in his SUITCASE. If you're walking down the street carrying a suitcase with a pistol inside of it, I'm pretty sure that's considered concealed, and you would need a CPL to avoid a CCW charge. Am I correct? And if so, then perhaps THAT'S what allowed him to be charged with CCW... because his pistol was in a suitcase; and the suitcase was in the trunk. I'm wondering if the trunk really has anything to do with it. Theoretically, he may have put the pistol inside the suitcase while it was in the trunk, and then planned to remove the pistol from the suitcase before removing the suitcase from the trunk... this might avoid CCW charges. But if he carried a pistol concealed in a suitcase, and then put that suitcase in the trunk (or later took it out), that might be considered CCW.
Thoughts? In the meantime, I'll keep everyone posted on what I found out, if anything, about a legal opinion. Like I said, no guarantees. All I can do is try.
Just an update... I'm trying to see if I can get a legal opinion about the difference between "carry" and "transport". But as I was discussing it with someone, a thought crossed my mind about People v. Wilson (2001) in which Wilson was charged with CCW by having a pistol inside a suitcase in his trunk.
I said before that I'm unsure whether the pistol was loaded or whether or not he had ammunition on his person (or inside the passenger area of the vehicle); as either of these may have negated the transporting exemptions. I still don't know if this is the case or not. But what I did think about was the fact that his pistol was in his SUITCASE. If you're walking down the street carrying a suitcase with a pistol inside of it, I'm pretty sure that's considered concealed, and you would need a CPL to avoid a CCW charge. Am I correct? And if so, then perhaps THAT'S what allowed him to be charged with CCW... because his pistol was in a suitcase; and the suitcase was in the trunk. I'm wondering if the trunk really has anything to do with it. Theoretically, he may have put the pistol inside the suitcase while it was in the trunk, and then planned to remove the pistol from the suitcase before removing the suitcase from the trunk... this might avoid CCW charges. But if he carried a pistol concealed in a suitcase, and then put that suitcase in the trunk (or later took it out), that might be considered CCW.
Thoughts? In the meantime, I'll keep everyone posted on what I found out, if anything, about a legal opinion. Like I said, no guarantees. All I can do is try.
ruger45
Regular Member
imported post
dougwg wrote:
dougwg wrote:
dougwg i bet a lot of people would agree but dont have balls to say it.your an ass and why dont you go away!!!
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
ruger45 wrote:
ruger45 wrote:
lol wow. I know it's completely immature, but I got a chuckle out of this. Maybe just because it's late and I've been drinking. Still funny though.