OC question on another forum

imported post

This was asked on the RTKBA forum and I thought I'd tap into the brain trust here and see what you're thoughts are on it.

Our CPL is for concealed only. That means it has to be out of sight all the time for us to be protected by the law of our CPL. Concealed means concealed.

If I went to a OC picnic and I was wearing an IWB holster with no cover shirt then by the definition of the law I would not be open carrying because my gun would be half concealed in my waistband. In order to OC the gun must be out in the open, in full view in a OWB holster. In this scenario the OC law does not legally cover me and neither does my CPL because the gun is only half concealed.

IF a police officer wanted to get technical, he could in fact arrest me for brandishing because no law protects me in this case. It is a grey area.

This is not someone who is being critical of OC. They are relatively new to it and are hashing out questions they have.

Bronson

imported post

Negative! Let's say that the law considers this concealed having it in an IWB holster. Your CPL covers you for that. There is now law against OC so you can do that as well. Your CPL does not require the weapon to be concealed, only that you now have the right to do so. as for brandishing that's not going to fly since it never left the holster. Brandishing is waving it around menacingly and that is not occurring.

The only real question here assuming the carrier has a CPL is are they OCing or CCing.

imported post

WRONG! Just b/c you have your CPL you do NOT lose your right to OC. That is a lie told by many CPL instructors who do not want you to OC. If you have an CPL you can carry OC CC or casually CC whatever it doesn't matter.
Cite me that law?? It does not exist. As for brandishing;

Brandishing and disturbing the peace are not an offense while lawfully openly carrying a firearm. [/b]

ADVISORY NOTE[/b]: Though this section on disturbing the peace does not deal with firearms, due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed to carry concealed MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition.

BRANDISHING[/b] Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002: [/b]…In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions…..the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish."[/b] This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions…the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that…by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the [/b]Michigan[/b] Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.[/b]

imported post

Bronson wrote:

This was asked on the RTKBA forum and I thought I'd tap into the brain trust here and see what you're thoughts are on it.

Our CPL is for concealed only (Yep, but since there is no law against OC, you can choose to OC if you want too. . That means it has to be out of sight all the time for us to be protected by the law of our CPL. Concealed means concealed. (And Open means open...)

Click to expand...

You know how some CPL instructors (mine said this same thing as well) say "your gun must be concealed, you can't even show a little bit of your gun"? We need CPL instructors instead saying "you can OC, but if you don't have your CPL it must be plainly in the open".

As far as my opinion on the matter, lechweand Generaldetpretty much covered it. Just make sure you have a CPL if you plan on carrying like that.

imported post

T Vance wrote:

Bronson wrote:

This was asked on the RTKBA forum and I thought I'd tap into the brain trust here and see what you're thoughts are on it.

Our CPL is for concealed only (Yep, but since there is no law against OC, you can choose to OC if you want too. . That means it has to be out of sight all the time for us to be protected by the law of our CPL. Concealed means concealed. (And Open means open...)

Click to expand...

You know how some CPL instructors (mine said this same thing as well) say "your gun must be concealed, you can't even show a little bit of your gun"? We need CPL instructors instead saying "you can OC, but if you don't have your CPL it must be plainly in the open".

As far as my opinion on the matter, lechweand Generaldetpretty much covered it. Just make sure you have a CPL if you plan on carrying like that.

Click to expand...

At first, I thought this was someone from another state. Our CPL does not, "for concealed only". In fact, it actually enhances ones ability to OC.


I find it interesting how you see it as a question, yet it is posed as at statement of fact, as if the author posseses some sort of authority on the subject matter (obviously not).



Ask that person where they are getting their information from that leads them to believe such nonsense. It initially sounded like he/she was just drawing conclusiong on what limited information they had, but really had no empherical reason to believe/support it.

imported post

He had asked a question but I wasn't able to follow his wording so the above quote was a clarification of his thought process.

Really, he is not anti-OC and has been to at least one OC picnic in MI. As I see it he is just trying to wrap his brain around everything involved.

He is a moderator on the RTKBA forum.

Why the animosity towards someone seeking clarification?

Bronson

imported post

Bronson wrote:

Why the animosity towards someone seeking clarification?

Click to expand...

As a neutral observer to this particular thread, I don't see animosity. I do see some blunt feedback which correctly addressesthe ignorance inthe quote you gave, whether the quote isa question or a statement. But that's not animosity.

As you said, you wanted to "tap into thebrain trust here and see what you're thoughts are on it". While I agree that it's possiblethat some word-smithing might improve somemessages to a more diplomatic tone, the responses are correct and not egregious. The folks here are not all word-smiths. We all know this. I don't see the need to criticize based on that, if the responses are materially correct.

imported post

DanM wrote:

Bronson wrote:

Why the animosity towards someone seeking clarification?

Click to expand...

As a neutral observer to this particular thread, I don't see animosity. I do see some blunt feedback which correctly addressesthe ignorance inthe quote you gave, whether the quote isa question or a statement. But that's not animosity.

As you said, you wanted to "tap into thebrain trust here and see what you're thoughts are on it". While I agree that it's possiblethat some word-smithing might improve somemessages to a more diplomatic tone, the responses are correct and not egregious. The folks here are not all word-smiths. We all know this. I don't see the need to criticize based on that, if the responses are materially correct.

Click to expand...

While they are materially correct and I do appreciat the feedback, a little friendliness goes a long way.

Bronson

imported post

Along the subject of instructors who tell their class "no-one can see your gun when you CC": One of the guys in our class said to "make sure you don't move wrong at the store, you might reach up to get something off a shelf and your shirt could move up and expose your gun! You might have a little old lady running and screaming then!"

I kid you not! These guys had people thinking they should be afraid while CCing! "someone might see:what:, make sure you're not "printing" ":banghead:It was bad.

imported post

I don't see anyone's comments that seemed to be harsh or anything similar. They are just words, it's all in the tone someone uses. I do not feel as though mine were hard.
There's nothing wrong with clarifying, sometimes we all have questions.
The only difference is with questions they are worded in the form of a question so as to seek clarification. When you just make statements as if they were fact when they are not true that comes across not as looking for information but rather not making assumptions without having done your homework.

My intention was not to come across in a negative way and I hope it wasn't taken like that. I may have gotten straight to the point but there was no hostility in my tone when I was typing my response. I hope that clears things up a bit.

imported post

It seems that a lasting misconception out there is that partially concealed is a huge no-no. It seems people think it has to be completely hidden from sight or, if they know OC is legal, has to be completely visible (in a holster), even with a CPL.

While I don't agree with this interpretation I think I can see why they come to it. I'll try to lay out where I think they are coming from ...be patient.

If, because "concealed" isn't defined in the law (at least if it is I couldn't find it) we use the dictionary definitions,I think this is one of the reasons for confusionsince the dictionary defines it as:

Merriam Webster

1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of
2 : to place out of sight

Dictionary.com

1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight

Couple that with this excerpt from AG Opinion 7101:

a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner.

So, I think the concern is that being partially concealed, even with a CPL,places them in a legal grey area. Where they are not protected by their CPL (because they are not concealing) and they don't fall under the decision by the AG (because the gun and holster are not in plain view). Or, I may be reading waaay too much into it which is probably likely.

This would all be a lot easier ifArticle I, Section 6 was the totality of the law in regards to possession


Thanks all,


Bronson

imported post

Bronson wrote:

It seems that a lasting misconception out there is that partially concealed is a huge no-no. It seems people think it has to be completely hidden from sight or, if they know OC is legal, has to be completely visible (in a holster), even with a CPL.

While I don't agree with this interpretation I think I can see why they come to it. I'll try to lay out where I think they are coming from ...be patient.

If, because "concealed" isn't defined in the law (at least if it is I couldn't find it) we use the dictionary definitions,I think this is one of the reasons for confusionsince the dictionary defines it as:

Merriam Webster

1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of
2 : to place out of sight

Dictionary.com

1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight

Couple that with this excerpt from AG Opinion 7101:

a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner.

So, I think the concern is that being partially concealed, even with a CPL,places them in a legal grey area. Where they are not protected by their CPL (because they are not concealing) and they don't fall under the decision by the AG (because the gun and holster are not in plain view). Or, I may be reading waaay too much into it which is probably likely.

This would all be a lot easier ifArticle I, Section 6 was the totality of the law in regards to possession


Thanks all,


Bronson

Click to expand...

You are reading too much into it. If a LEO sees a partially concealed handgun and insists in investigating, the CPL covers you. If it's open then you don't need a CPL, so you are covered there. This partial concealed grey area only comes into play for a Non-CPL holder and up to a jury to decide.

imported post

Venator wrote:

You are reading too much into it. If a LEO sees a partially concealed handgun and insists in investigating, the CPL covers you. If it's open then you don't need a CPL, so you are covered there. This partial concealed grey area only comes into play for a Non-CPL holder and up to a jury to decide.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is a way to convince the folks out there who have had "concealed means concealed" driven into their heads. They say "show me where it says I canpartially conceal with my CPL", and of course I can't because laws aren't written to tell us what we CAN do only what we CAN'T.

Thanks,

Bronson

imported post

Bronson wrote:

Venator wrote:

You are reading too much into it. If a LEO sees a partially concealed handgun and insists in investigating, the CPL covers you. If it's open then you don't need a CPL, so you are covered there. This partial concealed grey area only comes into play for a Non-CPL holder and up to a jury to decide.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is a way to convince the folks out there who have had "concealed means concealed" driven into their heads. They say "show me where it says I canpartially conceal with my CPL", and of course I can't because laws aren't written to tell us what we CAN do only what we CAN'T.

Thanks,

Bronson

Click to expand...

The simple answer to that would be that, "that isn't how the law works. Laws are written to prohibit actions, and the only time they are written to allow an act is when that act was previously prohibited."

Tell them that it doesn't matter that it the CPL laws don't allow partial concealment, because there is no law prohibiting it. There is a law prohibiting carrying a concealed hand gun, and that is why there are other laws allowing it with a license. They need to show you the law (they can't, because it doesn't exist) that prohibits partial concealment with a CPL. They are saying it's illegal, therefore they need to provide empirical (actual MCL) evidence to support their stance.

OBTW,

I also saw no animosity in this thread, but will leave you with this. If you ever think there is such a thing, then it's always a good idea to ask. Seeking clarification has a way of clearing up misunderstandings before things get out of hand, and often times acts to avoid them altogether.

imported post

Inform them, that unless something is prohibited by law, it is assumed to be lawful.

As ghostrider said, there is a law that bans concealed carry. But within that, there are exemptions to the ban (CPL license). There is no law stating that the gun must be 100% concealed, so it is assumed that (with a CPL) that whether it's 1%, 10%, or 100% concealed, it is legal.

Just as there is no law that makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches legal, it is assumed to be since there is no law prohibiting it.

imported post

Yooper wrote:

Inform them, that unless something is prohibited by law, it is assumed to be lawful.

As ghostrider said, there is a law that bans concealed carry. But within that, there are exemptions to the ban (CPL license). There is no law stating that the gun must be 100% concealed, so it is assumed that (with a CPL) that whether it's 1%, 10%, or 100% concealed, it is legal.

Just as there is no law that makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches legal, it is assumed to be since there is no law prohibiting it.

Click to expand...

Except in PFZ where declared by rules/regulations - PFZ meaning "Peanut-Free Zones" to protect against such allergies.

imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:

Yooper wrote:

Inform them, that unless something is prohibited by law, it is assumed to be lawful.

As ghostrider said, there is a law that bans concealed carry. But within that, there are exemptions to the ban (CPL license). There is no law stating that the gun must be 100% concealed, so it is assumed that (with a CPL) that whether it's 1%, 10%, or 100% concealed, it is legal.

Just as there is no law that makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches legal, it is assumed to be since there is no law prohibiting it.

Click to expand...

Except in PFZ where declared by rules/regulations - PFZ meaning "Peanut-Free Zones" to protect against such allergies.

Click to expand...

If you brought peanuts into a PFZ could you be arrested? How about if you CC'd the P-nuts but it still affected someone?

imported post

Yooper wrote:

(snip)
There is no law stating that the gun must be 100% concealed, so it is assumed that (with a CPL) that whether it's 1%, 10%, or 100% concealed, it is legal.  

Click to expand...

Yooper, no criticism intended but, in all honesty, the interpretation of "concealment" in Michigan is not a percentage or some other arbitrary point on a continuum at which point a handgun becomes "concealed". The definitional quality of "concealment" is, using a term from statistics, "binary"; it is either concealed or not.

Concealment is when the handgun is "not readily observable by persons in the ordinary and usual associations of life" (People v Jackson, 43 Mich App 569, 571; 204 NW2d 367,1972)

If we fall into the belief that a certain "percentage" of "concealment" makes a handgun legally "concealed", we fall into the prosecutorial trap that by merely having a pistol in a holster we are by some convoluted definition carrying "concealed". I have heard that this is the present situation in Mississippi; I would not want this to happen in Michigan.

imported post

My point was that the state has determined that virtually anything covering the pistol on a person, other than a holster in the open, is concealed. Therefore, if you have a CPL you are exempt from the ban on carrying concealed, whether it's 2% or 100% concealed. There is nothing that says your gun MUST be 100% concealed if you have a CPL, only that you are exempt from being prosecuted for carrying.

In absence of a law saying it must be 100% concealed, it is assumed to be legal that you could carry IWB with the grip of the pistol exposed.

Personally, I think that if someone can see that it is a gun, it's not concealed. If it was concealed, they wouldn't know you had a gun. Unfortunately the state doesn't see it that way.

imported post

However a young fellow on the east side of the state was hung out to dry for OC with an IWB holster without a CPL.... So no matter what the law says if you are going to OC without a CPL make sure that the gun is in a OWB holster and that no part of the gun or holster is coverd!!!!