My OC Experience in Lathrup Village

imported post

Greetings all,



I first joined this discussion group in March 2009. I have spent a lot of time reading the threads and learning the wash, rinse, repeat mantra. Additionally, I have done my own research and read up on the laws for both concealed carry and open carry. Once I felt comfortable enough I made the decision to venture into open carry. I do have a concealed pistol license and have been carrying that way since the day I received it in December 2008.



This is only my third post to the forums as I have only posted twice in the open carry experiences and both have been positive experiences. While I have only posted the two experiences the reality is I carry openly quite frequently. I’ve never had a negative experience…until today. I’d like to share my experience with this group and ask for some opinions.



This evening I was attending a monthly social gathering at the Panera on Southfield Rd. in Lathrup Village. I had made the decision to open carry today and was doing so throughout the evening. At some point two uniformed Lathrup Village police officers came into the establishment and sat down at a table for a meal. They walked past me a few times but since I was seated at a table I do not think they noticed my sidearm. Once I stood up and walked past them to refill my coffee I seen that they now did notice I was carrying. I got my coffee and returned to my seat. About 15 minutes later one of the officers walked past me to refill his soda then turned toward me and asked if I was a police officer. I noticed his partner approaching me from my other side. I replied that I was not a police officer. He then asked me if I had a CCW. I replied that I do indeed have a CPL. The situation was friendly and the tone was good but I felt like they wanted additional information. I did not say anything at this point and just let the silence hang there until they started talking. They informed me that I was in violation of my CCW (yes that is what they kept calling it). Since I didn’t reply to that they decided to elaborate and they started to lecture me that since I had a CCW I was in violation by open carrying. They stated that a CCW holder gives up the right to open carry by accepting a CCW license. Since I stayed quiet during this lecture one of the officers then asked me if I understood that. I considered the entire wash, rinse, repeat scenario but by this time the entire group I was with (about 25 people) had stopped what they were doing and their attention was now on us. I was not looking forward to being disarmed and arrested in front of this group so against my better judgment I decided to say a few words.



I replied to this officers “Do you understand?” question with a statement that no I do not understand that and in fact I had a completely different understanding on open carry and concealed carry and that I was within my rights at that moment. The officer was quick to reply that they were both proponents of my rights and open carry in general and that OPEN CARRY WITHOUT A CCW is legal but that I was still in violation because I do have a CCW. At that point he asked me if I had just forgotten to cover it up today. I told him no, I made the decision to carry openly. He then asked if I would mind covering up. I replied that I would….again my first instinct was to say no, but since this was my first police interaction and I was with a social group I thought it best not to allow the situation to escalate. The entire conversation was ultra polite on both my part as well as theirs. I untucked just enough of my shirt to cover most of the firearm. The officers both went on to say that this whole open carry thing was making people in the establishment nervous and that they were pretty sure they were right in their interpretation of the laws. One of the officers agreed with my suggestion that they go back to their commanding officer and double check their information. I then asked for their cards so I could follow up with them at a later date to hear what they learned. They did give me a card with their information then left the establishment.



About ten minutes later I saw one of the officers walking back in and I thought for sure they were coming back to arrest me. He walked up to me and said he had talked to another senior officer who was also a CCW instructor and he rattled off a bunch of other credentials that I don’t remember. He stated that this other officer agreed that I was indeed in violation of my license and it was his opinion that I should be arrested. He said it would be a $500.00 fine and I would lose my license for 6 months and this was a civil infraction. I told him I still did not agree with his interpretation. He said he wasn’t looking to do anything but he thought I should know that it was indeed against the law. Again, I thanked him for his opinion but told him I would do some more research.



The good news is I did not get arrested and a bunch of people in the establishment learned a bunch more about open carry. Most were pretty surprised that I wasn’t arrested and actually so was I. The bad news is that I feel bad that I caved and covered my firearm. I know it was probably the right decision at the time since my wife and daughter as well as several friends were watching the whole thing quite nervously.



Conclusion:

I’m pretty confident that what I was doing is NOT illegal. I also think that the officers truly know that, otherwise they would have arrested me if they felt strongly that I was breaking the law. Because they spent approximately 15 minutes from seeing me openly carrying and approaching me, I believe they probably were debating what to do. Additionally, because the officer immediately left and asked another “senior” officer for an opinion it shows they are either poorly trained, misinformed, or just trying to give me a hard time to see how I would react.

I’d like to hear what others that have had law enforcement interaction while open carrying have to say about this. I’m also considering how can I get Lathrup Village to get with the program and train their officers properly.

imported post

You could always send a letter to the cheif of police.If you dont want to send it pm me and give me the names of the 2 officers in the ordeal and ill send one!!in my opinion the 2 officers were just trying to intimidate you. here is the cheif of lathrup michigan email.
chiefbjones@comcast.net

imported post

From what you have stated here you were in the right. The cops were either very misinformed or more than likely were trying to mislead you. That mere fact that they couldn't even use the correct term is an indicator that they had no idea what they are talking about.

In the future just stick to the wash rinse and repeat. I know that can be tough sometimes and its tempting to want to talk. But, that's the goal, to get you talking.
Overall not bad for your first encounter and you're right if they could have they probably would have arrested you right then. It's all a learning experience everyday is a new experience. Learn and apply those lessons to future situations.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Thanks for posting you experience.

imported post

You were perfectly legal.

At a minimum,the officers involved (and the other officer they checked with) need to be re-trained regarding the legality of OC.

You need to get and use an audio recorder when OCing - otherwise it's your word against the officer(s).

Please follow up and post the results.

imported post

It sounds like you handled yourself pretty well. And if we were all honest police actions are scarry things even if there polite and everyone handles themselves well because cops are thugs and like to indimidate people. Most cops don't even like CC yet alone OC personaly I think its not becuse they are threated but because it threatens their job.
Everything is a learning experience learn form this one and move on.

imported post

MotorCity -

Thanks for sharing this. I believe that you are absolutely right in your assessment of the situation. I grew up in the area, had several run-in's with the LV Police back in the day, and they were exactly then as you described them now. Just the fact that they are using "CCW" instead of "CPL" lets me know that they are not with the program.

I have not been able to find anywhere in the MCL where one gives up their RIGHT to OC when they get a CPL. Such a law would really be unconstitutional in MI since it goes directly against the enumerated right to "Keep and Bear Arms in protection of oneself and the state".

I just got my CPL today and the following is stated on the back: "This license allows the licensee to carry a pistol on or about his person anywhere in the state, except a licensee shall not carry a concealed pistol at ...". No where on the back does it state I must conceal. The MCL that this is based upon states that the license gives me the ability to conceal, not a requirement that I must conceal.

I would FOIA the incident and file a complaint with the LV Police, even though it may not do much good. I would definitely make sure I have a recorder and perform "Wash-Rinse-Repeat" if this happens again.

PDinDetroit

imported post

Don't feel bad about what happened, there is always next time to look forward to, and use your past experiences to guide you when the next time comes. You never know exactly how you'll react unless you've been in that situation a couple times before, and even then, crazy things can happen.

Anyway, a couple thoughts. First, send a formal complaint to the chief. They essentially threatened you with lies. This may be against a law or 2, and in any case it's idiotic bullying, and it severely needs to be corrected.

Also, as a general purpose thing for dealing with police, Dean Greenblatt told me a great line. Something like "I'm willing to cooperate and answer questions, but at this time in order to avoid any possible confusion and misunderstanding, I'm only willing to communicate in writing at a later date".

I carry a bunch of legal information rolled up in a zipblock bag and crammed into a cell phone pouch. I mean a LOT of stuff. Pretty much everything you could need to show a cop or anyone else who wants OC info. So with that in mind, a line I might have used is: "First of all, you're being recorded, just so you know, although I know you guys are already wired and know I can FOIA it. Anyway, I am perfectly within my rights, and I have written proof with me if you'd like to see it. I am willing to answer questions if you have any, although to avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, I am only willing to answer questions in writing at a later date. However, I do have numbers you can call to talk to attorneys, a gun board member, or a state police gun law expert."

An even simpler option is to call 911, right in front of the cops, even right while they're bitching at you, and tell the operator that you're being threatened by police for lawful open carry of a handgun, and that you're requesting the assistance of the state police as soon as possible, because you're afraid they might try to arrest you or falsely charge you. (whatever is appropriate based on their conduct and statements) If I got hassled within Oakland county, I'd also request the help of the sheriffs department.

imported post

And since the State Police and Sheriffs Dept have the ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of the firearms laws in the state they tend to be a little better informed

imported post

MotorCity wrote:

The bad news is that I feel bad that I caved and covered my firearm. . . . I’m pretty confident that what I was doing is NOT illegal.

Click to expand...

I understand how nervous you could be in an actual police encounter. This is natural.I think most mistakes areminor, and I don't criticize. I make little mistakes myself in police and civilian encounters. However,not calmly correctinga blatant lie ("you can't open carry if you have a CPL") andcovering up or otherwise ceasing open carry in response to the lie is, to me, a big no-no. How does that serve to educate the people you are with or the public and LE in general?It doesn't serve positively. It givesothers the wrong impression that the lie is correct, you are wrong, and "hey, this guy was open carrying and he said it was legal and all, but the police showed up and corrected him and the guy open carrying covered it up . . . what I believe I learned today is that open carry is NOT legal!"

Folks, look . . . you have tobecertain, not just "pretty confident" that what you are doing is right and you need to assert that what you are doing is right. Please don't go open carrying in public unless you are confident about what you are doing and confident in asserting your rights. If you are not, and you cave as completely as what happened here, the people you are with and the public in general come away with a completely opposite message than the one we are trying to educate folks on: "Open carry in Michigan is legal. No matter if there are local ordinances against it. No matter if you have a CPL or not. No matter whatever other thing that a civilian or LEO says against it which is wrong."

imported post

MotorCity wrote:

About ten minutes later I saw one of the officers walking back in and I thought for sure they were coming back to arrest me. He walked up to me and said he had talked to another senior officer who was also a CCW instructor and he rattled off a bunch of other credentials that I don’t remember. He stated that this other officer agreed that I was indeed in violation of my license and it was his opinion that I should be arrested. He said it would be a $500.00 fine and I would lose my license for 6 months and this was a civil infraction. I told him I still did not agree with his interpretation. He said he wasn’t looking to do anything but he thought I should know that it was indeed against the law. Again, I thanked him for his opinion but told him I would do some more research.

Click to expand...

Pretty scary huh? The first one always is. The next time you will be in control.

Keep in mind that if they thought they had a lawful reason to arrest you they would have. So I believe they were lying to you. They are trying to discourage OC.

I would send a letter to your chief with our information below, modify as you deem fit. Briefly state that the officers believe it is against the law to CO with a CPL. Set them straight.

Glad you stood up the way you did. Carry on.

Dear Chief XX

Attached is information on the legality of the open carry of a handgun in Michigan. The open carry of a handgun has increased in Michigan in the last year as more and more citizens are becoming aware of its legality. It is our hope that this information is helpful to you and that you will take the time to review the information and inform your officers on the legality of the open carry of a handgun in Michigan. We also hope that you work with your 911 dispatchers in regards to asking some simple question when they receive a call of a “person with a gun”. If you have questions please talk with your prosecuting attorney or you can contact me via email or phone for more information. We thank you for your time and consideration in this regard and appreciate the difficult job you all do.

Sincerely,


PURPOSE: To provide guidance in calls for services that involves a person who is openly carrying a pistol in a holster.

As you may know any law abiding citizen of the State of Michigan who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry (in a holster) said firearm in all places not explicitly exempt by law without a CPL (1). Those that do not have a CPL when transporting their firearms must do so as prescribe by law. No local ordinance concerning firearm possession is enforceable due to Michigan’s preemption law (2).Brandishing and disturbing the peace are not an offense while lawfully openly carrying a firearm (3). Attorney General Opinion 7101, 2/02 states...by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.”]In regards to disorderly conduct [size=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.A person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department.Recently it has been opined by the AG opinion, the MSP and Senator Prusi that persons with a CPL can carry a firearm openly in the exempted areas listed in MCL 750.234d. (4).

It is suggested that Law enforcement supervisors inform their staff in regards to the legality of openly carrying a handgun in Michigan. It is also suggested that an officer protocol be developed in dealing with such a call. It also would be beneficial to inform your dispatchers and your county 911 department in developing a protocol on receiving a “man with a gun” call. An example of some questions to ask a person calling 911 about a person openly carrying is included.

It is our hope that by informing you and all law enforcement personnel throughout the state about the legality of open carry that we can avoid any civil or criminal actions that might otherwise occur. If you have questions or concerns please contact your prosecuting attorney. We thank you for your time and consideration in this regard, and as law abiding citizens we appreciate the demanding and dangerous work you all do.

Footnotes:

1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
b) A church or other house of religious worship.
c) A court.
d) A theatre.
e) A sports arena.
f) A day care center.
g) A hospital.
h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
b) A peace officer.
c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

(2) MSPLegal Update Newsletters: April 2007 and June 2008 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._66_238184_7.pdf
Did You Know: It is not illegal under Michigan law to openly carry a pistol.

Preemption: In MCRGO v. Ferndale, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession. Therefore, officers should check with their prosecutors before enforcing an ordinance that imposes a general ban on openly carrying a pistol.

THE MICHIGAN APPEAL COURT CONCLUDED:
April 29, 20006 v No. 242237

In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.

Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.

In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

(3) Act 328 of 1931
750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor.
Sec. 234e.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002 In part:

… Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases,[suP]2[/suP] none of the cases define the term.

In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), 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, …by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, Attorney General

(4)Three opinions on this topic.An AG’s opinion, the Michigan State Police, and a State Senator’s.

AG opinion No. 7097 FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN January 11, 2002: This conclusion is not affected by the provisions of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. That statute prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms on certain types of premises as follows: Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
b) A church or other house of religious worship.
c) A court.
d) A theatre.
e) A sports arena.
f) A day care center.
g) A hospital.
h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession
of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
b) A peace officer.
c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity. [Emphasis added.]

By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol,… is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.

MSP opinion: Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones.Sincerely, Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, 714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 336-6441

Senator Prusi’s opinion: My office received your inquiry regarding the legality of a licensed CPL holder to open carry a firearm in "Pistol Free Zones." On Friday we received a copy of your correspondence, as Senator Carl Levin's Office referred your letter to my office because your concerns mainly pertain to state issues. As such, I am happy to assist you in this matter.

My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are licensed a CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter….Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"

Example of a 911 Protocol for “Person with a gun call”

911: This is 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: Ah….not sure if this is an emergency but there’s some guy with a gun on his belt here in the Wal-Mart.

911: Is the gun in a holster or is this person waving the gun around or threatening anyone? Is anyone injured? What is the man doing?

Caller: Aaah…no one is hurt. Aaaah…the guy is just shopping. Pushing a cart looking at some frozen carrots I think. Aah he’s looking at carrots.

911 : Does this man seem to be intoxicated or mentally impaired? Does he appear to be acting irrationally?

Caller: No he doesn’t seem to be acting strange other than the gun. Can’t you send some officers here to check him out? Think of the children.

911: Does the person appear to be 18 years old or older?

Caller: I would say he’s about 35 years old, average build, dark short hair, and he has a short beard. He’s wearing khaki pants with a dark blue polo shirt.

911: Sir, the open carry of a handgun is legal in Michigan by any lawful person 18 years old or older. Unless the person is waving it around in a threatening manner or is acting irrationally there is nothing we can legally do. Now if the person should threaten someone or become agitated let us know and we’ll send a car, but until then have a good night.

If 911dispatchers had a protocol similar to this over simplified example for handling this type of call; that is just by asking a few short questions the adrenalin factor would be reduced and officer stress would be diminished. Each department can decide if a patrol car needs to be dispatched to investigate this kind of call, and if so, the officer would have more information on how to handle the encounter.

imported post

The same thing happened to me. I wonder where the give up the rights thing came from. I spoke to MSP and they confirmed that OC with a CPL is LEGAL! THere should be a picnic there!

imported post

yowilhelm wrote:

There should be a picnic there!

Click to expand...

Most definitely. And the police should be invited.

imported post

DanM wrote:

MotorCity wrote:

The bad news is that I feel bad that I caved and covered my firearm. . . . I’m pretty confident that what I was doing is NOT illegal.

Click to expand...

However,not calmly correctinga blatant lie ("you can't open carry if you have a CPL") andcovering up or otherwise ceasing open carry in response to the lie is, to me, a big no-no. How does that serve to educate the people you are with or the public and LE in general?It doesn't serve positively. It givesothers the wrong impression that the lie is correct, you are wrong, and "hey, this guy was open carrying and he said it was legal and all, but the police showed up and corrected him and the guy open carrying covered it up . . . what I believe I learned today is that open carry is NOT legal!"

Click to expand...

Yep, I agree I f'ed up by buckling when I was sure I was completly legal. Had I not been in a social situation with a large group of people I am sure I would have handled it a little differently. I will chaulk this one up to practice and learn from my mistakes. We will see how it goes next time because I fully intend to carry openly in Lathrup Village again.

imported post

Thank you to those that have offered advice and opinions. I have acted on some of that advice and sent the chief a letter. I'll give him a few days to reply before I send another and then I will copy as many public officials in the Village as I can find.

imported post

MotorCity wrote:

We will see how it goes next time because I fully intend to carry openly in Lathrup Village again.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your story, and I hope your OC'ing goes much more uneventfully in the future.

imported post

All in all I think you handled it well. You decided that you didn't want to fight that battle at that time, and that's fine. I do agree with DanM that it didn't serve the cause very well, and that if you weren't confident enough to hold your own, then you probably aren't ready to OC (that's probably not the case now). That's one of the main reasons that I wrote "WASH, RINSE, REPEAT". It was to prep people so that they would be prepared for just this type of scenario. Funny thing is, it's a lot easier reading it than doing it, so don't feel too bad about it.

Good job on focusing on WWR when being questioned. I'm guessing that they probably didn't seem to happy that you didn't play along and openly give them answers to the questions they asked. People like that don't like it when others don't bend to their intimidation, and I know it can be difficult to resist when it's your first time.


MotorCity wrote:

Thank you to those that have offered advice and opinions. I have acted on some of that advice and sent the chief a letter. I'll give him a few days to reply before I send another and then I will copy as many public officials in the Village as I can find.

Click to expand...

Be extremely careful, and carry at least one digital recorder wherever, and whenever you go. People like these officers can be very vindictive, and even if you didn't send a letter, don't be surprised to get stopped somewhere and harassed. This doesn't just mean "when your carrying", it means always. Be ready to completely stick to WASH, RINSE, REPEAT.

I'm believe that they knew that OC is legal, and were intentionally trying to intimidate you into covering it up. You say that it was a "polite" encounter, but I guarantee that if you hadn't bowed down to their godliness, that it most certainly wouldn't have been "polite".

Mind your P's and Q's from now on, and do not be without at least one recording device.

imported post

MotorCity wrote:

DanM wrote:

MotorCity wrote:

The bad news is that I feel bad that I caved and covered my firearm. . . . I’m pretty confident that what I was doing is NOT illegal.

Click to expand...

However, not calmly correcting a blatant lie ("you can't open carry if you have a CPL") and covering up or otherwise ceasing open carry in response to the lie is, to me, a big no-no.  How does that serve to educate the people you are with or the public and LE in general?  It doesn't serve positively.  It gives others the wrong impression that the lie is correct, you are wrong, and "hey, this guy was open carrying and he said it was legal and all, but the police showed up and corrected him and the guy open carrying covered it up . . . what I believe I learned today is that open carry is NOT legal!"

Click to expand...

 

Yep, I agree I f'ed up by buckling when I was sure I was completly legal.  Had I not been in a social situation with a large group of people I am sure I would have handled it a little differently.  I will chaulk this one up to practice and learn from my mistakes.  We will see how it goes next time because I fully intend to carry openly in Lathrup Village again.

Click to expand...

Can't say that I would have handled it any differently; you were with a group of people who wanted to enjoy food and conversation and then out come the village idiots. I say this this only because IMHO they knew it was legal but wanted to play the game of asserting some ridiculous sense of authority in front of your friends. Reminds me of some kids I knew in high school. Bullies plain and simple. Just because they seemed pleasant was an act to curry your compliance.

I had a non-firearm related incident many years ago at a party when an officer stated that I was committing a crime by doing something entirely legal. I got to the point where I said,"All right then, put the cuffs on and arrest me for it". He declined and stated that he didn't want to, he was just trying to warn me, blah blah blah, and I repeated: "Officer, then arrest me for it". Then he backed down, face got red, and left immediately. He waited in his patrol car outside until I left the party, perhaps assuming I would drink too much and he could get me for DUI... ah, only had 3 beers in about 5 hours and I was walking to my house a few houses down. As I walked he followed in the Police Car behind me, lights off, barely moving. I stopped when I heard his radio through the open window, turned and said loudly, "My offer is still open, arrest me if you think I broke the law". He turned on the headlights, stopped to look at me, and then took off as quickly as possible.

I probably wouldn't do what I did then now, but I would consider asking the officers to raise it a level by having a copy of the CPL law in my car. I'd ask him to show me where it says that OC is illegal for CPL holders. He needs to reference which law you have violated for the arrest... ask him what law was broken.

imported post

I'm going to go with the attempted intimidation analysis already offered.

I'm not sure I understand why the OPer didn't gently, politely assert his 4th Amendment (search and seizure) and 5th Amendment (silence) rights at the very outset of the encounter:

"Officer, no offense. I know you are probably just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter."

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

. . . do not be without at least one recording device.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a back-up recorder? Do you often carry more than one? Just curious!

imported post

johnbrun wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

. . . do not be without at least one recording device.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a back-up recorder? Do you often carry more than one? Just curious!

Click to expand...

What difference does it make what I carry.

There have been reports of officers seizing recorders, and erasing the contents. Having a backup is a good plan. It may sound ridiculous, but so doe the officers seizing a digital recorder, let alone erasing the files on it.