• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CPL if it expires ?

DrTodd

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

the500kid wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Since the vehicle is a pickup, he can have the pistols in the
passenger compartment, but they can not be readily accessible.
The courts have ruled that behind the driver's seat is "readily
accessible". Besides that, in his letter he admits that he knew
that what he did was a violation of the CCW law.

I don't mean to sound stupid here but were else am I suppose to put them in my pickup since behind the seat is the only place they'll fit.  I can't fit a case handgun under the seat and we know the glove box is out.  So were else in the cab would I transport them not "readily accessible".  Here's to repealing the transport restictions. 

There are no guarantees, but if he would have LOCKED them in the cases, it may have helped. Also, if you have to get out of the truck to access the firearms, it strengthens the case of "not readily accessible". Perhaps by putting them as far behind the passenger seat as possible, where he would have access only from the passenger side door. This probably would not help if there were a passenger present, though.

Since any interaction with the police while traveling with firearms [esp. without a valid CPL] increases the likelihood of problems, he should have kept his mouth shut. I think Venator gave a good example above.
 

Venator

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

malignity wrote:
And what would be the probable cause for a search warrant? Remember you have to convince a judge to sign one.

Cop:Your HonorI would like a search warrant for a vehicle.

Judge: Why?

Cop: This guy won't talk to me and let me search is car.

Judge: No I mean what PC do you have?

Cop: I just told you.

Judge: Oh.. I see. In that case come back after you study what PC is.



Touche' Venator, I didn't realize you needed a search warrant to search a vehicle.
Unless they have PC or see something in thevehiclelike drugs, a gun, or you give them permission they do. But not just becauseyou refuse to answer questions and refuse a search, they have to have something more to be able to search.

Watch COPS and see how many illegal searches they do. Also see how many times people allow the search. The LEOs are very good at intimidation and have tactics to get you to let them search. Often they have the door open and are sticking their heads or bodies in your vehicle as they ask the question "You don't mind if I search your vehicle" and don't wait for an answer.

Theycanalso bring a drug sniffingdog and if it alerts, that's considered PC and they can search without a warrant.

Learn your rights and use them.
 

ldabe

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
11
Location
SE (Monroe County), Michigan, USA
imported post

As a former LEO, here is the biggest thing-

the authoritieshave becomeUn-American (2nd Amendment) and Londo was/is a lethargic fool.

Why is there not a "license" required (yet) for your First Amendment?

How about the Fifth Amendment RIGHT? License?

And by the way, how long does the "flag" on your DL stay,if you let your CPL/CCW expire? Is it there for everso theofficer has the "right" to ask if you are carring or armed?

I have said it before. The only reason for a license (for any RIGHT) is to keep tabs onhonest citizens that have guns, so when it comes time to remove guns....well, they know exactly where togo.
 

Scooter

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
283
Location
Dundee, Michigan
imported post

ldabe wrote:
As a former LEO, here is the biggest thing-

the authoritieshave becomeUn-American (2nd Amendment) and Londo was/is a lethargic fool.

Why is there not a "license" required (yet) for your First Amendment?

How about the Fifth Amendment RIGHT? License?

And by the way, how long does the "flag" on your DL stay,if you let your CPL/CCW expire? Is it there for everso theofficer has the "right" to ask if you are carring or armed?

I have said it before. The only reason for a license (for any RIGHT) is to keep tabs onhonest citizens that have guns, so when it comes time to remove guns....well, they know exactly where togo.
It would have sounded crazy to me years ago but, I can actually see a time when you are required to have a license to "use" other rights. Scary.
 

Ruckus

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

This thread is called 'CPL if it expires?' but what if your driver's license is expired. If you are supposed to present your DL and CPL when pulled over for a traffic stop is therean addedgun chargethey can get you for while CC'ing with a valid CPL, but with an expired DL?
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

Ethan_Frome wrote:
This thread is called 'CPL if it expires?' but what if your driver's license is expired. If you are supposed to present your DL and CPL when pulled over for a traffic stop is therean addedgun chargethey can get you for while CC'ing with a valid CPL, but with an expired DL?
IIRC, if you're carrying concealed, you must present your CPL and a valid ID when asked. If your DL is expired, it's not valid.
 

Ruckus

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:
Ethan_Frome wrote:
This thread is called 'CPL if it expires?' but what if your driver's license is expired. If you are supposed to present your DL and CPL when pulled over for a traffic stop is therean addedgun chargethey can get you for while CC'ing with a valid CPL, but with an expired DL?
IIRC, if you're carrying concealed, you must present your CPL and a valid ID when asked. If your DL is expired, it's not valid.

Agreed,as an expire DL is useless. But, what would most likely occur? One would get adriving with an expired license charge. Maybe an impounding, IDK. Would they further potentially receive a carrying concealed while driving on expired license charge? A concealed carry without valid state identification? A strike on their CPL record? A notification to the gun board. A confiscation of their pistol? Would that give them the cause neededto search one's vehicle?
 

SpringerXDacp

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

Ethan_Frome wrote:
Taurus850CIA wrote:
Ethan_Frome wrote:
This thread is called 'CPL if it expires?' but what if your driver's license is expired. If you are supposed to present your DL and CPL when pulled over for a traffic stop is therean addedgun chargethey can get you for while CC'ing with a valid CPL, but with an expired DL?
IIRC, if you're carrying concealed, you must present your CPL and a valid ID when asked. If your DL is expired, it's not valid.

Agreed,as an expire DL is useless. But, what would most likely occur? One would get adriving with an expired license charge. Maybe an impounding, IDK. Would they further potentially receive a carrying concealed while driving on expired license charge? A concealed carry without valid state identification? A strike on their CPL record? A notification to the gun board. A confiscation of their pistol? Would that give them the cause neededto search one's vehicle?
IMO, even if you're cited for expired DL you're still in possession of a valid CPL and most likely would not go against your CPL statis. The list of 8 year disqualifiers lists revoked or suspended DL'snot expired DL's. I highly doubtan officer would confiscate your pistol simply due to the expired DL, especailly, if you have a clean driving record.
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
Ethan_Frome wrote:
Taurus850CIA wrote:
Ethan_Frome wrote:
This thread is called 'CPL if it expires?' but what if your driver's license is expired. If you are supposed to present your DL and CPL when pulled over for a traffic stop is therean addedgun chargethey can get you for while CC'ing with a valid CPL, but with an expired DL?
IIRC, if you're carrying concealed, you must present your CPL and a valid ID when asked. If your DL is expired, it's not valid.

Agreed,as an expire DL is useless. But, what would most likely occur? One would get adriving with an expired license charge. Maybe an impounding, IDK. Would they further potentially receive a carrying concealed while driving on expired license charge? A concealed carry without valid state identification? A strike on their CPL record? A notification to the gun board. A confiscation of their pistol? Would that give them the cause neededto search one's vehicle?
IMO, even if you're cited for expired DL you're still in possession of a valid CPL and most likely would not go against your CPL statis. The list of 8 year disqualifiers lists revoked or suspended DL'snot expired DL's. I highly doubtan officer would confiscate your pistol simply due to the expired DL, especailly, if you have a clean driving record.
Just opened my Sat US mail reply to FOIA on c. londo arrest and trial Granted . All SHALL soon know !Must pick up Tues . Will post Same.
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

09-05115-fy plea agreement No Contest 750.234d misdemeanor four counts of CCW No Jail time ,pay court costs and admit responsibility to CI failure to stop at RR in 09e044489 MCL 750.239 forfeiture of four firearms '
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

ldabe wrote:
The only reason for a license (for any RIGHT) is to keep tabs onhonest citizens that have guns, so when it comes time to remove guns....well, they know exactly where togo.
+1

Registering a right is just insane. Registering a gun is no different than registering the right to speak... or registering the right to go to church... or registering the right to be free from unwarranted searches... etc, etc, etc.

"Do you mind if I search your home?" may as well become "You have not registered your right to refuse a search, so I'm coming in." Nobody in the United States of America should have to register to invoke ANY right.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
Watch COPS and see how many illegal searches they do. Also see how many times people allow the search. The LEOs are very good at intimidation and have tactics to get you to let them search. Often they have the door open and are sticking their heads or bodies in your vehicle as they ask the question "You don't mind if I search your vehicle" and don't wait for an answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Shows like COPS are great training tools. Whenever I see an episode, I put myself in the citizen's shoes and think of ways that I'd have responded.

You're right, Venator... most of the folks on that show simply turn themselves over.

"Do you mind if I search the vehicle?"
"Uh.. well... why do you wanna search my vehicle, officer?"
"Do you have something to hide?"
"Uh..."
"Look, if you lie to me, I can't help you. If you're honest with me, and all you have is a little bit of weed or something, I can help you. The worst thing you can do is lie to an officer. What do you have in your vehicle that you want to tell me about before I find it?"
"Well... I've got a joint in my ashtray."

Permission to search or not, the officer now has probable cause to search by the suspect admitting that they have illegal contraband in the vehicle.

I've seen it happen numerous times where the officers tell the suspects that if they are honest, they won't be in trouble... and yet they were arrested and charged anyway.

I know a girl who was recently pulled over for failure to use a turn signal. Upon pulling her over, the officer asked if she'd been drinking (it was late... prime drunk driving time). She said no. The officer asked her to perform a breathalyzer test. She passed. The officer then asked her to perform a field sobriety test. She passed. The officer then asked if he could search her vehicle. She allowed him to. He found prescription medication in her vehicle prescribed to her. She was arrested and charged with being overly medicated. As far as I'm aware, the charges against her were dropped.

Without trying to discount actual GOOD POLICE WORK and GOOD INVESTIGATION SKILLS, I cannot defend an officer who keeps pushing and pushing until they find SOMETHING to jam someone up for. My thing is this: You either have a reason to jam someone up, or you don't. You don't continue to push and push and push until you find SOMETHING that can be used against them. As I like to say: "The more you speak to an officer who has a hard on for you, the more opportunity you give them to find something to charge you with." Moral of the story: Keep your trap shut unless you really know what you're talking about. And refuse ALL searches at ALL times.

Some years ago, I got pulled over while driving down a residential street on a super rainy night. I don't know why I was pulled over. When the officer approached my window, he stuck a breathalyzer in my face and said, "Save us both a lot of time and just blow." Literally, that's the first thing he said to me. No "Driver's license, registration, proof of insurance"... no "The reason why I'm stopping you is..."... nothing. My response was equally simple: "I'll save us both some time and tell you that I haven't been drinking and that if you insist on compelling me to prove my sobriety, then I encourage you to arrest me as drunk per-se, take me to your station, and I'll submit to a chemical analysis there. But if you put me through all of that, you better hope that I AM drunk." He then asked me where I was going. So I pointed straight ahead and say, "That way." When I asked why I was pulled over, he just said "Have a good night" and walked away.

Back then, I was just learning to assert my rights so I was just happy to be left alone. Today, I wouldn't be satisfied with just that. I would want to know WHY I was being stopped and questioned, and if no valid reason were given, I would file a formal complaint. Even some police (not all) need to be policed. Checks and balances... and all that jazz.
 

Leader

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
274
Location
Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
imported post

Veritas wrote:
Venator wrote:
Watch COPS and see how many illegal searches they do. Also see how many times people allow the search. The LEOs are very good at intimidation and have tactics to get you to let them search. Often they have the door open and are sticking their heads or bodies in your vehicle as they ask the question "You don't mind if I search your vehicle" and don't wait for an answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Shows like COPS are great training tools. Whenever I see an episode, I put myself in the citizen's shoes and think of ways that I'd have responded.

You're right, Venator... most of the folks on that show simply turn themselves over.

"Do you mind if I search the vehicle?"
"Uh.. well... why do you wanna search my vehicle, officer?"
"Do you have something to hide?"
"Uh..."
"Look, if you lie to me, I can't help you. If you're honest with me, and all you have is a little bit of weed or something, I can help you. The worst thing you can do is lie to an officer. What do you have in your vehicle that you want to tell me about before I find it?"
"Well... I've got a joint in my ashtray."

Permission to search or not, the officer now has probable cause to search by the suspect admitting that they have illegal contraband in the vehicle.

I've seen it happen numerous times where the officers tell the suspects that if they are honest, they won't be in trouble... and yet they were arrested and charged anyway.

I know a girl who was recently pulled over for failure to use a turn signal. Upon pulling her over, the officer asked if she'd been drinking (it was late... prime drunk driving time). She said no. The officer asked her to perform a breathalyzer test. She passed. The officer then asked her to perform a field sobriety test. She passed. The officer then asked if he could search her vehicle. She allowed him to. He found prescription medication in her vehicle prescribed to her. She was arrested and charged with being overly medicated. As far as I'm aware, the charges against her were dropped.

Without trying to discount actual GOOD POLICE WORK and GOOD INVESTIGATION SKILLS, I cannot defend an officer who keeps pushing and pushing until they find SOMETHING to jam someone up for. My thing is this: You either have a reason to jam someone up, or you don't. You don't continue to push and push and push until you find SOMETHING that can be used against them. As I like to say: "The more you speak to an officer who has a hard on for you, the more opportunity you give them to find something to charge you with." Moral of the story: Keep your trap shut unless you really know what you're talking about. And refuse ALL searches at ALL times.

Some years ago, I got pulled over while driving down a residential street on a super rainy night. I don't know why I was pulled over. When the officer approached my window, he stuck a breathalyzer in my face and said, "Save us both a lot of time and just blow." Literally, that's the first thing he said to me. No "Driver's license, registration, proof of insurance"... no "The reason why I'm stopping you is..."... nothing. My response was equally simple: "I'll save us both some time and tell you that I haven't been drinking and that if you insist on compelling me to prove my sobriety, then I encourage you to arrest me as drunk per-se, take me to your station, and I'll submit to a chemical analysis there. But if you put me through all of that, you better hope that I AM drunk." He then asked me where I was going. So I pointed straight ahead and say, "That way." When I asked why I was pulled over, he just said "Have a good night" and walked away.

Back then, I was just learning to assert my rights so I was just happy to be left alone. Today, I wouldn't be satisfied with just that. I would want to know WHY I was being stopped and questioned, and if no valid reason were given, I would file a formal complaint. Even some police (not all) need to be policed. Checks and balances... and all that jazz.

As I was reading this, I got to wondering why the police would allow filming stops where people were tricked into admitting wrong doing?

Then it dawned on me... They want to TRAIN the public to submit to ANY request by any officer. By showing people doing it, the masses will think it is required & just do it without thinking.

What we really need is a COPS program with a lawyer commenting on all the things that were wrong or illegal in the filmed event.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

Leader wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Venator wrote:
Watch COPS and see how many illegal searches they do. Also see how many times people allow the search. The LEOs are very good at intimidation and have tactics to get you to let them search. Often they have the door open and are sticking their heads or bodies in your vehicle as they ask the question "You don't mind if I search your vehicle" and don't wait for an answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Shows like COPS are great training tools. Whenever I see an episode, I put myself in the citizen's shoes and think of ways that I'd have responded.

You're right, Venator... most of the folks on that show simply turn themselves over.

"Do you mind if I search the vehicle?"
"Uh.. well... why do you wanna search my vehicle, officer?"
"Do you have something to hide?"
"Uh..."
"Look, if you lie to me, I can't help you. If you're honest with me, and all you have is a little bit of weed or something, I can help you. The worst thing you can do is lie to an officer. What do you have in your vehicle that you want to tell me about before I find it?"
"Well... I've got a joint in my ashtray."

Permission to search or not, the officer now has probable cause to search by the suspect admitting that they have illegal contraband in the vehicle.

I've seen it happen numerous times where the officers tell the suspects that if they are honest, they won't be in trouble... and yet they were arrested and charged anyway.

I know a girl who was recently pulled over for failure to use a turn signal. Upon pulling her over, the officer asked if she'd been drinking (it was late... prime drunk driving time). She said no. The officer asked her to perform a breathalyzer test. She passed. The officer then asked her to perform a field sobriety test. She passed. The officer then asked if he could search her vehicle. She allowed him to. He found prescription medication in her vehicle prescribed to her. She was arrested and charged with being overly medicated. As far as I'm aware, the charges against her were dropped.

Without trying to discount actual GOOD POLICE WORK and GOOD INVESTIGATION SKILLS, I cannot defend an officer who keeps pushing and pushing until they find SOMETHING to jam someone up for. My thing is this: You either have a reason to jam someone up, or you don't. You don't continue to push and push and push until you find SOMETHING that can be used against them. As I like to say: "The more you speak to an officer who has a hard on for you, the more opportunity you give them to find something to charge you with." Moral of the story: Keep your trap shut unless you really know what you're talking about. And refuse ALL searches at ALL times.

Some years ago, I got pulled over while driving down a residential street on a super rainy night. I don't know why I was pulled over. When the officer approached my window, he stuck a breathalyzer in my face and said, "Save us both a lot of time and just blow." Literally, that's the first thing he said to me. No "Driver's license, registration, proof of insurance"... no "The reason why I'm stopping you is..."... nothing. My response was equally simple: "I'll save us both some time and tell you that I haven't been drinking and that if you insist on compelling me to prove my sobriety, then I encourage you to arrest me as drunk per-se, take me to your station, and I'll submit to a chemical analysis there. But if you put me through all of that, you better hope that I AM drunk." He then asked me where I was going. So I pointed straight ahead and say, "That way." When I asked why I was pulled over, he just said "Have a good night" and walked away.

Back then, I was just learning to assert my rights so I was just happy to be left alone. Today, I wouldn't be satisfied with just that. I would want to know WHY I was being stopped and questioned, and if no valid reason were given, I would file a formal complaint. Even some police (not all) need to be policed. Checks and balances... and all that jazz.

As I was reading this, I got to wondering why the police would allow filming stops where people were tricked into admitting wrong doing?

Then it dawned on me... They want to TRAIN the public to submit to ANY request by any officer. By showing people doing it, the masses will think it is required & just do it without thinking.

What we really need is a COPS program with a lawyer commenting on all the things that were wrong or illegal in the filmed event.
How about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
 

Golden Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
253
Location
SW Michigan
imported post

x3

CoonDog wrote:
I agree that he didn't commit a crime, but it sounds like he did violate a statue. Let's repeal the transport restrictions and move on.

We did repeal it. He broke no gun law.


From: http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwfaq.asp
"Q:
I don't have a CCW. How can I legally transport a pistol in a motor vehicle?
A:
The law changed in March of 2002 from the old "to and from" rules. You may now transport a pistol for any lawful purpose as long as it is stored correctly. The new law defines "lawful purpose" to include the old "to and from" rules but those are only examples of lawful purposes and do not exclude other lawful purposes. Remember, a pistol carried in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, except under the circumstances below where there is no trunk, will be considered concealed, whether it is in plain view or not. The proper way to transport a pistol in a vehicle if you do not hold a CPL permit.

The pistol must be:
unloaded;
registered (has had a "safety inspection") to the owner of the motor vehicle or to an occupant of the motor vehicle in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms; and in the trunk, or for a vehicle which does not have a trunk, where the closed case designed for the storage of firearms is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. "


BTW no more safety inspections: http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=3836&zoneid=100
 

ldabe

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
11
Location
SE (Monroe County), Michigan, USA
imported post

Golden Eagle,

I believe he did have ammunition in the guns.

(To everyone:) If we have so many gun lobbyests (sp?) and organizationswhy can't we get this license stuff taken out of the bill.

Also, I don't know about you guys (who have a cpl) or those who open carry, but it is ridiculus in the place you "can go" and the places you "can't go", and if the place has 2500 or more capacity seating, etc. etc. etc. - RIDICULUS! Who remembers all that non-sense?

Why can't we all get together and change that non-sense. There has to be enough of us with all the gun members of associations and organizations, don't you think?
 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

ldabe wrote:
Golden Eagle,

I believe he did have ammunition in the guns.

(To everyone:) If we have so many gun lobbyests (sp?) and organizationswhy can't we get this license stuff taken out of the bill.

Also, I don't know about you guys (who have a cpl) or those who open carry, but it is ridiculus in the place you "can go" and the places you "can't go", and if the place has 2500 or more capacity seating, etc. etc. etc. - RIDICULUS! Who remembers all that non-sense?

Why can't we all get together and change that non-sense. There has to be enough of us with all the gun members of associations and organizations, don't you think?
From State police report ammo in mags in boxes with firearms in reach of operator .Yes I do have complete file from FOIA request .
 

Golden Eagle

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
253
Location
SW Michigan
imported post

It just seems to me that with this specific case no gun crime was committed.

MI law says: "...for a vehicle which does not have a trunk, where the closed case designed for the storage of firearms is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle."

If your whistling in public and a LEO says that'sillegal and you admit gilt, It shouldn't matter if ultimately there is no law against it.:quirky

Idabe, from the first post: "Police officials said the guns were not loaded but ammunition was found inside the truck." I agree with you. The Texas laws seem stricter than ours but a gun owner without a concealed handgun license can can carry a gun (loaded or not) in a motor vehicle, but it must be concealed. In Texas it's know as "Car Carry". That's what MI needs.:D
 
Top