DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
the500kid wrote:
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.
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.