• 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.

HI OCrs, new here w/a couple of Questions

Venator

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

Bronson wrote:
Springfield Smitty wrote:
You can see that this portion of the law says in or upon and also includes self-propelled vehicles (bicycles).
[align=left]750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.[/align]

[align=left]Sec. 227d. (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:[/align]

It also says "other than a pistol". So as long as you're carrying a registered pistol this doesn't apply.

Bronson
The words "other than a pistol" does not exclude a pistol, what it means is that there is a different statute that applies to pistols. You can go to the statute that applies to pistol for the law on transporting them.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
Bronson wrote:
Springfield Smitty wrote:
You can see that this portion of the law says in or upon and also includes self-propelled vehicles (bicycles).

[align=left]750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.[/align]


[align=left]Sec. 227d. (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:[/align]

It also says "other than a pistol". So as long as you're carrying a registered pistol this doesn't apply.

Bronson
The words "other than a pistol" does not exclude a pistol, what it means is that there is a different statute that applies to pistols. You can go to the statute that applies to pistol for the law on transporting them.

Ok, but I still contend that the words "other than a pistol" excludes pistols from this statute, regardless of whether there are other statutes concerning transportation of pistols.

Bronson
 

Springfield Smitty

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
296
Location
OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank good
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
According to the dictionary, a bicycle would not be "self-propelled"... i.e. it does not have it's own motor or power; it is propelled by a person.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/self-propelled


N. self-propelled vehicle - a wheeled vehicle that carries in itself a means of propulsion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-propelled+vehicle

My mistake. I failed to research the meaning of self-propelled. I understood it to mean propelled by the person riding.

What about mechanical means in this one?

Do we think this would cover bicycles?

[align=left]750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; applicability to person violating § 312.10(1)(g).[/align]

[align=left]Sec. 227c. (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.[/align]
[align=left](2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.[/align]
[align=left](3) This section does not apply to a person who violates section 10(1)(g) of chapter II of Act No. 286 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being section 312.10 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.[/align]

History:
Add. 1981, Act 103, Eff. Mar. 31, 1982.
 

Venator

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

Bronson wrote:
Venator wrote:
Bronson wrote:
Springfield Smitty wrote:
You can see that this portion of the law says in or upon and also includes self-propelled vehicles (bicycles).



[align=left]750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.[/align]




[align=left]Sec. 227d. (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:[/align]

It also says "other than a pistol". So as long as you're carrying a registered pistol this doesn't apply.

Bronson
The words "other than a pistol" does not exclude a pistol, what it means is that there is a different statute that applies to pistols. You can go to the statute that applies to pistol for the law on transporting them.

Ok, but I still contend that the words "other than a pistol" excludes pistols from this statute, regardless of whether there are other statutes concerning transportation of pistols.

Bronson

Yes it does exclude pistol, but only to refer you to the law that does concern pistols.

I maintain that OC on a motorcycle is a BIG gray area. The court of appeals that Sgt. Deasyrefers to looked into the tern"in" and they decided that in and on were the same in regards to this statute. The case referred above was about a guy that had a pistol wedged under his seat with a little bit of the handle showing. He claimed OC, the court said no way.

I would be careful of "in and on" a vehicle. There are many prosecutors out there that will charge you with CC on a motorcycle without a CPL if youwere OCing. Hence the gray area.

So until we get a court case on thisyou are definitely taking a chance.
 

Springfield Smitty

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
296
Location
OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank good
imported post


[align=left]I have seen folks talking about it not being considered CC, even in a vehicle. I would not want to violate this though. Even if it is not CC, it is still a felony without a CPL. [/align]
[align=left]750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.[/align]

[align=left]Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.[/align]
[align=left](2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.[/align]
[align=left](3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.[/align]

[align=left]History:
1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;—CL 1948, 750.227;—Am. 1973, Act 206, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974;—Am. 1986, Act 8, Eff. July 1, 1986.[/align]
[align=left]Constitutionality:
The double jeopardy protection against multiple punishment for the same offense is a restriction on a court’s ability to impose punishment in excess of that intended by the Legislature, not a limit on the Legislature’s power to define crime and fix punishment. People v. Sturgis, 427 Mich. 392, 397 N.W.2d 783 (1986).[/align]
Former law:
See section 5 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 16753.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Springfield Smitty wrote:


[align=left]I have seen folks talking about it [OC]not being considered CC, even in a vehicle. I would not want to violate this [MCL 750.227]though. Even if it is not CC, it is still a felony without a CPL.
[/align]


That is correct, open carry is not "concealed carry" when you are in a vehicle. It is simply unlawful unless you are exempted because you have a CPL.

This seems to confuse some people, and they take such an exemption as meaning that thelaw "considers the pistol concealed". However, the error of that logic is readily apparent when you look at other open carry acts which are prohibited unless you are CPL exempted. For example, open carry in a liquor-licensed establishment is unlawful unless you are exempted because you have a CPL. Does this mean the law "considers your open carry pistol concealed" when you are in the establishment? No, that is ludicrous. The law merely considers the open carried pistol as being unlawful in the establishment unless you are exempted because you have a CPL.

It's really quite clear. Just read what's in the law and don't try to read anything into the law.
 

Springfield Smitty

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
296
Location
OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank good
imported post

I agree with the liquor store scenario, but not the vehicle. The above most recently cited law is clearly titled "concealed weapons" and has the vehicle restriction. It is also a felony and would cause you to lose your right to even possess a firearm.

This is why I have only been copying and pasting rather than saying anything else. I don't like debating this stuff. Especially since I am not a lawyer. It's hard to resist that urge to debate though, isn't it?
 

PDinDetroit

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

This really highlights the issue of Too Many Confusing/Conflicting Laws here in MI:

The amount of discussion that occurs about how/why/when/where for firearms/pistols to be carried/stored/etc.

This is just one more thread like the others.
 

Wglide90

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
126
Location
Belleville, Michigan, USA
imported post

Hi Guys,

This is a great discussion on the legallity of OC on bike or motorcycle. I think OC is out for on motorcycle and we shouldn't encourage the practice of course unless you have CPL.

I think I'm OK with the OC definition as a pistol in clear and plain view as the pistol must be in holster and in plain view.

Now CC on the other hand I have not seen a definition. Can someone site the Michigan law on what is a Concealed Weapon or define Concealed Carry by law? Is seeing part of a holster and none of the gun still CC? How about a holster that has a flap that covers the grip totally, is it CC or OC.



Thanks,
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

Wglide90 wrote:
Hi Guys,

This is a great discussion on the legallity of OC on bike or motorcycle. I think OC is out for on motorcycle and we shouldn't encourage the practice of course unless you have CPL.

I think I'm OK with the OC definition as a pistol in clear and plain view as the pistol must be in holster and in plain view.

Now CC on the other hand I have not seen a definition. Can someone site the Michigan law on what is a Concealed Weapon or define Concealed Carry by law? Is seeing part of a holster and none of the gun still CC? How about a holster that has a flap that covers the grip totally, is it CC or OC.

 

Thanks,

Case law has held that a firearm is concealed when it is not discernible as a firearm by a reasonable person.
 

Venator

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

DanM wrote:
Springfield Smitty wrote:



[align=left]I have seen folks talking about it [OC]not being considered CC, even in a vehicle. I would not want to violate this [MCL 750.227]though. Even if it is not CC, it is still a felony without a CPL.
[/align]


That is correct, open carry is not "concealed carry" when you are in a vehicle. It is simply unlawful unless you are exempted because you have a CPL.

This seems to confuse some people, and they take such an exemption as meaning that thelaw "considers the pistol concealed". However, the error of that logic is readily apparent when you look at other open carry acts which are prohibited unless you are CPL exempted. For example, open carry in a liquor-licensed establishment is unlawful unless you are exempted because you have a CPL. Does this mean the law "considers your open carry pistol concealed" when you are in the establishment? No, that is ludicrous. The law merely considers the open carried pistol as being unlawful in the establishment unless you are exempted because you have a CPL.

It's really quite clear. Just read what's in the law and don't try to read anything into the law.
I think I see what you are saying. But one of the charges will be carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (a felony).
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
I think I see what you are saying. But one of the charges will be carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (a felony).
Is that how the charge would be worded?"Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle"? Or would it be worded "Unlawfully carrying a weapon in a vehicle"? I don't know. I've just been speaking as to what the law itself says as to if it "considers it concealed" or not.
 

Venator

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

DanM wrote:
Venator wrote:
I think I see what you are saying. But one of the charges will be carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle (a felony).
Is that how the charge would be worded?"Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle"? Or would it be worded "Unlawfully carrying a weapon in a vehicle"? I don't know. I've just been speaking as to what the law itself says as to if it "considers it concealed" or not.
It was for the person that was charged with the IWB holster. Two counts CCW on person and in vehicle.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
It was for the person that was charged with the IWB holster. Two counts CCW on person and in vehicle.

Well, yes, I agree that--stipulating thatan IWB gun is defined as"concealed"--then that would be a concealed gun in a vehicle.

I'm talking about an unconcealed gun in a vehicle. And I've not argued as to what a prosecutor would call it when charging someone who did that without a CPL. I don't care what a prosecutor calls it. I don't care what anybody calls it. All I care about is what the law calls it. Because the law is (or should be)the definitive source from which people formulate their language.

The law simply says that you shall not carry a gun, "concealed or otherwise" (and that's a direct quote from the law which seems tocontradict those who say "the law considers it concealed") in a vehicle unless youpossess a valid CPL. Anyone who goes from that language to saying "carrying open in a vehicle without a CPL is CCW", including a prosecutor, is simply defining things wrongly.What should be said is "carrying open in a vehicle without a CPL is a crime". That is all, because that is all the law says it is.
 

Venator

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

DanM wrote:
Venator wrote:
It was for the person that was charged with the IWB holster. Two counts CCW on person and in vehicle.

Well, yes, I agree that--stipulating thatan IWB gun is defined as"concealed"--then that would be a concealed gun in a vehicle.

I'm talking about an unconcealed gun in a vehicle. And I've not argued as to what a prosecutor would call it when charging someone who did that without a CPL. I don't care what a prosecutor calls it. I don't care what anybody calls it. All I care about is what the law calls it. Because the law is (or should be)the definitive source from which people formulate their language.

The law simply says that you shall not carry a gun, "concealed or otherwise" (and that's a direct quote from the law which seems tocontradict those who say "the law considers it concealed") in a vehicle unless youpossess a valid CPL. Anyone who goes from that language to saying "carrying open in a vehicle without a CPL is CCW", including a prosecutor, is simply defining things wrongly.What should be said is "carrying open in a vehicle without a CPL is a crime". That is all, because that is all the law says it is.
Dan you misunderstand. He was not in the vehicle with the gun in a holster. His gun was unloaded in a case in the back (Pick-up)seat. The second charge for that was concealed in a vehicle. So one for when he was wearing the gun and the 2nd concealed for transporting it as described above. Two felonies for concealed carry...one on his person, and a secondfor in a vehicle....
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Springfield Smitty wrote:
As the law very clearly states, it is under the concealed weapon title, so I would absolutely, unequivocally say that it is considered concealed as that is the very title of the section of MCL which covers it and describes it as a felony. How is that so difficult?
The section says "A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person . . ."

You'll have to ask the authors of the section why they included pistols other than concealed pistols in the section. Because they did include pistols other than concealed pistols in the section. The section covers two areas of carry:

  • "on or about his or her person"
  • "in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person"
As to the areas and what the authors included as far as concealed, open, or other pistols:

  • In the first area ("on or about his or her person"), only concealed pistolsare addressed: "A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person . . ."
  • In the second area ("in a vehicle . . ."), both concealed pistolsand pistolsother than concealed (which would include open pistols)are explicitly covered with the phrase "concealed or otherwise": "A person shall not carry a pistol . . ., whetherCONCEALED or OTHERWISE, ["otherwise" comingRIGHT AFTER "CONCEALED"means OTHER THAN CONCEALED], in a vehicle . . ."
I do not know why the authors contemplated pistolsother than concealed in this section, but they did. That is a fact of the language of the section that is very plain.
 

Venator

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

DanM wrote:
Venator wrote:
Dan you misunderstand. . . .
Oh, I thought we wereon the subject I've been engaged in here: OC in a vehicle being "considered concealed" by the law.

I was referring to the man that was charged with carrying concealed in a vehicle. You were saying that it wouldn't be a concealed weapons violation. You may well be right. I'm saying that the city prosecutor charged him with concealed carry in a vehicle. Even though the firearm was unloaded and in a case. Granted the charge may have been wrong, but was put forward to trial just the same.

I am not disagreeing with your argument, I'm just putting forth an actual charge in real life.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
DanM wrote:
Venator wrote:
Dan you misunderstand. . . .
Oh, I thought we wereon the subject I've been engaged in here: OC in a vehicle being "considered concealed" by the law.

I was referring to the man that was charged with carrying concealed in a vehicle. You were saying that it wouldn't be a concealed weapons violation.
I think you havea misunderstanding or I wasn't clear. I have been arguing against the statement"OC in a vehicle is 'considered CC'". I haven't been arguing against the statement "CC in a vehicle is 'considered CC'".
 
Top