Carrying ID while OC

imported post

I know that this has been discussed before, but I'd like clarification. From what I understand, no ID is needed to OC in a non-PFZ. However, I talked to two people about OC one day, one being former law enforcement (who I'll refer to as 'guy A') and the other being married to an attorney who has dealt with an OC without ID case (who I'll call 'guy B'), and they both said that you need ID on you while OCing. Guy B said that you need ID on you at all times in MI no matter what and that you can be cited for it if you don't. He was ABSOLUTELY adamant that this was correct. I talked with him about sterile OC and he said that you always need ID on you. I tried to tell him otherwise but his mind was set. Guy A (former law enforcement) was also standing there, and I can't remember if he agreed with what guy B was saying (but I think he did because I would have remembered if he was on my side of the discussion, and he wasn't), but he said that if you didn't have ID on you while OCing and were stopped on the street, that you would be taken to jail and held until you could prove who you are. He said that they could even take your firearm to send it to ballistics to make sure no crime had been committed with it, which could take 6-8 months.

I'm being told two completely different things and need some clarification. How can I show these people that you don't need an ID to OC?

imported post

There are 2 problems with your advice. The sources are your problem. Mistake 1 : Do not ask LEO's for legal advice they are usually a very poor source and give bias opinions. Mistake 2: dont discuss legal matters with wives of lawyers. If you're serious about really knowing Michgan law's regarding ID's you need to speak to a lawyer directly and not just any lawyer one who specializes in Michgan weapons laws and criminal law. You will get some good advice here. The message boards should give you some ideas but talk to the correct lawyer before you determine what is legal and what is not.

imported post

The disclosure law doesn't mention open carrying, nor does it say you have to have ID if you OCing in a CC free zone. So my interpretation of that is that you could OC as a CPL holder in a CC free zone, and refuse to show ID, or avoid carrying it, and be well within your rights in regards to that law.

I'm not a lawyer, and of course there could be another reason to carry ID, but that is my understanding of the disclosure law, which is cited below for convenience.


[align=center]FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927[/align]

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.
Sec. 5f.
(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
(4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00.
(5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined as follows:
(a) For a first offense, by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months, or both.
(b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked.
(6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this section, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that issued the license of that determination.
(7) A pistol carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The individual has his or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.
(b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol.
(8) As used in this section, "peace officer" includes a motor carrier officer appointed under section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d, and security personnel employed by the state under section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

History: Add. 2000, Act 381, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 719, Eff. July 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 194, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009

imported post

So since there's no section in the law for open carry, that's the only reasoning used to say that no ID is necessary for OC? And for the guy who says you need ID on you at all times, where can I find information that proves that to be false?

imported post

The burden is not on you to prove that no ID is needed. The burden is on the other person to prove that it is. If no law can be cited stating such, then he/she is wrong.

imported post

Springfield Smitty wrote:

The burden is not on you to prove that no ID is needed. The burden is on the other person to prove that it is. If no law can be cited stating such, then he/she is wrong.

Click to expand...

You do not need ID in Michigan. You do not need to give ID to anyone in Michigan.

You do not have to have ID or provide ID to anyone in Michigan for OC or anything else.

imported post

In Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004, SCOTUS ruled that during a Terry stop an individual must disclose their identity, meaning their name, an individual was not required to provide documentary evidence, such as a driver's license.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

Furthermore, giving a name does not alone violate the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554


That said, this was in response to a stop-and-id law in Nevada that required disclosure of a person's name, and nothing more nor any documentation.

So this begs the question, does Michigan have a stop and ID law? I haven't seen it.

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

In Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004, SCOTUS ruled that during a Terry stop an individual must disclose their identity, meaning their name, an individual was not required to provide documentary evidence, such as a driver's license.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

Furthermore, giving a name does not alone violate the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554


That said, this was in response to a stop-and-id law in Nevada that required disclosure of a person's name, and nothing more nor any documentation.

So this begs the question, does Michigan have a stop and ID law? I haven't seen it.

Click to expand...

NO Michigan does not have a stop and ID law. As stated before you do not need to have ID in Michigan. You do not have to tell any LEO your name or anything else. You have the right to remain silent in Michigan.. Some state may vary.

imported post

Perhaps I should have also mentioned that a good response to a request for ID would be the following:

"Am I being detained?"

imported post

I think we all need to stop getting so bent out of shape trying to prove that something is legal. It can not be good for our blood pressure. Just sit back and wait for the opposing party to provide you with the law stating that any questioned activity is illegal. The argument of silence, I feel, will be the strongest.

From this point forward, I choose to make the other folks look like fools and weirdos for a change. I pledge to let them talk until THEY are blue in the face as I simplytake a breather and laugh at them when they can not provide the documentation to support their false claims. Enough is enough!!

imported post

Somewhat related... say you are violating the CPL law by carrying concealed in a PFZ and a LEO "detains" you because someone saw your firearm when you reached over to pick something up. Do you notify??

Although the CPL law states that you must notify when "stopped" by the police, US v. Haynes (1968) states that you may not have to. Basically, in this case:
The National Firearms Act requires the registration of certain types of firearms.
Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the act. Haynes argued that since he was a felon and prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was requiring him to admit to the government that he was in violation of the law; a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
In an 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Haynes: By demanding registration, the government violated his 5th Amendment rights because he would be forced to incriminate himself.

So, it appears that a CPL holder is not required to inform when/if such notification would be incriminating... or at least it's my non-attorney take on it. What do you think?

BTW, this opens up another potential issue: would notification that one is carrying a concealed handgun be required if the gun is not properly registered in Michigan?