Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Open Carry w/ CPL in "Gun Free Zone"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, MI, ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I have been open carrying for about a month now and have not had a single issue with the public or with LEO's.

    I have thoroughly investigated the laws and my rights with regard to open carry. I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information. A question did arise yesterday while having lunch, while open carrying, with my wife at the Olive Garden in Auburn Hills, MI.

    I have my CPL and was open carrying in an establishment that is licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Board; I WAS NOT partaking of any alcohol. If I would have been approached by a LEO in this situation, what information (if any) am I required to provide? It seems logical to me that in this situation I would have to provide both my drivers License and my CPL.

    Thanks for any information you all can provide.



  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    That is NOT a CEZ as they do not derive 50% of their income from booz....

    Now if you are in a CEZ and are OCing with a cpl... it is a grey area... some say they can check some say not.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    It seems logical to me that in this situation I would have to provide both my drivers License and my CPL.
    There is no reason at all to try to inject sense into most of Michigan's gun laws. It doesn't work that way.

    To start with, the disclosure law is feel good nonsense, because obviously the only people who will disclose are good people anyway.

    The exact wording of the law provides no requirement to disclose anything while OCing. It does not make an exemption for whenever you are using your CPL, it only says while concealed carrying.

    Here is an old post by Springerxdacp on this subject.

    In pertinent part:

    (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.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0rubsoj4swild255tmozpo45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425f
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    That's a call each individual would have to make. Chances are a place such as the Olive Garden makes most of itssales from the sale of food and not alcohol. But you would not know that unless you talked with the manager of each restaurant, and I'm sure most manager's probably would devulge that information.

    If you decide not to provide ID or CPL, the police could decide to detain you, take your gun and CPL, and make you fight for it in court. Chances are you would win if it took place in an Olive Garden, but who's to say that that restaurant doesn't make most of its sales with alcohol. That and you'd have to waste time fighting it in court.



  5. #5
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    They have to disclose it as there are some people who are on probation that have the same 50% restriction... it is a requirement of the license to disclose if someone asks.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    I have been open carrying for about a month now and have not had a single issue with the public or with LEO's.

    I have thoroughly investigated the laws and my rights with regard to open carry. I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information. A question did arise yesterday while having lunch, while open carrying, with my wife at the Olive Garden in Auburn Hills, MI.

    I have my CPL and was open carrying in an establishment that is licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Board; I WAS NOT partaking of any alcohol. If I would have been approached by a LEO in this situation, what information (if any) am I required to provide? It seems logical to me that in this situation I would have to provide both my drivers License and my CPL.

    Thanks for any information you all can provide.

    What would be the RAS that you are breaking the law???? The mere possession of a gun is not RAS for a stop (US Supreme Court decision).

    My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)

    U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

    Syllabus

    A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

    Held:

    1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp.
    440 U. S. 651-653.

    2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp.
    440 U. S. 653-663.

    (a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp.
    440 U. S. 653-655.

    428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

    (c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp.
    440 U. S. 662-663.

    (d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P.
    440 U. S. 663.

    382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information.
    Just a quick correction, as I understand it, your statement should read:

    "I understand that if I am stopped by a LEOfor open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information."

    It's a small distinction butone worth noting in my opinion.

    Bronson



    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  8. #8
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information.
    Just a quick correction, as I understand it, your statement should read:

    "I understand that if I am stopped by a LEOfor open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information."

    It's a small distinction butone worth noting in my opinion.

    Bronson


    VERY TRUE, always ask if the reason for the "encounter" is because you are OCing.

    Get the question and answer on record (you do carry a voice recorder don't you?).

    If they say yes, it establishes 2 things, that you were in fact OC and not concealing and also that the stop isn't lawful because a gun in a holster is not RAS or PC.

    As to the original question I would say YES you do need to show ID and CPL because the place is licensed under the LCA and as such you must have a CPL in order to carry there AND you are acting under the privileges of the CPL. (This is my opinion and I'm not a lawyer)


  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Bronson wrote:
    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information.
    Just a quick correction, as I understand it, your statement should read:

    "I understand that if I am stopped by a LEOfor open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information."

    It's a small distinction butone worth noting in my opinion.

    Bronson


    VERY TRUE, always ask if the reason for the "encounter" is because you are OCing.

    Get the question and answer on record (you do carry a voice recorder don't you?).

    If they say yes, it establishes 2 things, that you were in fact OC and not concealing and also that the stop isn't lawful because a gun in a holster is not RAS or PC.

    As to the original question I would say YES you do need to show ID and CPL because the place is licensed under the LCA and as such you must have a CPL in order to carry there AND you are acting under the privileges of the CPL. (This is my opinion and I'm not a lawyer)
    Why, what RAS? Firearms are allowed in most areas, like driving is allowed. You can't stop a driver JUST to ask to see a license, the same argument can be made for a firearm. Again what RAS????


    Now if he was in a area armedwhere NO WEAPONS are allowed by law, then there is RAS to make a stop.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    As to the original question I would say YES you do need to show ID and CPL because the place is licensed under the LCA and as such you must have a CPL in order to carry there AND you are acting under the privileges of the CPL. (This is my opinion and I'm not a lawyer)
    That would make sense, in a way. But I'm not aware of a law that ever requires CPL disclosure when OCing, except when it's magically concealed in a car.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    There is NOTHING in the CPL statute that says a cop needs RAS to ask you for your CPL and DL. Only that you must provide them if demanded by LEO.

    This is a gray area as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to explain but I have no desire to sit here and write a book on it either, I have work to get done.

    If you are in a place licensed under the LCA, you must have a CPL in order to carry open or concealed therefore you are acting under authority of the CPL (like carrying open in a car, not exactly but like it)

    Because you are acting under authority of the CPL you are bound by the CPL statute and there for must have your CPL on you(you accept this to be true Brian) and are required to give up your CPL and DL as it states in the CPL law.

    Like I said, this is my opinion on how I interpret the law and I'm not a lawyer. In a case like this I would give ID, but just walking down the street? hell no!

  12. #12
    Regular Member ISMOID's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Dearborn Heights, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    There is NOTHING in the CPL statute that says a cop needs RAS to ask you for your CPL and DL. Only that you must provide them if demanded by LEO...If you are in a place licensed under the LCA, you must have a CPL in order to carry open or concealed therefore you are acting under authority of the CPL (like carrying open in a car, not exactly but like it)

    Because you are acting under authority of the CPL you are bound by the CPL statute and there for must have your CPL on you(you accept this to be true Brian) and are required to give up your CPL and DL as it states in the CPL law.

    Like I said, this is my opinion on how I interpret the law and I'm not a lawyer. In a case like this I would give ID, but just walking down the street? hell no!
    I see you are using Common Sense to understand the law. Therefore, by the very nature of the beast, you must be WRONG! Common Sense plays no part in the law, we all know that.



  13. #13
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    ISMOID wrote:
    I see you are using Common Sense to understand the law. Therefore, by the very nature of the beast, you must be WRONG! Common Sense plays no part in the law, we all know that.
    Damn it all to hell....I totally forgot about that....

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    There is NOTHING in the CPL statute that says a cop needs RAS to ask you for your CPL and DL. Then you are arguing that a LEO can at anytime ask for your CPL and you have to give it to him? Only that you must provide them if demanded by LEO. ONLY if carrying concealed. Just because I have a CPL a LEO can't demand I produce it without RAS. What you are saying is that if you have a CPL a LEO can at anytime ask for your CPL and you must comply....that's a stretch.

    This is a gray area as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to explain but I have no desire to sit here and write a book on it either, I have work to get done.

    If you are in a place licensed under the LCA, you must have a CPL in order to carry open or concealed therefore you are acting under authority of the CPL (like carrying open in a car, not exactly but like it) IF you are driving a car you must have a drivers license, BUT a LEO can't just stop you to see if you have a drivers license without some RAS..yes...no???

    Because you are acting under authority of the CPL you are bound by the CPL statute and there for must have your CPL on you(you accept this to be true Brian) and are required to give up your CPL and DL as it states in the CPL law. Only if carrying concealed. When I am driving my car I must have my DL on me as well...gets back to RAS.

    Like I said, this is my opinion on how I interpret the law and I'm not a lawyer. In a case like this I would give ID, but just walking down the street? hell no! But you wrote this "There is NOTHING in the CPL statute that says a cop needs RAS to ask you for your CPL and DL" surely you have to present CPL then as well???
    Check out this courts decision, seems to uphold RAS in order to detainfor OC. Also the SCOTUS held, The mere presence of a firearm is not enough for a "stop". I think my driving argument holds. But I'm not a lawyer either.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    What would be the RAS that you are breaking the law???? The mere possession of a gun is not RAS for a stop (US Supreme Court decision).

    My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)


    +1

    The law does not require that you give your dl and cpl to an officer if you are carrying openly in an exempted area under the authority of your cpl. The law only requires you give an officer your cpl and DL when you are carrying concealed.

    "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:
    "

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...0AND%20officer

    that being said, i am not necessarily opposed to giving my licenses to an officer upon request, even if the law does not require me to.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    I forgot about the RAS factor.

  17. #17
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    ISMOID wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    There is NOTHING in the CPL statute that says a cop needs RAS to ask you for your CPL and DL. Only that you must provide them if demanded by LEO...If you are in a place licensed under the LCA, you must have a CPL in order to carry open or concealed therefore you are acting under authority of the CPL (like carrying open in a car, not exactly but like it)

    Because you are acting under authority of the CPL you are bound by the CPL statute and there for must have your CPL on you(you accept this to be true Brian) and are required to give up your CPL and DL as it states in the CPL law.

    Like I said, this is my opinion on how I interpret the law and I'm not a lawyer. In a case like this I would give ID, but just walking down the street? hell no!
    I see you are using Common Sense to understand the law. Therefore, by the very nature of the beast, you must be WRONG! Common Sense plays no part in the law, we all know that.
    Common sense helps you if you end up in court and recorded evidence too!
    Common sense wins in the end!

    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  18. #18
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    firefighterSTFD22 wrote:
    I have been open carrying for about a month now and have not had a single issue with the public or with LEO's.

    I have thoroughly investigated the laws and my rights with regard to open carry. I understand that if I am stopped by a LEO while open carrying I do not have to provide I.D. or personal information. A question did arise yesterday while having lunch, while open carrying, with my wife at the Olive Garden in Auburn Hills, MI.

    I have my CPL and was open carrying in an establishment that is licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Board; I WAS NOT partaking of any alcohol. If I would have been approached by a LEO in this situation, what information (if any) am I required to provide? It seems logical to me that in this situation I would have to provide both my drivers License and my CPL.

    Thanks for any information you all can provide.

    What would be the RAS that you are breaking the law???? The mere possession of a gun is not RAS for a stop (US Supreme Court decision).

    My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)


    i am so glad ive have found you! see my threads about CPL demands by LEO, RAS and PC. ive studied for months to show that LEO fishing for ID by CPL would be unconstitutional. in the end, even if the LEO seesyour CCd gun, without RAS of a CRIME he can ask, but he Cant DEMAND! you have helped me to see THAT light. a LEO has to be investigating a CRIME before he can demand, ANYTHING!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  19. #19
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    United we STAND!

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    JeffSayers wrote:
    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.

    Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.

    This isn't rocket science.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.

    Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.

    This isn't rocket science.
    While I agreewhat you are saying is true, I highly doubt ANY judge will see it that way, or LEO, therefore in this very narrow scenario, I will (reluctantly) give ID because I feel that the probability of being charged and having to pay huge lawyer fees is very high.

    I like fights that I know I'm going to win.

  22. #22
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.

    Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.

    This isn't rocket science.

    ...person had a gun... in a restricted zone.

    Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure?

    Even if not, is it a battle to be fought? Does showing (or verbally advising) a cpl have potential negative consequences here?

    For me, this is just not the battle worth fighting.
    United we STAND!

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.

    Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.

    This isn't rocket science.
    While I agreewhat you are saying is true, I highly doubt ANY judge will see it that way, or LEO, therefore in this very narrow scenario, I will (reluctantly) give ID because I feel that the probability of being charged and having to pay huge lawyer fees is very high.

    I like fights that I know I'm going to win.
    Fights you can win? The odds are stacked against every gun owner and the chances of winning a fight is slim, so perhaps we shouldn't fight at all and guarantee that we will never lose.

    "While I agreewhat you are saying is true..." that's all I wanted to hear
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Neither answer is wrong. It's not like it's illegal to show an angry cop your ID. And if someone wants to get in a 5th amendment battle that might have to be taken to court, it's no ones problem but theirs.

    The way I'd probably do it is to put my ID and CPL which are in my legal disclaimer covered "activist folder" on the table and say "I'm not giving you permission to take them, but if you feel you can prove to a court you had RAS, I won't use anything but my lack of consent to stop you."

    Then, after he or she runs a LEIN check on me, I'd be complaining to the FBI about a color of law violation, and I'd be going to the MSP with a complaint about an unlawful LEIN system search. Plus I'd send a complaint letter to the chief or sheriff.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  25. #25
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    JeffSayers wrote:
    I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.

    I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
    Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.

    Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.

    This isn't rocket science.
    While I agreewhat you are saying is true, I highly doubt ANY judge will see it that way, or LEO, therefore in this very narrow scenario, I will (reluctantly) give ID because I feel that the probability of being charged and having to pay huge lawyer fees is very high.

    I like fights that I know I'm going to win.
    Fights you can win? The odds are stacked against every gun owner and the chances of winning a fight is slim, so perhaps we shouldn't fight at all and guarantee that we will never lose.

    "While I agreewhat you are saying is true..." that's all I wanted to hear
    bastid....

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •