• 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.

Open Carry w/ CPL in "Gun Free Zone"

dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JeffSayers

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


...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.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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;)
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 
dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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;)
Click to expand...
bastid....:lol:
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

JeffSayers wrote:
Like the "cold and timid souls that know neither victory nor defeat".
Click to expand...

You got that one slightly wrong. ;)

Here it is in its entirety.




Dare Mighty Things, by Teddy Roosevelt

In the battle of life, it is not the critic who counts; nor the one who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of a deed could have done better.

The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who does actually strive to do deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends oneself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he or she fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those timid spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
 
Venator

Venator

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

JeffSayers 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


...person had a gun... in a restricted zone. Person driving a car and obeying all laws...RAS to detain?

Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure? I'm not sure of anything, anyone that says they areis a fool.

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.
Click to expand...

Jesus jumped up fiddling Christ if this FUNDAMENTAL principal of our freedom is not worth fighting for then what the hell is?

Of course it's worth fighting for. It's a slippery slope, if we continue to let the authorities violate such a basic right as being left alone without some cause, then what stops them for asking and detaining you for no reason whatsoever?

As always everyone is free to do as they wish. I'm just throwingmy ideasout there to ponder.
 
dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:
...person had a gun... in a restricted zone. Person driving a car and obeying all laws...RAS to detain?

How about a guy driving a car on a golf course? RAS then?

Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure? I'm not sure of anything, anyone that says they areis a fool.

Ok, so you're not sure that it's NOT RAS ... that's all I wanted to hear ;)

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mine in blue....hehe
 
Venator

Venator

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

dougwg wrote:
Venator wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:
...person had a gun... in a restricted zone. Person driving a car and obeying all laws...RAS to detain?

How about a guy driving a car on a golf course? RAS then?

Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure? I'm not sure of anything, anyone that says they areis a fool.

Ok, so you're not sure that it's NOT RAS ... that's all I wanted to hear ;)

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mine in blue....hehe
Click to expand...

I said lawful driving, and besides the person could be an employee doing routine work on the course.

I have seen cars driving on golf courses, hell I've driven cars on a course, I grew up next to the 17th fairway (Traverse City Country Club)and welived next door to the Golf Pro.

The pro would pay us .50 cents a ground squirrel we killed (pests in the fairways). He let use use a golf cart with buckets of water to pour down their hole, then we beat them to death with ball bats when they came runing out. (I'm not proud of that, but the money was too good to resist.)

No I'm not sure, but my argument has merit, it's just that many are failing to see it.:banghead:
 
dougwg

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
dougwg wrote:
Venator wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:
...person had a gun... in a restricted zone. Person driving a car and obeying all laws...RAS to detain?

How about a guy driving a car on a golf course? RAS then?

Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure? I'm not sure of anything, anyone that says they areis a fool.

Ok, so you're not sure that it's NOT RAS ... that's all I wanted to hear ;)

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mine in blue....hehe
Click to expand...

I said lawful driving, and besides the person could be an employee doing routine work on the course.

I have seen cars driving on golf courses, hell I've driven cars on a course, I grew up next to the 17th fairway (Traverse City Country Club)and welived next door to the Golf Pro.

The pro would pay us .50 cents a ground squirrel we killed (pests in the fairways). He let use use a golf cart with buckets of water to pour down their hole, then we beat them to death with ball bats when they came runing out. (I'm not proud of that, but the money was too good to resist.)

No I'm not sure, but my argument has merit, it's just that many are failing to see it.:banghead:
Click to expand...

I see your point, do you see mine?

Lawfulness ofdriving/carrying a gun in a restricted area,is not the question.

The issue is, when an "act" (driving/carrying) COULD be illegal depending on certain circumstances, does it raise to RAS. Is it reasonable for the LEO to think that the actor is committing a crime. I think it is, especially if the LEO is clueless in regards togun law and it seems most are.

I'm NOT saying this is the way it should be but rather how it is.

I'm saying a judge will agree that the LEO DID have RAS that a crime was occurring because:
1. The cop is ignorant
2. The cop has never heard of anyone carrying a gun in the open in a hospital(just an example) that was not security or a LEO
3. In the LEO little mind knows HALF of the law that says it's illegal to have a gun in the CEZ but doesn't know the other half that it's ok to carry open with a CPL.

Therefore given ALL the extenuating facts including the LEO's short comings and the JUDGES lack of knowledge in gun law it would be RAS in there eyes and would be, in my eyes, an unwinable fight.

I see your point, do you see mine?
 
Venator

Venator

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

dougwg wrote:
Venator wrote:
dougwg wrote:
Venator wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:
...person had a gun... in a restricted zone. Person driving a car and obeying all laws...RAS to detain?

How about a guy driving a car on a golf course? RAS then?

Does this in and of itself make RAS? Are you 100% sure? I'm not sure of anything, anyone that says they areis a fool.

Ok, so you're not sure that it's NOT RAS ... that's all I wanted to hear ;)

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mine in blue....hehe
Click to expand...

I said lawful driving, and besides the person could be an employee doing routine work on the course.

I have seen cars driving on golf courses, hell I've driven cars on a course, I grew up next to the 17th fairway (Traverse City Country Club)and welived next door to the Golf Pro.

The pro would pay us .50 cents a ground squirrel we killed (pests in the fairways). He let use use a golf cart with buckets of water to pour down their hole, then we beat them to death with ball bats when they came runing out. (I'm not proud of that, but the money was too good to resist.)

No I'm not sure, but my argument has merit, it's just that many are failing to see it.:banghead:
Click to expand...

I see your point, do you see mine?

Lawfulness ofdriving/carrying a gun in a restricted area,is not the question.

The issue is, when an "act" (driving/carrying) COULD be illegal depending on certain circumstances, does it raise to RAS. Is it reasonable for the LEO to think that the actor is committing a crime. I think it is, especially if the LEO is clueless in regards togun law and it seems most are.

I'm NOT saying this is the way it should be but rather how it is.

I'm saying a judge will agree that the LEO DID have RAS that a crime was occurring because:
1. The cop is ignorant
2. The cop has never heard of anyone carrying a gun in the open in a hospital(just an example) that was not security or a LEO
3. In the LEO little mind knows HALF of the law that says it's illegal to have a gun in the CEZ but doesn't know the other half that it's ok to carry open with a CPL.

Therefore given ALL the extenuating facts including the LEO's short comings and the JUDGES lack of knowledge in gun law it would be RAS in there eyes and would be, in my eyes, an unwinable fight.

I see your point, do you see mine?
Click to expand...
No, not really, because what you are saying is that a LEO has RAS to stop a driver of a car based Solely on the fact that they are drivinga car and MAY NOT have a license?

I know that a judge may or may not support anything that may be lawful or not. I'm talking in the purest meaning of RAS and what upper courts have ruled. THE MERE presence of a gun is not RAS.

If all firearms were banned in a place and a person had one THEN there is RAS, but just because some people can't have a firearm in certain places doesn't give RAS to ask for a license.
 
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
imported post

Let me explain what I think Venator is saying with a more detailed driving example:

'Macho Man' Randy Savage is driving a limousine, which is registered to the company he works for [not himself], obeying all traffic laws, and chomping on a Slim Jim. A normal citizen cannot drive a limousine without a driver's license specifically endorsed for operation of a limousine. Can an LEO pull Randy over and demand a drivers license, using the fact that he 'may not have a limousine endorsement' and thus 'may be driving illegally' as his RAS?

And now Doug's point:

Would a judge back the LEO if he did?
 
JeffSayers

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
imported post

How about this driving scenario:

Officer observes an unmarked LEO pulling his vehicle through an emergency turnaround on the freeway. The LEO has no way of knowing the unmarked LEO is who he is. Does the office have RAS to stop the vehicle for identification?
 
A

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
imported post

JeffSayers wrote:
How about this driving scenario:

Officer observes an unmarked LEO pulling his vehicle through an emergency turnaround on the freeway. The LEO has no way of knowing the unmarked LEO is who he is. Does the office have RAS to stop the vehicle for identification?
Click to expand...
Yes in this case he does... as it looks like a none emergency vehicle using an emergency turnaround.
 
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
imported post

JeffSayers wrote:
How about this driving scenario:

Officer observes an unmarked LEO pulling his vehicle through an emergency turnaround on the freeway. The LEO has no way of knowing the unmarked LEO is who he is. Does the office have RAS to stop the vehicle for identification?
Click to expand...
True but this is more akin to an undercover officer OCing in a courthouse, where NO non-LEO citizens are allowed to carry.
 
JeffSayers

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
imported post

autosurgeon wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:
How about this driving scenario:

Officer observes an unmarked LEO pulling his vehicle through an emergency turnaround on the freeway. The LEO has no way of knowing the unmarked LEO is who he is. Does the office have RAS to stop the vehicle for identification?
Click to expand...
Yes in this case he does... as it looks like a none emergency vehicle using an emergency turnaround.
Click to expand...
So then RAS can be determined by appearance alone? What if you look like a crazed lunatic about to shoot up the bar? Would that not then give RAS for an officer to demand a cpl?
 
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
imported post

JeffSayers wrote:
So then RAS can be determined by appearance alone? What if you look like a crazed lunatic about to shoot up the bar? Would that not then give RAS for an officer to demand a cpl?
Click to expand...
see my previous post.

These are different situations. 'Crazed Lunatic' is a character judgement that varies from person to person. The description of an 'emergency vehicle' is pretty much universally understood.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emergency Vehicle
An emergency vehicle is any vehicle that is designated and authorized to respond to an emergency. These vehicles are usually operated by designated agencies, often part of the government, but also run by charities, non-governmental organizations and some commercial companies. Often emergency vehicles are permitted by law to break conventional road rules in order to reach their destinations in the fastest possible time, such as (but not limited to) driving through an intersection when the traffic light is red, or exceeding the speed limit.

Crazed Lunatic
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (pronounced /ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is the 67th United States Secretary of State, serving within the administration of President Barack Obama. She was a United States Senator for New York from 2001 to 2009. As the wife of the 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton, she served as First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. In the 2008 election Clinton was a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
 
JeffSayers

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
imported post

So a man with good manners that has been wearing a hat all day goes into a bar while OC'ing. He removes his cap and exposes his tousled hair. As it is, the air conditioning is not working and it is quite warm in the bar causing the man to perspire heavily. On top of this, the man is suffering from allergies and one of his eyes are twitching uncontrollably. He also has a weird sense of humor and continually mumbles about it "being hotter than the underside of a mother chickens bum" whilst reaching out his hand and making a grasping gesture.

Would it be advisable for this man to show a cpl if asked by LE?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top