How to address "If CC becomes OC"

imported post

I got into a discussion with a few of the employees at the Gun Barn in Otisville. All really cool people just had a little debate and remember my educated people here at OCDO had previously address these couple situations and was wanting a refresh on how to argue these points.

The conversation started when after they couldn't find what i was looking for he one guy noticed i was OCing and asked "So have you been stopped with that out in the open like that?" To which i responded, "only once or twice and i was able to avoid any negative response and it seemed to be very educative."

Another started up, "What about situations where they see you have a gun and put it in your face, now you can't draw yours cause they have the upper hand." My response was, "Do you have any documented cases of that happening?" I told him that i feel people unfamiliar with OC make up these scenarios and have no hard evidence to back them up and further went to describe how i never heard of this happening.

The last thing i want to address and what i really started this topic for was when an employee was looking for his Michigan firearm law book, he was trying to remember where it said "Brandishing, intentional or unintentional" when referring to CC becoming OC if someone saw your pistol on accident by your shirt being untucked or moved the wrong way. my response was, "Brandishing is not unintentional"
Any remarks or questions? i think i handle the situation okay, i left them a pamphlet and they had asked me how much a membership cost by the time i left. Again great people, Great service, I just have never been good at winning arguments.

Devery

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

I got into a discussion with a few of the employees at the Gun Barn in Otisville. All really cool people just had a little debate and remember my educated people here at OCDO had previously address these couple situations and was wanting a refresh on how to argue these points.

The conversation started when after they couldn't find what i was looking for he one guy noticed i was OCing and asked "So have you been stopped with that out in the open like that?" To which i responded, "only once or twice and i was able to avoid any negative response and it seemed to be very educative."

Another started up, "What about situations where they see you have a gun and put it in your face, now you can't draw yours cause they have the upper hand." My response was, "Do you have any documented cases of that happening?" I told him that i feel people unfamiliar with OC make up these scenarios and have no hard evidence to back them up and further went to describe how i never heard of this happening.

The last thing i want to address and what i really started this topic for was when an employee was looking for his Michigan firearm law book, he was trying to remember where it said "Brandishing, intentional or unintentional" when referring to CC becoming OC if someone saw your pistol on accident by your shirt being untucked or moved the wrong way. my response was, "Brandishing is not unintentional"
Any remarks or questions? i think i handle the situation okay, i left them a pamphlet and they had asked me how much a membership cost by the time i left. Again great people, Great service, I just have never been good at winning arguments.

Devery

Click to expand...

Tell em' to keep looking and get back to you when he finds it, then wait....

Geeze, you'd think buy now most people in any type of firearm circle, would know that OC is legal. They can argue the pro's and con's all day long, but all the dang'd media coverage and hard work that MIOC members have been doing for years now... It's incredible to me.

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

I got into a discussion with a few of the employees at the Gun Barn in Otisville. All really cool people just had a little debate and remember my educated people here at OCDO had previously address these couple situations and was wanting a refresh on how to argue these points.

The conversation started when after they couldn't find what i was looking for he one guy noticed i was OCing and asked "So have you been stopped with that out in the open like that?" To which i responded, "only once or twice and i was able to avoid any negative response and it seemed to be very educative."

Another started up, "What about situations where they see you have a gun and put it in your face, now you can't draw yours cause they have the upper hand." My response was, "Do you have any documented cases of that happening?" I told him that i feel people unfamiliar with OC make up these scenarios and have no hard evidence to back them up and further went to describe how i never heard of this happening.

The last thing i want to address and what i really started this topic for was when an employee was looking for his Michigan firearm law book, he was trying to remember where it said "Brandishing, intentional or unintentional" when referring to CC becoming OC if someone saw your pistol on accident by your shirt being untucked or moved the wrong way. my response was, "Brandishing is not unintentional"
Any remarks or questions? i think i handle the situation okay, i left them a pamphlet and they had asked me how much a membership cost by the time i left. Again great people, Great service, I just have never been good at winning arguments.

Devery

Click to expand...

Sounds like you did very well. Good job.

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

...
Geeze, you'd think buy now most people in any type of firearm circle, would know that OC is legal...

Click to expand...

Don't let it discourage you. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is smart. It sounds to me likethese folks were merely looking for first hand experience with their questions to help them reach their own conclusions.I think this situation actually bolstered our position in the minds of ??? more gun owners.

manicdeverywrote:

...

i left them a pamphlet and they had asked me how much a membership cost by the time i left...

Click to expand...

imported post

I would say good job! And tell em to keep looking for that MCL and when they find it let ya know... gonna be a long wait :celebrate

imported post

Not discouraged, just kind of shocked that there are still people, who work at a gun shop....., that don't know for 100% fact that OC is legal. Do these guys lock their guns up at the store, come home and bury their heads in a dark hole?

imported post

Dont be shocked just look at the LEOs for example. Even they at times can be clueless about gun laws they're out enforcing. Also their comments about OC on youtube. Its quite humorous and shows how uneducated some cops out there are. I'd like to see a in person open forum on open carry. It would be real interesting.

imported post

There's an AG opinion that does a good job defining brandishing around here somewhere...

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

There's an AG opinion that does a good job defining brandishing around here somewhere...

Click to expand...

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

CoonDog wrote:

There's an AG opinion that does a good job defining brandishing around here somewhere...

Click to expand...

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

Click to expand...

This opinion appears to be addressing LEOs or "peace officers" apart from the fact that evenLEOsare not above the law i was wondering if we had any more direct reference in regards to fellow OCers. unless i seem to have already answered this question.

Devery

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

CoonDog wrote:

There's an AG opinion that does a good job defining brandishing around here somewhere...

Click to expand...

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

Click to expand...

This opinion appears to be addressing LEOs or "peace officers" apart from the fact that evenLEOsare not above the law i was wondering if we had any more direct reference in regards to fellow OCers. unless i seem to have already answered this question.

Devery

Click to expand...

Read the part that says "regardless if you are a reserve officer" regardless refers to us commoners.

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

SNIP
This opinion appears to be addressing LEOs or "peace officers" apart from the fact that evenLEOsare not above the law i was wondering if we had any more direct reference in regards to fellow OCers. unless i seem to have already answered this question.

Devery

Click to expand...

This part of 7101:

Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases,[suP]2[/suP] none of the cases define the term.

In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

imported post

The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't appear to differentiate between LEO and non-LEO.

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't appear to differentiate between LEO and non-LEO.

Click to expand...

Hence, Jenny's opinion:

"It is my opinion, therefore, that a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public."

If you do not qualify as a "Peace Officer" you're no different then the rest of the mere citizenry, regardless if in uniform or not. By following the context of the opinion, it wouldapply to John Doe OC'er as well, IMO, of course.

imported post

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.

imported post

Thanks for clearing that up. i was reading it, and ialready know it, just for some dumb reason got stuck on "regardless he or she qualifies as a peace officer" as if they meant LEO and peace officer are different . . .it seems silly now that i look at it, just not sure why it wasn't clicking. thanks all.

Devery

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up. i was reading it, and ialready know it, just for some dumb reason got stuck on "regardless he or she qualifies as a peace officer" as if they meant LEO and peace officer are different . . .it seems silly now that i look at it, just not sure why it wasn't clicking. thanks all.

Devery

Click to expand...

People like to play word games (for many different reasons), and sometimes don't even realize it. The statute does not mention, "LEO". It addresses "Peace Officers". LEO's are what we actually perceive, so we fail to differentiate.

It's like, I can't count the times I've seen a discussion on police stops/detention, and RAS where, in response to the statement that an officer cannot "detain" someone without RAS, someone else (be it LEO or someone else) will say, "I/the officer, can stop someone to investigate". The person who uses this reply is obfuscating, whether they intend to or not. Taken literally, it neither affirms, nor disagrees with the initial statement. However, taken in context, the statement is intended to suggest that an officer can “Stop” someone without RAS, and that is untrue. Use of the term “stop”, avoids the boundary that the term “detain” does in their mind. To them, they are talking about a consensual interview (or they are just trying to spread propaganda to get people used to having their rights violated (for all you conspiracy folks)), when in truth, they are using a term that specifically points to detention. This kind of confusion can easily happen to a group that is trained in, and trained to use the art of deception and manipulation. They’ve either gotten to the point where they’ve actually deceived themselves, or they are still working on others. Either way, it’s spreading a lie under the mistaken guise of truth.

Going back to the difference between “LEO”, and “peace officer” is a similar dilemma. One is used in the statute, while the other one isn’t. Use of the term in the statute sets a boundary on that term, and boundaries tend to undermine manipulation. In the above example, “detain” is a buzz word that tells the officer, “If you don’t have RAS, then back off.”, so they use, “stop” to soften that boundary. In reference to the current topic, we’ve gotten to the point to where we don’t even like to use the term “peace officer” anymore because well… they aren’t. “LEO” is a much more apt description. Problem is, it isn’t defined (within the context of this statue). Lack of definition is lack of boundary. Lack of clear boundaries creates and instills confusion. Confusion can enhance manipulation of one's opponent, but in this case it can manipulate the meaning of the message.

Is everyone confused yet?

Then again, maybe I'm just spending too much time on Marc MacYoung's site. :what: