-
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.
-
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.
Private property non-cpl concealed carry
- Thread starter UCWT
- Start date
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
UCWT wrote:
UCWT wrote:
Well even tho we are on the same team, never take any ones word for anything! Look it up, research it, and find out for your self. There could always be that chance we could be wrong, or misspeak.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Just so ya don't waste your time. The AG does not respond to legal questions from the general public.
Only LEO, and government officials can request clarification.
So you would need to have your legislator ask for you.
Just so ya don't waste your time. The AG does not respond to legal questions from the general public.
Only LEO, and government officials can request clarification.
So you would need to have your legislator ask for you.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
autosurgeon wrote:
Well with the way things are with our representatives I'll never get anywhere.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
mikestilly wrote:
mikestilly wrote:
My comments in red. Interesting subject.conservative85 wrote:
I think I understand what your saying but this is always a great topic because it's trying to put a few laws together and trying to understand how private property rights fit in.
I agree there is no law that says you cannot grant permissions but there is also no law that says you can. (Like OC? no law says you can other than a right in our constitution and that is not a statue.)Where there are laws stating specific where people cannot CC. ( There is no law that states CC is illegal on private property, other than those in the statute. If the private property is not one of the places listed {like a bar} you should be good to go.) In this circumstance I feel since there is no law that says you are allowed to exempt someone from a law stating where people can CC then I believe it would be illegal. Not sure I follow your logic.
I'm not a lawyerjust trying to apply common sense to laws that are vague and misleading.
office888
Regular Member
imported post
FYI : this post contributes nothing
TheSzerdi wrote:
The fine by the NRC for operating an unlicensed nuclear reactor is actually smaller than you think!
-Richard-
FYI : this post contributes nothing
TheSzerdi wrote:
I laughed. Pretty hard.
The fine by the NRC for operating an unlicensed nuclear reactor is actually smaller than you think!
-Richard-
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
you can invite that person to live there (perhaps just for the afternoon?) then they can cc
you can invite that person to live there
(perhaps just for the afternoon?) then they can ccmikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
Venator wrote:
Unless there is some exemption that says unless you're on any private property and given permission I believe the below would apply. Otherwise people would be able to conceal anywhere except the conditions of 750.234d. This is similar to our conversation about a bar owner giving permission to conceal. A bar owner cannot because you must have a license to conceal weather in a bar or anywhere else with the exception of your own property or your business.
See below:
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
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.
(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.
(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.
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
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 NW2d 783 (1986).
Venator wrote:
mikestilly wrote:My comments in red. Interesting subject.conservative85 wrote:
I think I understand what your saying but this is always a great topic because it's trying to put a few laws together and trying to understand how private property rights fit in.
I agree there is no law that says you cannot grant permissions but there is also no law that says you can. (Like OC? no law says you can other than a right in our constitution and that is not a statue.)Where there are laws stating specific where people cannot CC. ( There is no law that states CC is illegal on private property, other than those in the statute. If the private property is not one of the places listed {like a bar} you should be good to go.) In this circumstance I feel since there is no law that says you are allowed to exempt someone from a law stating where people can CC then I believe it would be illegal. Not sure I follow your logic.
I'm not a lawyer
Unless there is some exemption that says unless you're on any private property and given permission I believe the below would apply. Otherwise people would be able to conceal anywhere except the conditions of 750.234d. This is similar to our conversation about a bar owner giving permission to conceal. A bar owner cannot because you must have a license to conceal weather in a bar or anywhere else with the exception of your own property or your business.
See below:
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
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.
(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.
(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.
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
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 NW2d 783 (1986).
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
The OP:
"If a non-cpl buddy comes over for a bbq I as the owner/agent of the property I can grant him the ability to conceal on my property."
Key Words: Non-CPL and Conceal
The Answer:
MCL 750.227 which as been provided several times.
750.234d allows a Non-CPL individuals to possess their weapon (pistol) in the places listed under Subsection (1) of 234d if they have permission from the owner or agent in the otherwise prohibited places. This provision only allows the Non-CPL individuals to OC because 750.227 prohibits the CC of said individuals.
The OP:
"If a non-cpl buddy comes over for a bbq I as the owner/agent of the property I can grant him the ability to conceal on my property."
Key Words: Non-CPL and Conceal
The Answer:
MCL 750.227 which as been provided several times.
750.234d allows a Non-CPL individuals to possess their weapon (pistol) in the places listed under Subsection (1) of 234d if they have permission from the owner or agent in the otherwise prohibited places. This provision only allows the Non-CPL individuals to OC because 750.227 prohibits the CC of said individuals.
mikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
Yep exactly so just like inthe bar property OC permission isno problem but permission to CC is not.
Yep exactly so just like inthe bar property OC permission isno problem but permission to CC is not.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
(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. (One of those restrictions is to have a CPL to OC in a bar, But the bar owner can give you permission to violate that restriction. I know there were 18-20 year old people at the bowling, they had no CPL by law/restriction they could not be in the bar. I believe the excteption is written down specifically be- cause there is a written restriction_. Where as there is no written restriction for Private Property, so there needs to be no written Exception. This is my Opinion
Unless there is some exemption that says unless you're on any private property and given permission I believe the below would apply. Otherwise people would be able to conceal anywhere except the conditions of 750.234d. This is similar to our conversation about a bar owner giving permission to conceal. A bar owner cannot because you must have a license to conceal (you must have a license to OC too) weather in a bar or anywhere else with the exception of your own property or your business. If your reasoning is true (To be honest I don't see where the Agent/owner could not grant permission to OC as well as CC. If he is given permission to override the restriction...the restriction is actually possession, this portion of the law does not point out OC, Nor Does it Point out CC, it merely says Possession of a firearm in said restrictions of your license I know I read that n our brochure)
My Reply is in Bold
(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. (One of those restrictions is to have a CPL to OC in a bar, But the bar owner can give you permission to violate that restriction. I know there were 18-20 year old people at the bowling, they had no CPL by law/restriction they could not be in the bar. I believe the excteption is written down specifically be- cause there is a written restriction_. Where as there is no written restriction for Private Property, so there needs to be no written Exception. This is my Opinion
Unless there is some exemption that says unless you're on any private property and given permission I believe the below would apply. Otherwise people would be able to conceal anywhere except the conditions of 750.234d. This is similar to our conversation about a bar owner giving permission to conceal. A bar owner cannot because you must have a license to conceal (you must have a license to OC too) weather in a bar or anywhere else with the exception of your own property or your business. If your reasoning is true (To be honest I don't see where the Agent/owner could not grant permission to OC as well as CC. If he is given permission to override the restriction...the restriction is actually possession, this portion of the law does not point out OC, Nor Does it Point out CC, it merely says Possession of a firearm in said restrictions of your license I know I read that n our brochure)
My Reply is in Bold
imported post
Ok let me start over.
establishment NOT licencd by the state to provide child care,bar,state building ect.
Private property with no ties to state law in that manner.
If the owner of the bar/bowling alley can grant non-cpl open carry even though state law says non-cpl open carry an a bar is prohibated.
What's the difference if a non-regulated establishment owner/agent grants concealed carry.
Ok let me start over.
establishment NOT licencd by the state to provide child care,bar,state building ect.
Private property with no ties to state law in that manner.
If the owner of the bar/bowling alley can grant non-cpl open carry even though state law says non-cpl open carry an a bar is prohibated.
What's the difference if a non-regulated establishment owner/agent grants concealed carry.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
UCWT wrote:
The Szerdi had a good point,
Mike also brought up a good point about there being no law allowing Private Property owners to grant permission to other people, same as there is no law allowing OC, there for I conclude for myself that As long as my friends are on my land, They can enjoy the same rights as me.
Bottom line is that it's the liberals, & lawyers that read the 2nd wrong they see the The RKB, then they say look it doesn't say you can conceal. I see it the way it was intended, it doesn't say I cannot! I think the 2nd is just as important as Private Property for if we have no safe retreat, we would have restrictions everywhere no place to fall back, or to protect. They could come into our homes and land and say you can only have one pistol, or one rifle, they could regulate our ammo, our books, our legal papers. I feel the 2nd, 4th, & 5th are equal. Sorta like The Father, the son, & the Holy Ghost!...lol
UCWT wrote:
My point Exactly, this is the brain picking I was looking for.
The Szerdi had a good point,
Mike also brought up a good point about there being no law allowing Private Property owners to grant permission to other people, same as there is no law allowing OC, there for I conclude for myself that As long as my friends are on my land, They can enjoy the same rights as me.
Bottom line is that it's the liberals, & lawyers that read the 2nd wrong they see the The RKB, then they say look it doesn't say you can conceal. I see it the way it was intended, it doesn't say I cannot! I think the 2nd is just as important as Private Property for if we have no safe retreat, we would have restrictions everywhere no place to fall back, or to protect. They could come into our homes and land and say you can only have one pistol, or one rifle, they could regulate our ammo, our books, our legal papers. I feel the 2nd, 4th, & 5th are equal. Sorta like The Father, the son, & the Holy Ghost!...lol
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
I agree with you there.
Another interesting thing I'm noticing, it says you can conceal without a license at your place of business. It doesn't say you have to own the place, it merely says your 'place of business'.
Couldn't this be wherever you happen to be employed?
I agree with you there.
Another interesting thing I'm noticing, it says you can conceal without a license at your place of business. It doesn't say you have to own the place, it merely says your 'place of business'.
Couldn't this be wherever you happen to be employed?
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
Evil Creamsicle wrote:
Technically if a friend gave you permission to camp on some land he owned, for that place and time you would have the right to KBA OC & CC while there. If your friend gave you permission to stay in his home for the weekend, then you would have the right to K&B for the duration. So I see grounds for an owner granting said permission to OC, & CC while that person is away or if he was right beside you.
Evil Creamsicle wrote:
Also it says land "possessed by" (Not Owned) and his/her dwelling house, This could be a rented, leased, or if you have permission to be in said locations. Possession is 9/10ths of the Law right?
Technically if a friend gave you permission to camp on some land he owned, for that place and time you would have the right to KBA OC & CC while there. If your friend gave you permission to stay in his home for the weekend, then you would have the right to K&B for the duration. So I see grounds for an owner granting said permission to OC, & CC while that person is away or if he was right beside you.
imported post
I guess I will redirect the question to
Does private property trump some regulatory state laws?
If not then it seems that the bar owner/agent would be in violation of the very thing I'm asking by granting the non-cpl open carry.
I feel without said written law just like non-cpl open carry its not forbidden because there is nothing written to deem it so.
This is a inquiry to better understand this and clarify written law that prohibits non- government regulated permissible private property concealed carry.
Thanks keep it coming.
I guess I will redirect the question to
Does private property trump some regulatory state laws?
If not then it seems that the bar owner/agent would be in violation of the very thing I'm asking by granting the non-cpl open carry.
I feel without said written law just like non-cpl open carry its not forbidden because there is nothing written to deem it so.
This is a inquiry to better understand this and clarify written law that prohibits non- government regulated permissible private property concealed carry.
Thanks keep it coming.
TheSzerdi
Regular Member
imported post
To those who believe you can be granted permission to OC in a bar, but not CC on private property:
It is ILLEGAL to OC in an establishment licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission unless you have a CPL.
It is ILLEGAL to CC off of your property without a CPL.
It is LEGAL to OC in an establishment licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission with owner's permission without a CPL.
It is ILLEGAL to CC at a friend's house with permission without a CPL.
That is your argument. See any flaws?
Either the owner cannot grant permission to either or the owner can grant permission to both. Which is it?
Edited to add:
The law provides specific exception for specific regulation of private property in the case of OC in a bar. This goes back to my point earlier that unless specifically regulated private property rights trump all.
To those who believe you can be granted permission to OC in a bar, but not CC on private property:
It is ILLEGAL to OC in an establishment licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission unless you have a CPL.
It is ILLEGAL to CC off of your property without a CPL.
It is LEGAL to OC in an establishment licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission with owner's permission without a CPL.
It is ILLEGAL to CC at a friend's house with permission without a CPL.
That is your argument. See any flaws?
Either the owner cannot grant permission to either or the owner can grant permission to both. Which is it?
Edited to add:
The law provides specific exception for specific regulation of private property in the case of OC in a bar. This goes back to my point earlier that unless specifically regulated private property rights trump all.
mikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
UCWT wrote:
We seem to be going in circles here. So are you trying to tell me that 750.227 doesnt specifically regulate what you can do just because you're on a private property? That doesnt make sense. Then with that line of logic doing a long list of illegal things could be trumped by private property rights and doing illegal acts on your property would be not put anyone in violation.. The logic to me doesnt add up. They may need a search warrant to search the house itself but if police were to enter a home an somehow saw a non-homeowner concealing they would be in violation just like any other MCL statute on the books. Same thing as if the cops were at the door of a home and the person opened with a 10 lbs of pot behind them. By plain view they are in violation regardless of their private property rights. The logic of private property rights trump breaking laws on the books to me doesnt make any sense and I can't see how it could be true.
UCWT wrote:
We seem to be going in circles here. So are you trying to tell me that 750.227 doesnt specifically regulate what you can do just because you're on a private property? That doesnt make sense. Then with that line of logic doing a long list of illegal things could be trumped by private property rights and doing illegal acts on your property would be not put anyone in violation.. The logic to me doesnt add up. They may need a search warrant to search the house itself but if police were to enter a home an somehow saw a non-homeowner concealing they would be in violation just like any other MCL statute on the books. Same thing as if the cops were at the door of a home and the person opened with a 10 lbs of pot behind them. By plain view they are in violation regardless of their private property rights. The logic of private property rights trump breaking laws on the books to me doesnt make any sense and I can't see how it could be true.