• 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.

No OC in PFZs with CPL

stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

I was convicted of violating my CPL today, and while in court, I uncovered a serious problem.

The problem is that the judge in the case did not recognise the opinions of the attorney general, and the state police liason, regarding OC with a CPL in PFZs. I mensioned this to the judge, obviously, but since there is no case law, and no state law, but only an opinion, he referred to 28.4250 and considered the school/church zones to be pistol free zones wether open or concealed. Several Oakland County officers were in attendance (to their credit), so they could learn the laws in this issue, and this is of course what they will be acting upon. We will no longer be able to carry openly in PFZs with a CPL.

Although this was not the basis for the conviction, I had to post this, as so many of us rely on these AG opinions, and I dont want to see anyone get into trouble.

If someone could find and post the AG opinion and the state police liason statement, I would appreciate it, I couldnt find it.
 
C

conservative85

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
625
Location
, ,
imported post

750.234...there! Your lawyer sucked Sorry I'm sure he's a nice guy just saying...

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
 
M

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
I was convicted of violating my CPL today, and while in court, I uncovered a serious problem.

The problem is that the judge in the case did not recognise the opinions of the attorney general, and the state police liason, regarding OC with a CPL in PFZs. I mensioned this to the judge, obviously, but since there is no case law, and no state law, but only an opinion, he referred to 28.4250 and considered the school/church zones to be pistol free zones wether open or concealed. Several Oakland County officers were in attendance (to their credit), so they could learn the laws in this issue, and this is of course what they will be acting upon. We will no longer be able to carry openly in PFZs with a CPL.

Although this was not the basis for the conviction, I had to post this, as so many of us rely on these AG opinions, and I dont want to see anyone get into trouble.

If someone could find  and post the AG opinion and the state police liason statement, I would appreciate it, I couldnt find it.
Click to expand...

This doesnt make any sense unless you were concealing in a PFZ. According to the law only concealed carry is subject to concealed carry PFZ's. conservative85 has the law posted above. The only thing I can think of is you were concealing or considered concealing. I'd like to see the transcript to help us ascertain what took place.
 
sprinklerguy28

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
imported post

I would be filing an appeal. The judge referred to the wrong law as pointed out. No case law is needed. Make sure your attorney knows 750.234d. Also what was the basis for the conviction. As long as you were OC with a valid CPL, no law was broken.
 
M

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
imported post

sprinklerguy28 wrote:
I would be filing an appeal. The judge referred to the wrong law as pointed out. No case law is needed. Make sure your attorney knows 750.234d. Also what was the basis for the conviction. As long as you were OC with a valid CPL, no law was broken.
Click to expand...

I'd think a simple: Show me the law that says open carry is prohibited with a CPL in the PFZ would work
 
Z

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

conservative85 wrote:
i still wanna know how he got the ticket two days later at his home.
Click to expand...

That's nothing. My mother and sister had a similar situation (only theirs was dismissed), and they didn't get tickets for a week after the event happened.
 
C

conservative85

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
625
Location
, ,
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
conservative85 wrote:
i still wanna know how he got the ticket two days later at his home.
Click to expand...

That's nothing. My mother and sister had a similar situation (only theirs was dismissed), and they didn't get tickets for a week after the event happened.
Click to expand...
No that's not what I meant.

I would have never accepted the ticket. I mean he must have had some time between "I'm officer Blah... to "I finally found something to falsely charge you with" That the words Do you have a search warrant? No? sorry can't help you! good day officer..
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
the judge in the case did not recognise the opinions of the attorney general, and the state police liason, regarding OC with a CPL in PFZs. . . . Although this was not the basis for the conviction . . .
Click to expand...

If the judge's remarks about OC with a CPL in PFZs were not the basis or one of the bases foryour conviction, there's nothing to worry about as far as some kind of precedent being established on OC with a CPL in PFZs.

During proceedings, judges express remarks and views both verbally and in writing which, if they aren't part of the reasoning for conviction, don't really mean anything of substance. Judges sometimes just like to vent their personal opinions, while they have the spotlight and the soapbox.

We really need to see the transcript and the written opinion to determine if there seems to be a threat.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
I was convicted of violating my CPL today, and while in court, I uncovered a serious problem.

The problem is that the judge in the case did not recognise the opinions of the attorney general, and the state police liason, regarding OC with a CPL in PFZs. I mensioned this to the judge, obviously, but since there is no case law, and no state law, but only an opinion, he referred to 28.4250 and considered the school/church zones to be pistol free zones wether open or concealed. Several Oakland County officers were in attendance (to their credit), so they could learn the laws in this issue, and this is of course what they will be acting upon. We will no longer be able to carry openly in PFZs with a CPL.

Although this was not the basis for the conviction, I had to post this, as so many of us rely on these AG opinions, and I dont want to see anyone get into trouble.

If someone could find and post the AG opinion and the state police liason statement, I would appreciate it, I couldnt find it.
Click to expand...
AG opinions are merely persuasive authority, not binding on any court, nor is this trial court's opinion on the matter binding on other courts.


If you were convicted, you can appeal and get an appeals court opinion which will binf trial cours, no?
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

The judges decision was based on my word against the word of the witness. He chose hers. I brought two witnesses who would have stated that it would be abnormal for me to CC, and only one was called to testify. Also the officer who wrote the ticket even said that he saw me OC plainly when he got to my house. I had also 2 police reports from when I was OC, one before this ticket, one after. I feel this should have been presented. I feel that if this had been brought up, as well as 750.234d which conservative85pointed out, I would have easily won.

Several oakland county officers were present so that they could learn how to better deal with this kind of thing, heard the judge say that the AG opinions were not law, and that according th 28.4250, anyone carrying in a PFZ with or without a CPL would be in violation. This isthe positionthe oakland county deputies are going to be working from. This is a big problem for us.
 
M

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
The judges decision was based on my word against the word of the witness. He chose hers. I brought two witnesses who would have stated that it would be abnormal for me to CC, and only one was called to testify. Also the officer who wrote the ticket even said that he saw me OC plainly when he got to my house. I had also 2 police reports from when I was OC, one before this ticket, one after. I feel this should have been presented. I feel that if this had been brought up, as well as 750.234d which conservative85 pointed out, I would have easily won.

Several oakland county officers were present so that they could learn how to better deal with this kind of thing, heard the judge say that the AG opinions were not law, and that according th 28.4250, anyone carrying in a PFZ with or without a CPL would be in violation. This is the position the oakland county deputies are going to be working from. This is a big problem for us.
Click to expand...

No it's not because it's not based on the law which SPECIFICALLY says someone who is carrying concealed in a pistol free zone not open carry. My question to the judge would be show me where it says you cannot open carry. Point it out for everyone!!
 
M

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
Mike wrote:
If you were convicted, you can appeal and get an appeals court opinion which will binf trial cours, no?
Click to expand...
I diddnt know that I could appeal a civil infraction. Does it matter that I paid a fine already? and does it matter that it was a district court?
Click to expand...

What was the offense exactly? Please post the transcript for us because that will shed the light on this judges decision. It sounds phony to me it wont change anyones opinion on open carry. If it was a criminal trial things would be much different.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

mikestilly wrote:
. It sounds phony to me it wont change anyones opinion on open carry. If it was a criminal trial things would be much different.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that I sound phony, or have I misunderstood?

I wouldnt make this up.

I dont have the transcripts, how do I get them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top