G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Damn I'm denting the crap outta my keyboard!:banghead:
Damn I'm denting the crap outta my keyboard!:banghead:
-
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.
No OC in PFZs with CPL
- Thread starter stainless1911
- Start date
Haman J.T.
New member
imported post
That is a fact that I have suffered under and I do not have enough money to fight false charges.Rich folks don't have these kind of problems.The system is screwed up liberaly!!The liberals are the ones making all these stupid laws.Thats what happens when folks who don't have a clue get elected and make laws for us working poor to live under.They take away our freedoms!!
That is a fact that I have suffered under and I do not have enough money to fight false charges.Rich folks don't have these kind of problems.The system is screwed up liberaly!!The liberals are the ones making all these stupid laws.Thats what happens when folks who don't have a clue get elected and make laws for us working poor to live under.They take away our freedoms!!
zigziggityzoo
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Can we let this die now?
Can we let this die now?
JamesIan
Regular Member
imported post
zigziggityzoo wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
I am not opposed. However, I'm not sure why you would want to clip the end of the discussion. No one is forcing you to read it.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
mpearce wrote:
mpearce wrote:
If the attorneys office is on private property than yes. The law is clear you can transport a handgun for all lawful purpose of which the list in .234d is a partial list. There is legislation being written to just say all lawful purpose and not have the partial list. So it was the intent of the legislator in 2006 to mean ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES. Before 2006 the law did say lawful purpose or going to and fromthe current law state in route.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
To the best of my limited knowledge, there is no case law that has determined if .234d is exclusively or inclusive of those places delineated therein.
With that in mind, I'm sure that there have been individuals that have made a olea to a different charge to avoid possible conviction under .234d.
I also recall reading of a public official that did plead guilty to .234d, for having firearms in the trunk under what we (laypeople) would consider lawful, to avoid prosecution under some other more serious charges.
S again, because of the uncertainty of prosecution under .234d, the even more uncertain outcome of a trial, and the record of stainless1911, I suggest he refrain from possession and transportation of any firearm whatsoever.
Of course, I am not a layer, by any stretch of the imagination, so this advice it probably worthless. The same amount that stainless1911 paid for the highly qualified advice he completely ignored.
To the best of my limited knowledge, there is no case law that has determined if .234d is exclusively or inclusive of those places delineated therein.
With that in mind, I'm sure that there have been individuals that have made a olea to a different charge to avoid possible conviction under .234d.
I also recall reading of a public official that did plead guilty to .234d, for having firearms in the trunk under what we (laypeople) would consider lawful, to avoid prosecution under some other more serious charges.
S again, because of the uncertainty of prosecution under .234d, the even more uncertain outcome of a trial, and the record of stainless1911, I suggest he refrain from possession and transportation of any firearm whatsoever.
Of course, I am not a layer, by any stretch of the imagination, so this advice it probably worthless. The same amount that stainless1911 paid for the highly qualified advice he completely ignored.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
We had a judge in Traverse City drop a charge for illegal transport of a handgun (locked in trunk on private property). The judge said he couldn't prosecutea law that hasn't existed for 3 years, he got the intent of the revised statute.
Not saying you can't be arrested for it,keep in mindsome OCers have been cited for CPL violations (and latter dropped) that were obviously written to harass people.
CV67PAT wrote:
We had a judge in Traverse City drop a charge for illegal transport of a handgun (locked in trunk on private property). The judge said he couldn't prosecutea law that hasn't existed for 3 years, he got the intent of the revised statute.
Not saying you can't be arrested for it,keep in mindsome OCers have been cited for CPL violations (and latter dropped) that were obviously written to harass people.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Youz guyz arez getting 234d mix up with 231a.
ETA: Oops, forgot the mandatory smiley.
Youz guyz arez getting 234d mix up with 231a.
ETA: Oops, forgot the mandatory smiley.
jeremiahJohnson
New member
imported post
I'll dig the Grave if Somebody would please shoot this thread already!
I'll dig the Grave if Somebody would please shoot this thread already!
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
CrossPistols wrote:
OK!
CrossPistols wrote:
OK!
jeremiahJohnson
New member
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
Nobody is making you look at it.
Nobody is making you look at it.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
How about those transcripts? I have stopped reading this thread pages ago. were they posted?
How about those transcripts? I have stopped reading this thread pages ago. were they posted?
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
They havent been posted yet, still waiting. One of our members has paid for them, now we have to wait for the court to get them out.
They havent been posted yet, still waiting. One of our members has paid for them, now we have to wait for the court to get them out.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
In regards to my posts, refering to .234d, you are correct, I did mean 234a and should have cited.
Here is the cite with the highlited parts that I warn about lacking sufficient supporting case law to preclude being aressted and charged with a crime.
The success of the prosecution would of course depend on the level of competance of the defendants counsel and the defendants willingness to adhere to that counsel.
In the case of stainless1911, he has repeatedly stated the lack of resources to aquire competent counsel. And, when presented with free counsel, he lacks the willingness to adhere to the advice of that competent counsel.
Additionally, stainless1911 had repeatedly demonstrated a lack of comprehension of those things related to statutes.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(es...jectname=mcl-750-231a&query=on&highlight=231a
750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.Sec. 231a.
(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
(b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.
(c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.
(d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.
(e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:
(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:
(i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
(iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
(v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
(vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Venator's reference to 234d is valid.Youz guyz arez getting 234d mix up with 231a.
ETA: Oops, forgot the mandatory smiley.
In regards to my posts, refering to .234d, you are correct, I did mean 234a and should have cited.
Here is the cite with the highlited parts that I warn about lacking sufficient supporting case law to preclude being aressted and charged with a crime.
The success of the prosecution would of course depend on the level of competance of the defendants counsel and the defendants willingness to adhere to that counsel.
In the case of stainless1911, he has repeatedly stated the lack of resources to aquire competent counsel. And, when presented with free counsel, he lacks the willingness to adhere to the advice of that competent counsel.
Additionally, stainless1911 had repeatedly demonstrated a lack of comprehension of those things related to statutes.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(es...jectname=mcl-750-231a&query=on&highlight=231a
750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.Sec. 231a.
(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
(b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.
(c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.
(d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.
(e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:
(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:
(i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
(iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
(v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
(vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
"The law is clear you can transport a handgun for all lawful purpose of which the list in .234d is a partial list."
What Venator mentioned above is 231a (lawful Purpose), not 234d.
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.
CV67PAT wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:Venator's reference to 234d is valid.Youz guyz arez getting 234d mix up with 231a.
ETA: Oops, forgot the mandatory smiley.
SNIP
"The law is clear you can transport a handgun for all lawful purpose of which the list in .234d is a partial list."
What Venator mentioned above is 231a (lawful Purpose), not 234d.
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.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Can anyone cite any case law that has settled that this list is inclusive of or exclusively of?
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Does anyone have background for this statement?
Can anyone cite any case law that has settled that this list is inclusive of or exclusively of?
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
CV67PAT wrote:
CV67PAT wrote:
No, we've been trying to come up with something for a few years now. MSP's opinion on it was that it's not inclusive--but just an opinion.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
transcripts! i got transcripts. They came in the mail today. They are about 40 pages. I am scanning them as we speak, but i have to do them 1 page at a time, so it's gonna take a while. Unfortunately i don't work in an office with a fancy copy machine/scanner.
Maybe things were different in person, but reading the transcripts, it seems like the defendant probably would have won if the evidence needed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. too bad the court only needed 51% in this case.
They should be posted this afternoon....
transcripts! i got transcripts. They came in the mail today. They are about 40 pages. I am scanning them as we speak, but i have to do them 1 page at a time, so it's gonna take a while. Unfortunately i don't work in an office with a fancy copy machine/scanner.
Maybe things were different in person, but reading the transcripts, it seems like the defendant probably would have won if the evidence needed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. too bad the court only needed 51% in this case.
They should be posted this afternoon....
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
That is precisely why I think he should refrain from any transportation/possession of any firearm for the time of his cpl restriction at least.