dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
I meant drown him with facts
I meant drown him with facts
-
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.
how do you respond when someone tells you "YOU CANT DO THAT!"
- Thread starter kyleplusitunes
- Start date
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
imported post
ChuckWagon-SMVM wrote:
ChuckWagon-SMVM wrote:
You've obviously never been to Eaton Rapids. They have (had?) an officer there who weighs more than I do, and is shorter than me. I am 6'2" tall and weigh in at 285 lbs. But, it's possible he's had a heart attack since the last time I saw him.
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
dougwg wrote:
In any case whenever someone asks if I'm a cop, they always have this like... "I'm really nervous but I'm pretending to make a joke so you can't tell" tone.
Like when I went to Dunkin' Donuts the other day, and someone asked me "oh, are you undercover? *nervous chuckle*"
Last time someone tried to tell me "My dad has a CCW and that is illegal", he waited until I left and told my girlfriend. I went back there the next day, [he was an employee] and handed him an MOC trifold, while carrying of course.
dougwg wrote:
meh, either way.
In any case whenever someone asks if I'm a cop, they always have this like... "I'm really nervous but I'm pretending to make a joke so you can't tell" tone.
Like when I went to Dunkin' Donuts the other day, and someone asked me "oh, are you undercover? *nervous chuckle*"
Last time someone tried to tell me "My dad has a CCW and that is illegal", he waited until I left and told my girlfriend. I went back there the next day, [he was an employee] and handed him an MOC trifold, while carrying of course.
mcintosh02
Regular Member
imported post
sprinklerguy28 wrote:
I was almost thrown out of my CPL course for bringing this up. I attempted to argue, but the instructor quite literally said, "I will refuse to certify you if I think that you are going to leave here with the intention of openly carrying." I just shut up and prayed for the end of the class to come quickly.
He gave the standard "you can't carry open with a CPL/you MUST conceal" and "If your pistol shows even for a second you are brandishing".
By the way, this was at Advanced Ranges in Flint. I love their facility, but I won't take any more classes there.
I was extremely disappointed by this. I had gone there about a year ago and I was really impressed by Steve Fisher from MDFI when I took his Handgun 101 course. From that moment I had planned to take my CPL course there. Unfortunately, Steve is no longer afiliated with AR and they have this other guy in there. His name is Wayne McIntyre, formerly of the Genessee County Sheriff's Department, and he claims to be with a company called Progressive Combatives, but I couldn't find anything about them upon searching.
Sorry if this was OT.
sprinklerguy28 wrote:
I was almost thrown out of my CPL course for bringing this up. I attempted to argue, but the instructor quite literally said, "I will refuse to certify you if I think that you are going to leave here with the intention of openly carrying." I just shut up and prayed for the end of the class to come quickly.
He gave the standard "you can't carry open with a CPL/you MUST conceal" and "If your pistol shows even for a second you are brandishing".
By the way, this was at Advanced Ranges in Flint. I love their facility, but I won't take any more classes there.
I was extremely disappointed by this. I had gone there about a year ago and I was really impressed by Steve Fisher from MDFI when I took his Handgun 101 course. From that moment I had planned to take my CPL course there. Unfortunately, Steve is no longer afiliated with AR and they have this other guy in there. His name is Wayne McIntyre, formerly of the Genessee County Sheriff's Department, and he claims to be with a company called Progressive Combatives, but I couldn't find anything about them upon searching.
Sorry if this was OT.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
I open carry at least a few times every week, and i've yet to have anybody tell me "you can't do that!"
I open carry at least a few times every week, and i've yet to have anybody tell me "you can't do that!"
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
mcintosh02 wrote:
Was Wayne McIntyre the instructor who told you that you couldn't OC with a CPL and that he wouldn't certify you if you said you were going to OC? If not, who was it? I would like to send them some information.
mcintosh02 wrote:
Was Wayne McIntyre the instructor who told you that you couldn't OC with a CPL and that he wouldn't certify you if you said you were going to OC? If not, who was it? I would like to send them some information.
mcintosh02
Regular Member
imported post
Yes. Wayne McIntyre was the one.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wayne-mcintyre/12/59b/271
Sorry, I know that I wasn't very clear before.
I'm a little apprehensive about sending him info as I haven not yet applied/submitted my papaerwork to the Genesee county Gun Board for approval.I would hate to have him cop an atittude (like he did that day) and get my CPL request denied somehow.
Yes. Wayne McIntyre was the one.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wayne-mcintyre/12/59b/271
Sorry, I know that I wasn't very clear before.
I'm a little apprehensive about sending him info as I haven not yet applied/submitted my papaerwork to the Genesee county Gun Board for approval.I would hate to have him cop an atittude (like he did that day) and get my CPL request denied somehow.
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
I'll send the info so you don't have to worry about it coming back to you.
I'll send the info so you don't have to worry about it coming back to you.
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
Mcintosh02, I'm going to email this to Advanced Ranges, pending your approval.
Is this the correct website?
http://www.advancedranges.net/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3
Do you know if Wayne McIntyre is the only instructor for the CPL course? Also, I don't see his name on the staff list... is he new there? I just want to make sure I'm emailing the correct people.
To the owner of Advanced Ranges,
It has come to my attention that there has been some misinformation being given out in the CPL class offered at Advanced Ranges. I was informed that students have been told that the open carry of a firearm by a CPL holder is illegal. This is simply untrue. I am requesting that, in order to preserve the credibility of Advanced Range's CPL course, the correct information regarding open carry be taught. If teaching about open carry is too much to ask of the instructor(s), I request that students with questions about open carry be referred to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject.
I have included information that has been compiled by various people to educate the citizens of Michigan about the open carry of a firearm. I ask that you and your CPL class instructor(s) review the following information. If, after review, you have questions regarding open carry, please do not hesitate to send me an email. I will do my best to help you find the answer.
Thank you.
Regards,
[EM87]
Attached information:
As you may know any law abiding citizen of the State of Michigan who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry (in a holster) said firearm in all places not explicitly exempt by law without a CPL (1). Those that do not have a CPL when transporting their firearms must do so as prescribe by law. No local ordinance concerning firearm possession is enforceable due to Michigan’s preemption law (2). Brandishing and disturbing the peace are not an offense while lawfully openly carrying a firearm (3). Attorney General Opinion 7101, 2/02 states...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.” In regards to disorderly conduct due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed to carry concealed MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition. A person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. Recently it has been opined by the AG opinion, the MSP and Senator Prusi that persons with a CPL can carry a firearm openly in the exempted areas listed in MCL 750.234d. (4).
Footnotes:
(1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise 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.
(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.
(2) MSP Legal Update Newsletters: April 2007 and June 2008 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._66_238184_7.pdf
Did You Know: It is not illegal under Michigan law to openly carry a pistol.
Preemption: In MCRGO v. Ferndale, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession. Therefore, officers should check with their prosecutors before enforcing an ordinance that imposes a general ban on openly carrying a pistol.
THE MICHIGAN APPEAL COURT CONCLUDED:
April 29, 20006 v No. 242237
In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.
Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.
In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
(3) Act 328 of 1931
750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor.
Sec. 234e.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991
Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002 In part:
… 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,2 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."
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.
It is my opinion, therefore, …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. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, Attorney General
(4)Three opinions on this topic. An AG’s opinion, the Michigan State Police, and a State Senator’s.
AG opinion No. 7097 FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN January 11, 2002: This conclusion is not affected by the provisions of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. That statute prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms on certain types of premises as follows: Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise 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.
(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. [Emphasis added.]
By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol,… is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.
MSP opinion: Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones. Sincerely, Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, 714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 336-6441
Senator Prusi’s opinion: My office received your inquiry regarding the legality of a licensed CPL holder to open carry a firearm in "Pistol Free Zones." On Friday we received a copy of your correspondence, as Senator Carl Levin's Office referred your letter to my office because your concerns mainly pertain to state issues. As such, I am happy to assist you in this matter.
My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are licensed a CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter….Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"
Mcintosh02, I'm going to email this to Advanced Ranges, pending your approval.
Is this the correct website?
http://www.advancedranges.net/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3
Do you know if Wayne McIntyre is the only instructor for the CPL course? Also, I don't see his name on the staff list... is he new there? I just want to make sure I'm emailing the correct people.
To the owner of Advanced Ranges,
It has come to my attention that there has been some misinformation being given out in the CPL class offered at Advanced Ranges. I was informed that students have been told that the open carry of a firearm by a CPL holder is illegal. This is simply untrue. I am requesting that, in order to preserve the credibility of Advanced Range's CPL course, the correct information regarding open carry be taught. If teaching about open carry is too much to ask of the instructor(s), I request that students with questions about open carry be referred to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject.
I have included information that has been compiled by various people to educate the citizens of Michigan about the open carry of a firearm. I ask that you and your CPL class instructor(s) review the following information. If, after review, you have questions regarding open carry, please do not hesitate to send me an email. I will do my best to help you find the answer.
Thank you.
Regards,
[EM87]
Attached information:
As you may know any law abiding citizen of the State of Michigan who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry (in a holster) said firearm in all places not explicitly exempt by law without a CPL (1). Those that do not have a CPL when transporting their firearms must do so as prescribe by law. No local ordinance concerning firearm possession is enforceable due to Michigan’s preemption law (2). Brandishing and disturbing the peace are not an offense while lawfully openly carrying a firearm (3). Attorney General Opinion 7101, 2/02 states...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.” In regards to disorderly conduct due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed to carry concealed MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition. A person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. Officers should not editorialize against open carry by private citizens in any way shape or form, or in any way suggest that a person should conceal their firearm. Suggestions and editorializing against lawful open carry may be interpreted as “commands” by civilians who are lawfully open carrying and may subject officers to complaints filed against them, as well as possible legal action against themselves and the department. Recently it has been opined by the AG opinion, the MSP and Senator Prusi that persons with a CPL can carry a firearm openly in the exempted areas listed in MCL 750.234d. (4).
Footnotes:
(1) Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise 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.
(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.
(2) MSP Legal Update Newsletters: April 2007 and June 2008 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._66_238184_7.pdf
Did You Know: It is not illegal under Michigan law to openly carry a pistol.
Preemption: In MCRGO v. Ferndale, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local units of government may not impose restrictions upon firearms possession. Therefore, officers should check with their prosecutors before enforcing an ordinance that imposes a general ban on openly carrying a pistol.
THE MICHIGAN APPEAL COURT CONCLUDED:
April 29, 20006 v No. 242237
In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically imposes a prohibition on local units of government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a local unit of government concerning these areas.
Further, we conclude that the specific language of the 2000 amendments to MCL 28.421 et seq., particularly §§ 5c and 5o, which were adopted more than a decade after the enactment of § 1102, do not repeal § 1102 or otherwise reopen this area to local regulation of the carrying of firearms.17 Accordingly, we hold that the Ferndale ordinance is preempted by state law and, consequently, we reverse.
In 1990, the Michigan legislature enacted MCL 123.1102 which provides, in pertinent part: A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
(3) Act 328 of 1931
750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor.
Sec. 234e.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991
Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002 In part:
… 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,2 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."
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.
It is my opinion, therefore, …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. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, Attorney General
(4)Three opinions on this topic. An AG’s opinion, the Michigan State Police, and a State Senator’s.
AG opinion No. 7097 FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN January 11, 2002: This conclusion is not affected by the provisions of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. That statute prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms on certain types of premises as follows: Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise 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.
(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. [Emphasis added.]
By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol,… is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.
MSP opinion: Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones. Sincerely, Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, 714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 336-6441
Senator Prusi’s opinion: My office received your inquiry regarding the legality of a licensed CPL holder to open carry a firearm in "Pistol Free Zones." On Friday we received a copy of your correspondence, as Senator Carl Levin's Office referred your letter to my office because your concerns mainly pertain to state issues. As such, I am happy to assist you in this matter.
My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are licensed a CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter….Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
EM87 wrote:
EM87, before sending the email, stop and consider that the problem is not with Advanced Ranges (AR), it's with the CPL instructor.
Avanced Ranges are well aware that OC in Michigan is legal and they would not have any control over what the instructor teaches in his class. The instructor is required by law to comply to Section 5j (28.425j) and not to AR's opinions or beliefs.
Any emails should be sent to the instructor and not AR, IMO, of course.
EM87 wrote:
EM87, before sending the email, stop and consider that the problem is not with Advanced Ranges (AR), it's with the CPL instructor.
Avanced Ranges are well aware that OC in Michigan is legal and they would not have any control over what the instructor teaches in his class. The instructor is required by law to comply to Section 5j (28.425j) and not to AR's opinions or beliefs.
Any emails should be sent to the instructor and not AR, IMO, of course.
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
While I believe it's true that the problem is with the instructor and not with the range, I feel that if the range put pressure on him to teach correct information, he most likely would. Or at least not give false information.
It doesn't hurt to make sure the people at the rance are up to date on OC as well.
Thoughts?
While I believe it's true that the problem is with the instructor and not with the range, I feel that if the range put pressure on him to teach correct information, he most likely would. Or at least not give false information.
It doesn't hurt to make sure the people at the rance are up to date on OC as well.
Thoughts?
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
EM87 wrote:
EM87 wrote:
I disagree EM. More likely then not, the Deputy is paying a commission/percentage to use part of the AR facility to teach the classes and I highly doubt AR has anything to say, as far as, what the instructor teaches.
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
Not to mention, if the guy is anti-OC, he may just 'find another range that doesn't care'... and keep preaching nonsense.
Not to mention, if the guy is anti-OC, he may just 'find another range that doesn't care'... and keep preaching nonsense.
EM87
Regular Member
imported post
If he's anti OC then giving him correct information about it won't help if he doesn't care. Say I send the letter to him and he disregards it completely. We're in the same spot as we're in now. If I send it to the range and they tell him to not lie about OC or he'll have to find somewhere else to teach, that might at least stop his lies. He might have a lot of respect for the people at AR, and if they told him to stop laying about OC, he would. If I send it to the range and they tell tim to teach it right or find somewhere else to teach and he leaves, well we're still in the same spot we are now. It still seems to me like sending it to the range would be more beneficial.
Or I could send it to the range and to the instructor in question.
Eh?
If he's anti OC then giving him correct information about it won't help if he doesn't care. Say I send the letter to him and he disregards it completely. We're in the same spot as we're in now. If I send it to the range and they tell him to not lie about OC or he'll have to find somewhere else to teach, that might at least stop his lies. He might have a lot of respect for the people at AR, and if they told him to stop laying about OC, he would. If I send it to the range and they tell tim to teach it right or find somewhere else to teach and he leaves, well we're still in the same spot we are now. It still seems to me like sending it to the range would be more beneficial.
Or I could send it to the range and to the instructor in question.
Eh?
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
I agree...
why not send it to both? I think the potential benefit is worth the extra 47 cents.
I agree...
why not send it to both? I think the potential benefit is worth the extra 47 cents.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Send it to both... and just BC he may not pay attention to it is no reason not to send it IMOP.
Send it to both... and just BC he may not pay attention to it is no reason not to send it IMOP.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
EM87 wrote:
EM, just so there's no misunderstanding, I didn't say not to send an email to AR, only to consider before you do...
Sending all that info to AR is pointless, they already know OC is legal in Michigan as I previously stated. There's absolutely nothing wrong sending an email to AR, but just let AR know there are concerns about what the instructor is spewing in his classes. Anything else is just preaching to the choir-so to speak.
Send the instructor the full package and let him deal with it from there.
EM87 wrote:
EM, just so there's no misunderstanding, I didn't say not to send an email to AR, only to consider before you do...
Sending all that info to AR is pointless, they already know OC is legal in Michigan as I previously stated. There's absolutely nothing wrong sending an email to AR, but just let AR know there are concerns about what the instructor is spewing in his classes. Anything else is just preaching to the choir-so to speak.
Send the instructor the full package and let him deal with it from there.
manicdevery
Regular Member
imported post
mcintosh02 wrote: was very strict on only teaching isosceles stance with you?
Devery
mcintosh02 wrote:
That is funny, McIntyre was the one who taught my class. that was a couple years ago now, i didn't even know about OC then and i don't remember him mentioning it at all. He has been a friend of my mom and of the store i used to work at, if he is against OC then he would hate to see me now.
was very strict on only teaching isosceles stance with you? Devery
manicdevery
Regular Member
imported post
I wanted to get back on topic. i always wanted to call and ask for police assistance, and when they show up and i don't go to jail. . . well you know the rest. a bit much for what i am willing to do to promote OC but still a funny thought.
Devery
I wanted to get back on topic. i always wanted to call and ask for police assistance, and when they show up and i don't go to jail. . . well you know the rest. a bit much for what i am willing to do to promote OC but still a funny thought.
Devery
mcintosh02
Regular Member
imported post
manicdevery wrote:
Extremely strict. Very particular and very into his "system". Isoceles stance, point (excuse me, Treat Focused) shooting, spreading your shots to "increase shock effect". Seems to me that the last two are linked; if you aren't using your sights then your group will open up "but that's what we want to happen"...
Once again, sorry fot the OT and the thread derailment.
manicdevery wrote:
mcintosh02 wrote:That is funny, McIntyre was the one who taught my class. that was a couple years ago now, i didn't even know about OC then and i don't remember him mentioning it at all. He has been a friend of my mom and of the store i used to work at, if he is against OC then he would hate to see me now.
Devery
Extremely strict. Very particular and very into his "system". Isoceles stance, point (excuse me, Treat Focused) shooting, spreading your shots to "increase shock effect". Seems to me that the last two are linked; if you aren't using your sights then your group will open up "but that's what we want to happen"...
Once again, sorry fot the OT and the thread derailment.