SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
David in MI wrote:
David in MI wrote:
Because he would not be on the premises. The firearm must stay in the vehicle.
-
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.
Ok, who was at Kroger in Davison???????
- Thread starter yowilhelm
- Start date
David in MI
Regular Member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Gotcha. I didn't read into this the fact that he leaves the firearm in the vehicle.
This happened in my hometown andthe story seems to be lacking a bit in the details. Argument in the parking lot, a gun is partially withdrawn from a trunk, cars vacate the premises and yet no ticket for brandishing.
SpringerXDacp wrote:
Gotcha. I didn't read into this the fact that he leaves the firearm in the vehicle.
This happened in my hometown andthe story seems to be lacking a bit in the details. Argument in the parking lot, a gun is partially withdrawn from a trunk, cars vacate the premises and yet no ticket for brandishing.
FatboyCykes
Regular Member
imported post
David in MI wrote:
David in MI wrote:
He doesn't carry into the store, but leaves the pistol in the car I would think.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Venator wrote:
What's worse, the way the firearm laws are written, anyone who walks into a store (a gun shop where no alcohol is sold) and walks out with the newly purchasedpistol(s)arein violation of 231a. This (231a) is supposed to be amended to correct this problem.
ETA: RE a non-registered pistol.
Venator wrote:
What's worse, the way the firearm laws are written, anyone who walks into a store (a gun shop where no alcohol is sold) and walks out with the newly purchasedpistol(s)arein violation of 231a. This (231a) is supposed to be amended to correct this problem.
ETA: RE a non-registered pistol.
lil_freak_66
Regular Member
imported post
David in MI wrote:
David in MI wrote:
its possible that the LEO's feel that it might have been brought out for a possible imminent self defense,then there wouldnt be a charge,also if it was just made visible then its not really brandishing,they said nobody had it pointed at them.
David in MI
Regular Member
imported post
lil_freak_66 wrote:
lil_freak_66 wrote:
Exactly-lots of possibilities. Can't wait to hear the real story.
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
David in MI wrote:
David in MI wrote:
Maybe I'm weird but it is stories like this one we are discussing that I really don't give a small burst of flatulence windward about.
David in MI
Regular Member
imported post
Bikenut wrote:
Bikenut wrote:
If this happened in Saginaw I would feel the same.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
i have open carried in that kroger store on several occasions.
i have open carried in that kroger store on several occasions.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
David in MI wrote:
David in MI wrote:
He keeps his firearm in the car off their property. He then does his shopping sans the firearm. He returns to his vehicle and drives away. Totally legal.
RabbiVJ
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Venator wrote:
Venator wrote:
yeah but is this law ever enforced?
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
I would say that if you buy a gun from a liquor licensed department store, that you have implied consent to have it there at least as long as it takes to buy it, pack it up and leave. I could not imagine a court ruling otherwise, because if the store didn't consent, they wouldn't have sold it.
I would say that if you buy a gun from a liquor licensed department store, that you have implied consent to have it there at least as long as it takes to buy it, pack it up and leave. I could not imagine a court ruling otherwise, because if the store didn't consent, they wouldn't have sold it.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
RabbiVJ wrote:
RabbiVJ wrote:
Not that I'm aware of, But if a single department wants to jack up a person they might.
chevytaHOE5674
Regular Member
imported post
lil_freak_66 wrote:
Last I saw walmart UP here still sells firearms.
lil_freak_66 wrote:
Last I saw walmart UP here still sells firearms.
lil_freak_66
Regular Member
imported post
chevytaHOE5674 wrote:
down here they dont sell anymore,havent for about a year and a half.
still can find muzzleloaders on occasion at some stores,and they still sell ammo.
as forthe law being enforced,it would be hard to enforce cuz they gotta have RAS to search the vehicle,but its still illegal and alot of unknowing gun owners would probably consent to a search if asked,not knowing that its illegal,and getting into a bunch of sh*t because of it.
chevytaHOE5674 wrote:
down here they dont sell anymore,havent for about a year and a half.
still can find muzzleloaders on occasion at some stores,and they still sell ammo.
as forthe law being enforced,it would be hard to enforce cuz they gotta have RAS to search the vehicle,but its still illegal and alot of unknowing gun owners would probably consent to a search if asked,not knowing that its illegal,and getting into a bunch of sh*t because of it.
stainless1911
Banned
imported post
If they see you with it, someone complains, or maybe see you on video, then they have RAS.
If they see you with it, someone complains, or maybe see you on video, then they have RAS.
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
stainless1911 wrote:
RAS implies reasonable, articulatable suspicion of a crime. As I already said, it is possible someone keeping a gun in their trunk has an out of state CCW type license. It is also possible they have a CPL, and don't wish to carry it or misplaced it.
A cop might search an OCer and try to use it as RAS. He might even defeat a federal color of law lawsuit against him for it, using under trained stupidity as an excuse. But a good lawyer should be able to use the exclusionary rule to make the search and all evidence found as a result inadmissible.
stainless1911 wrote:
No, that is not the case.
RAS implies reasonable, articulatable suspicion of a crime. As I already said, it is possible someone keeping a gun in their trunk has an out of state CCW type license. It is also possible they have a CPL, and don't wish to carry it or misplaced it.
A cop might search an OCer and try to use it as RAS. He might even defeat a federal color of law lawsuit against him for it, using under trained stupidity as an excuse. But a good lawyer should be able to use the exclusionary rule to make the search and all evidence found as a result inadmissible.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
stainless1911 wrote:
Florida v. J.L. addresses this (anonymous tip).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZO.html
stainless1911 wrote:
Florida v. J.L. addresses this (anonymous tip).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZO.html
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
I still say that the evidence would be rendered inadmissible at trial, if the charges weren't simply dropped for lack of a crime, because it would be quite possible that the guy was following all laws. I have personally trunked my pistol to avoid having to carry my CPL. It does happen this way legally at times.
SpringerXDacp wrote:
As an example, you could take it beyond the scope of JL v Florida. Let's say we're talking about a walmart. An off duty cop sees someone loading up at their trunk. Being real familiar with the laws, but not enough, he agrees with stainless's RAS assessment, and calls 911, giving his name, and all the details, offering to watch the guy until the uniformed police come out. Let's say you even have a stupid judge, who issues a warrant to search the guy and his car.
I still say that the evidence would be rendered inadmissible at trial, if the charges weren't simply dropped for lack of a crime, because it would be quite possible that the guy was following all laws. I have personally trunked my pistol to avoid having to carry my CPL. It does happen this way legally at times.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Michigander wrote:
Michigander wrote:
In this example, I agree. However, there's never going to be a guarantee the trial will take this route. One of the biggest concerns/problems an OC'er faces in a situation like this is the fact that most LEO's andProsecutor's are well aware that the defendant doesn't have the financial backing to see this through in the event the evidence is not dismissed. :?