Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: strange incounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member nate0486's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    As I posted before on Saturday I oc'ed at home depot for about a hour and a half. I was shopping to buy supplies to build steps at my friends new house.

    I noticed a guy glance a few times at my gun but didnt think about it too much. Kept aware of him just to make sure everything was ok.

    Yesterday I was at a bowling ally watching my bro bowl. A guy (the guy from home depot) came up to me and said"you were at home depot on sat" i told him I was to which he replied "and you had something on you hip". I said yes. He goes "I noticed the gun and my friend I was with is a macomb county LEO. We followed you just to make sure everything was ok."

    We made a little small talk after that. He said that the NEW oc law was cool. I told him that is was not a new law. I directed him and advised him to inform his friend about this web site.

    I found it funny that me oc'ing made such a big impact on him he remembered me days later.

    Anyone else have anything like this happen. Just wondering if this is common.
    its better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.....unknown

  2. #2
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    in your small talk did you happen to mention the obvious that a person with criminal intent wouldn't broadcast his having a weapon openly displayed?

  3. #3
    Regular Member nate0486's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    I did. He said he figured that a guy with a gun out in the open prob was not the person to be worried about. He did mention that he knew open carry was legal.
    its better to be judged by twelve then carried by six.....unknown

  4. #4
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    that "law" was passed over 150 years ago....if its new to him,he's one old fella!
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    1835 in fact, with regard to Michigan's statehood:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...tution1835.htm

    Right to bear arms.

    13. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
    Whereas the 2A is clearly protecting a pre-existing right, it's never been clear to me whether the intent in the Michigan constitution is the same as 2A, or if it was written in a way to appear to be "granting" a new right. I lean toward the idea that rights are inherent, so if granted by the state, it should be written as a "privilege to bear arms". Anyone have a opinion on the wording in the Michigan constitution?





  6. #6
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    1835 in fact, with regard to Michigan's statehood:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...tution1835.htm

    Right to bear arms.

    13. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
    Whereas the 2A is clearly protecting a pre-existing right, it's never been clear to me whether the intent in the Michigan constitution is the same as 2A, or if it was written in a way to appear to be "granting" a new right. I lean toward the idea that rights are inherent, so if granted by the state, it should be written as a "privilege to bear arms". Anyone have a opinion on the wording in the Michigan constitution?




    Affirmation of the right IMOP
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •