Question about Disclosure

imported post

I don't think the law creates a provision for "carrying under the authority of a CPL" ... that's a term people are making up ... a perfectly reasonable one BTW ... but I'm not sure it has any legal standing.

As written, I think the law states that if you have a CPL, and you're carrying concealed, you must disclose to a LEO if stopped ... regardless of where the stop takes place (even if it's in your own home).

For me ... the key is whether you are being "stopped". If the LEO comes to the door to investigate YOU, you're being stopped. If he comes to the door to tell you to lock your windows and doors because there's a prowler in the area ... you're not being stopped.

But that said ... my policy is to err on the side of caution. For instance ... recently, a guy ran into my car and smacked up the bumper. We called the police to come out and do a report. When the deputy showed up, I disclosed to her that I was CCing. Was I required to? Technically, probably not, I don't think she was "stopping" me. But I figured better a funny look (which she gave me) ... then not saying anything, having my gun accidentally show, and having her flip out and order me to the ground at gunpoint.

imported post

Keep in mind also the bit that says that "a person shall not carry a concealed pistol" exception that says "unless that person is inside their dwelling house"...

It is legal to conceal, inside your home, without a CPL.

The requirement to disclose is a part of the CPL statute.

Since you don't need a CPL to conceal in your own home, you do not need to abide by the CPL statute while you are in your own home.

I would read this to say you do not need to disclose.

I have to run out so I don't have time to look up the cite but I know you guys will find it...

ETA: I'm not a lawyer

imported post

I would say, that you dont need a permission slip to conceal in your property, but you still have to disclose.

imported post

northofnowhere wrote:

What the nitty gritty in this discussion seems to be in the term "stopped" which is how the law words it. I could not find a legal definition so i would go by a dictionary definition.

Click to expand...

The problem is the courts look at "stop" with a LEO based upon the totality of the circumstances. It is a very technical question in a legal sense. Several different factors to consider and they are all assessed to determine if you were really stopped. The answer would be dependent on the specific facts of the situation. For instance, you could be sitting on a public bench waiting for a parade to start and be stopped. You could be on your evening jog and be stopped. There are a lot of factors to look and hard to assess in non-specific hypotheticals.

However, a cop coming to your door to ask "did you see the car involved in the drive-by shooting" during a neighborhood canvas is less likely to be a stop than the dispatch center received a call about you sitting here with a gun visible on your hip and as an officer, I want to know why you have a gun, what do you need it for, and if legal, can you return it to your vehicle.

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

I don't think the law creates a provision for "carrying under the authority of a CPL" ... that's a term people are making up ... a perfectly reasonable one BTW ... but I'm not sure it has any legal standing.

Click to expand...

As an attorney, I have seen never seen this a term of art for the CPL statutes or related case law. Though I had to think about it the first time I read, so it might work on a sleepy prosecutor and judge.

But that said ... my policy is to err on the side of caution. This is the exact advice I give when I receive calls on this very issue. Why spend thousands of dollars for what a few seconds could have saved you? There may be no duty, but in this particular cop's eyes (the one you disclose to) you are "grade A" in their book and they may reciprocate the atmosphere of respect that you just showed them. Of course, if you want to spend money, please call me when you are released from police custody.

Click to expand...

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

But that said ... my policy is to err on the side of caution. For instance ... recently, a guy ran into my car and smacked up the bumper. We called the police to come out and do a report. When the deputy showed up, I disclosed to her that I was CCing. Was I required to? Technically, probably not, I don't think she was "stopping" me. But I figured better a funny look (which she gave me) ... then not saying anything, having my gun accidentally show, and having her flip out and order me to the ground at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me, kinda. Just totaled my car about two weeks ago cause some idiot hit me. I always disclose, even if not carrying, so they don't have to wonder if my name goes through their system and they see that I have a CPL. I disclosed I wasn't carrying, and was limping around dazed after a high impact collision, and they must have asked me at least 4 times whether I was carrying or not once I mentioned it. Had I not been in so much pain, I probably would have cared a little more, but I had other things to worry about, like why the hell did I only have PLPD?

imported post

Howare you doing with that? You ok?

imported post

Yep. My knee is still a bit sore if I kneel on it the right way, but it's slowly going away. (Knees slammed the dash REALLY hard. I probably tweaked something, but hey, I'm young and heal quick.. or so they say)

Still looking for a vehicle though. I took a ride from Warren to Dearborn to check out an F-150, and the bastard, knowing I had such a long drive, didn't budge on the price at all once I got down there. Not a dime. I was furious... with construction EVERYWHERE, it took me almost an hour and a half to get there.

Sorry to highjack this thread btw.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

I would say, that you dont need a permission slip to conceal in your property, but you still have to disclose.

Click to expand...

Why? If you don't need permission to conceal in your home/property are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so. If you don't have a CPL and you are concealing in your home are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so.

I would think the contract you entered when getting a CPL is null and void in your own home and you would not have to disclose.

imported post

Ouch ... first, sorry to hear that you got hurt, but glad to hear that you're recovering.

Second ... bit of advice ... I've had great success negotiating price with internet sales managers. Don't even bother with the showroom salespeople and the games they want to play: they have no real authority to set prices anyway. Go into your local dealership, find the car you're interest in, test drive it. Then leave ... don't even bother talking to salesperson about price.

Then ... e-mail a bunch of dealerships within a few hundred miles (including the original dealership, if you like). Tell them this:

"Hello ... I'm looking to buy a Ford F-150 this week ... with the following options. I will buy it from the dealership that offers me the best price. Do you have any of those on the lot and what price are you willing to sell the vehicle for? If you end up offering the best deal I will be by <at such and such a time> to sign the papers."

If you want to throw the original salesperson a bone and see that he gets some commission, add "I was at your dealership yesterday and 'Fred' showed me a vehicle". Sounds like in this care you wouldn't though.

Good luck.

OK ... unhijack!

Still looking for a vehicle though. I took a ride from Warren to Dearborn to check out an F-150, and the bastard, knowing I had such a long drive, didn't budge on the price at all once I got down there. Not a dime. I was furious... with construction EVERYWHERE, it took me almost an hour and a half to get there.

Sorry to highjack this thread btw.

Click to expand...

imported post

That makes perfect LOGICAL sense Venator ... but in the opinion of this CJ Prof, and an actual attorney (see above), that isn't how the law actually reads.

As always, people are free to do what they want ... if they get themselves into trouble there will be a test case to clarify things for the rest of us!

Venator wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I would say, that you dont need a permission slip to conceal in your property, but you still have to disclose.

Click to expand...

Why? If you don't need permission to conceal in your home/property are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so. If you don't have a CPL and you are concealing in your home are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so.

I would think the contract you entered when getting a CPL is null and void in your own home and you would not have to disclose.

Click to expand...

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

That makes perfect LOGICAL sense Venator ... but in the opinion of this CJ Prof, and an actual attorney (see above), that isn't how the law actually reads.

As always, people are free to do what they want ... if they get themselves into trouble there will be a test case to clarify things for the rest of us!

Venator wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

I would say, that you dont need a permission slip to conceal in your property, but you still have to disclose.

Click to expand...

Why? If you don't need permission to conceal in your home/property are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so. If you don't have a CPL and you are concealing in your home are you obligated to disclose? I don't think so.

I would think the contract you entered when getting a CPL is null and void in your own home and you would not have to disclose.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Assume: Both home owners are carrying concealed in their residence.

Two things: Does a person that has no CPL have to disclose to an LEO?

Does a person that has a CPL have to disclose to a LEO?

Explain your answers. If you feel both have to disclose, why? If only the CPL has to disclose, Why?

Do I as a CPL holder give up certain freedoms in my own home just because I have a CPL?



BTW I like discussing things with you and Ms Peirce I learn a lot.

imported post

Venator wrote:

Do I as a CPL holder give up certain freedoms in my own home just because I have a CPL?

Click to expand...

Ianal, but this is a great argument. If I haven't given up anything through an application for a CPL--that is to say that I'm applying for for EXTRA privileges in addition to existing privileges--then I should have the same legal protection in-home than I do prior to the CPL application, in addition to EXTRA legal protections. To wit: I have only gained in privilege, not given up or traded any existing legal privileges.

ETA: if I'm driving on my own property, am I required to present a DL upon request? Thinking aloud, but I'm wondering how the DL statutes are written...


side note: why is it that I need "legal protection" from the aggressions of the state?

imported post

Venator (and others),

Below is the applicable MCL:

Note the language in (3) ... it doesn't provide for any exceptions (including being in one's own home) ... neither does any other part of 28.425f.

As I said earlier ... I agree with you that this is stupid. It probably is NOT what the legislature intended, and a reasonable LEO / prosecutor MIGHT decline to charge a homeowner CPL for failure to disclose (on the very basis that you stated ... a homeowner NON-CPL would have had no duty to disclose under the same circumstances).

All I'm saying is that the letter of the law is what it is (or at least, it appears to me)

---

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.Sec. 5f.
(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
(4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00.
(5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined as follows:
(a) For a first offense, by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months, or both.
(b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked.
(6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this section, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that issued the license of that determination.
(7) A pistol carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The individual has his or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.
(b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol.
(8) As used in this section, "peace officer" includes a motor carrier officer appointed under section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d, and security personnel employed by the state under section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

imported post

I just wanted to reiterate Venator's appreciation toward Ms. Pearce and CrimDoc for posting in these discussions. Thank-you both for your continued participation.

ETA: My read of 750.227 is that, because of the exemption, the licensing requirements do not apply when at home and therefore neither can the penalties. Reading 28.425f without 750.227 makes no sense because 28.425f necessarily depends upon the 750.227 requirement. Without the latter, there is no reason for the existence of the former. In other words, without a requirement for licensing, there can be no penalty for violation.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person...except in his or her dwelling house...without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Click to expand...

Imo, the "if licensed" wording doesn't come into play for the exceptioned cases. Since there is no requirement to be licensed under scenario A, the creation of a license of for scenario B can only create penalties for scenario B.

A thing is legal until there is a statute prohibiting it.
There is no statute prohibiting it.
Then it must still be legal.

There can be no penalty for legal activity.

28.425f depends upon and only applies to those scenarios required by 750.227.

imported post

Hmm ... thinking it through some more, that DOES actually make legal sense to me.

750.227 prohibits CC ONLY outside the home ... and makes a provision for exemption in the case that one has a license.

Hence ... if one is not CCing outside the home, one does not need to "invoke" the license exemption that carries the disclosure requirement.

You guys might be right on this one ... though, being the cowardly guy that I am, I still don't want to become the test case on it. :lol:


CoonDog wrote:

I just wanted to reiterate Venator's appreciation toward Ms. Pearce and CrimDoc for posting in these discussions. Thank-you both for your continued participation.

ETA: My read of 750.227 is that, because of the exemption, the licensing requirements do not apply when at home and therefore neither can the penalties. Reading 28.425f without 750.227 makes no sense because 28.425f necessarily depends upon the 750.227 requirement. Without the latter, there is no reason for the existence of the former. In other words, without a requirement for licensing, there can be no penalty for violation.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person...except in his or her dwelling house...without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Click to expand...

Imo, the "if licensed" wording doesn't come into play for the exceptioned cases. Since there is no requirement to be licensed under scenario A, the creation of a license of for scenario B can only create penalties for scenario B.

A thing is legal until there is a statute prohibiting it.
There is no statute prohibiting it.
Then it must still be legal.

There can be no penalty for legal activity.

28.425f depends upon and only applies to those scenarios required by 750.227.

Click to expand...

imported post

i think you're right crimdoc, you don't need the "protective powers" of your cpl to carry in your house. hence, you could leave your license in your car and conceal in your house and still not violate your cpl. normally, not having the license on your person would be a violation, but not, i think, in this case.

imported post

Although one could argue, and here is why. Observe the following two laws:

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.

Click to expand...

Sec. 5f.
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:

Click to expand...

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty. Sec. 227.
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such

Click to expand...

It could be argued that, because of the way these laws are written, a person WITHOUT A CPL would be legal to carry concealed in the dwelling house, and would not have to disclose, because they are not "Licensed under this act (28.425f) to carry a concealed pistol..."

whereas, a person WITH A CPL would have to disclose because they would, in fact, be "licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and... carrying a concealed pistol"

imported post

EC, in order to support that argument, you would have to also argue that a person gives up a previous privilege when applying for new privileges. Do you believe that a person loses the privilege to CC in their home when they apply for a CPL, only to conditionally regain it?

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

EC, in order to support that argument, you would have to also argue that a person gives up a previous privilege when applying for new privileges. Do you believe that a person loses the privilege to CC in their home when they apply for a CPL, only to conditionally regain it?

Click to expand...

No, I don't.

I was the one who initially stated the thesis for this entire part of the conversation, which is that since you do not need a CPL to conceal in your home, you do not need to disclose while in your home.

I was merely pointing these wordings out to highlight the possibility that an officer or court official might do the same.