Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: New Guy on the Formus

  1. #1
    Regular Member Todd Madurski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Warren, MI.
    Posts
    5

    Lightbulb New Guy on the Formus

    Hello everyone!

    Out of curiosity, have we discussed or is there a discussion for changing the CPL laws that place excessive additional regulations to issuance of a CPL? I mean, if you can legally purchase and own a firearm, shouldnt you be able to get a CPL (after an approved training course)?

    Also, what about the motor vehicle rule? I understand the definition of "concealment" as given by Webster, but then...anytime you are not in direct total view of a person, or blocked by an object you are technically "concealed" by said object. It would seem that open carry is open carry...regardless of whether it's on the street, in yolur house, or in your vehicle. Saying that there cannot be open carry in a vehicle seems to be an infringement.

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Scooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dundee, Michigan
    Posts
    283
    First, Welcome to the board!
    Being that Michigan is a "shall issue" state, there is only the issue of age and felony keeping someone from getting a CPL. My view is if you can legally purchase/own a firearm you should certainly be able to get a CPL. Some argue that even someone with a felony on their record should be able to OC/CC/have a CPL. I have not made up my mind on that one yet.
    As far as "OC in your car" I think it should be understood that OC is considered "in 'plain view' of the casual observer" so to speak. If you enter a vehicle the firearm is no longer in plain view of anyone outside, so it is deemed concealed. If you are out and about and you walk behind a tree it is not concealed, just obscured. If we had to worry about our firearms being obscurred by this or that while going about our business what a nightmare that would be! You would have to make sure EVERYONE sees your gun purposely at all times! Try walking around sideways with your strongeside hip pointed at the general public, that wouldn't be any fun...or would it..? I think the definitions usually rely on the "reasonable man" view.
    Personally, if you can legally own a firearm you should be able to carry it anyway you want, anywhere you want. Go figure, right?
    Again, welcome to the board!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    You can get a reckless driving ticket and still buy a gun, but you can't get a CPL for 8 years. Heck, you can get busted twice for DUI and still be able to buy a gun...still can't get a CPL for 8 years.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MarineSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Allendale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    195
    Welcome! See my sigline.
    Someone who can't be trusted to walk free in public with a firearm shouldn't be walking around free.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    You can get a reckless driving ticket and still buy a gun, but you can't get a CPL for 8 years. Heck, you can get busted twice for DUI and still be able to buy a gun...still can't get a CPL for 8 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The first step in taking away the right to bear arms begins with making the bearing of arms a privilege people must ask permission to have. Next will be any type of carry other than the privilege of carrying with a license blessed by the government will be illegal. And after that the qualifications for getting the license will become more restrictive... until only those with that licensed privilege will be just those in the government.
    Welcome to Mr. Madurski!!!

    I snitched a portion of a post of mine from another discussion... it just seemed so appropriate....
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Todd Madurski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Warren, MI.
    Posts
    5

    More queries...

    Im not saying your intrepretation of the OC in a vehicle is wrong, but the law says you "MAY" be in violation of 231....but then again, any purpose that isnt illegal, by definition, is then legal. Does that stand up to the "reasonable person" test? or am I way off on this one.

    As far as felony convictions, I know factually that they cant own, register, or purchase a firearm. Ergo, a CPL should come standard equipment when you register your gun

    The only people worried about OC in a vehicle are the cops. Nobody else sees it if you're going about your business traveling here and there, unless you wave it around like an idiot.

    Im all for walking strong side out towards people, I think we should strut that stuff! hahaha

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Madurski View Post
    Hello everyone!

    Out of curiosity, have we discussed or is there a discussion for changing the CPL laws that place excessive additional regulations to issuance of a CPL? I mean, if you can legally purchase and own a firearm, shouldnt you be able to get a CPL (after an approved training course)?

    Also, what about the motor vehicle rule? I understand the definition of "concealment" as given by Webster, but then...anytime you are not in direct total view of a person, or blocked by an object you are technically "concealed" by said object. It would seem that open carry is open carry...regardless of whether it's on the street, in yolur house, or in your vehicle. Saying that there cannot be open carry in a vehicle seems to be an infringement.

    Any thoughts?
    Todd,
    Glad you are here. I know that many refer to anything in a vehicle as concealed, but technically that is not correct. The charge really is carrying a pistol in a vehicle which IS also listed under the concealed law.

    750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
    Sec. 227.

    (1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any 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.

    (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 license.

    (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.


    History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.227 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 206, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 8, Eff. July 1, 1986
    Constitutionality: The double jeopardy protection against multiple punishment for the same offense is a restriction on a court's ability to impose punishment in excess of that intended by the Legislature, not a limit on the Legislature's power to define crime and fix punishment. People v Sturgis, 427 Mich 392; 397 NW2d 783 (1986).
    Former Law: See section 5 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, 16753.


    2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

    Also, the CPL law:

    28.425c License; form; authorized conduct.
    Sec. 5c.
    (2) Subject to section 5o and except as otherwise provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by the county
    concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee to do all of the following:
    (a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.
    (b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed, anywhere in this state.


    And, in regards to something just blocking a pistol, I refer you to:

    Office of the Attorney General State of Michigan

    Opinion No. 3158 February 14, 1945

    CONCEALED WEAPONS - General discussion relative to concealed weapons.

    Mr. Clyde H. Edgar, Sheriff, Jackson County, Jackson MI

    Dear Sir:

    Your letter addressed to the Michigan State Police and dated January 31, 1945 has been referred to me for reply. In your letter you ask substantially the following questions on weapons or firearms:
    1. Is a weapon considered concealed when carried in a holster outside of all the clothing of a Person? 2. Is it necessary to have a license to carry a concealed pistol when such pistol is being transported from a city home to a place in the country, each of which places is owned by the party transporting the pistol, when the purpose of such transportation is target practice? Would the answer be the same if the place to which the pistol was being transported was owned by a near relative?

    3. If a pistol is carried concealed or openly, with clip or cylinder removed, must a license be obtained?4. A number of our local factories hire men for guard work only and furnish them with guns while on duty only. Is it necessary for them to have licenses to carry such guns?

    The late Wm. W. Potter rendered an opinion in April of 1927 on the subject of your first questions and I quote the following from that opinion:"The statute does not mean or import that no part of the weapons should be concealed, but the offense is only committed when the weapon is so concealed that it is impossible for one approaching in view of the person carrying the weapon to see any part of it. All that the Legislature meant when it prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons was to compel persons to so wear them that others who might come in contact with them might see that they were armed and dangerous persons, who were to be avoided in consequence, for, if it should be required that no part of the weapon should be concealed, the statute would amount to an infringement of the constitutional right of citizens to have and bear arms, since it would be impossible for one to have and bear about his person a pistol or weapon of any kind without having some part of it concealed. (Stockdale v. State, 32 Ga. 225, 227).

    "I am, therefore, of the opinion that if a pistol is carried in a holster or belt, on the outside of the clothing so as to be in plain view, it does not constitute carrying a concealed weapon. If it is worn under a coat, it would be, in my judgment, a violation of the statute, as the same would then not be in plain view." I agree with the conclusions reached in that opinion.

    Relative to your second question, it is my opinion that Section 231 of Chapter 27 of the penal Code of the State of Michigan (Sec. 28.428, Mich. Stat. Ann.) fairly defines the exceptions to the licensing act and therefore it is quoted:"The provisions of the second, third, sixth and seventh sections of this chapter shall not apply to any peace officer of the state or any subdivision thereof who is regularly employed and paid by the state or such subdivisions, or to any member of the army, navy or marine corps of the United States or of organizations authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state, nor to the national guard or other duly authorized military organizations when on duty or drill, nor the members
    thereof in going to or returning from their customary places of assembly or practice, nor by another state, nor to the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise, or to any person while carrying a pistol unloaded in a wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his home or place of business, or in moving goods from one place of abode or business to another."This section does not except the case of a person transporting a pistol from his city to his country home for target practice and it is therefore my opinion that it would be illegal to do so without the license to carry concealed weapons. The same would certainly be true in case the pistol was being transported to a place owned by a near relative.

    Answering your third question, it is my opinion that, if carried, openly, no license would be required since the weapon would not be concealed. However, if carried concealed, a license would be required regardless of whether the clip or cylinder were removed.
    People v. Williamson, 200 Mich. 342.Replying to your fourth question, Opinion No. 0-926, dated July 6, 1943, copy of which is enclosed, relative to plant protection men who are members of the auxiliary military police, seems to cover that situation adequately. However, as to plant protection men who are not members of military police auxiliary, it is my opinion that a license to carry concealed weapons is required.

    No license would be required if the weapons are carried openly.

    Very truly yours,

    JOHN R. DETHMERSAttorney General
    Last edited by DrTodd; 02-15-2011 at 07:36 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    Thank you for pointing that out Dr. Todd. I have made that exact argument several times.

    A pistol in plain sight in a vehicle is not necessarily concealed legally or magically, but without a cpl is still unlawful transport.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    363
    Welcome!!!!!

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by lapeer20m View Post
    Thank you for pointing that out Dr. Todd. I have made that exact argument several times.

    A pistol in plain sight in a vehicle is not necessarily concealed legally or magically, but without a cpl is still unlawful transport.
    Bingo! I know I can sound a little [fill in word of choice here] about quoting the law and not trying to inject how you or I may tend to remember the law. If Todd had thought "Well gee, it says "concealed" carry is illegal in the update, but in a car the pistol COULD be put on the dashboard and that would be OC, so I'm good to go" he would be stopped as soon as it is observed by a LEO or a citizen makes a call... and I don't think they would listen to WHY he thought he could.

    BTW, just a small comment to Todd and others regarding the statement in the update: An individual, without a CPL or otherwise exempted (e.g., a police officer), who transports a pistol in a vehicle to an area where he or she intends to “open carry” may be in violation of MCL 750.227."

    I believe, but could be wrong, what the author is refering to is that one can transport a pistol ONLY if certain criteria are met aka "transportation of pistols in a vehicle for a “lawful purpose.” A lawful purpose includes going to or from any one of the following:
     A hunting or target area
     A place of repair
     Moving goods from a home or business to
    another home or business
     A law enforcement agency
     A gun show or place of sale or purchase
     A public shooting facility
     Public land where shooting is legal
     Private property where a pistol may be lawfully used

    These are the situations when transporting in your trunk would be EXPLICITLY legal.

    So...let's say that a person without a CPL decides to attend one of the OC meet-ups we have... which is taking place at a public park. The problem is that there is not a LISTED exception for that scenario.

    But wait, it says that the "lawful purpose" list includes these scenarios, not that it is limited to that list.

    Correct, BUT that would be up for a jury to decide, if an overzealous prosecutor wanted to push the issue. Probably wouldn't happen, but you never know.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 02-15-2011 at 08:01 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  11. #11
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Welcome

    ETA: Hey this was post 1,000!!! Talk about a good WELCOME!!!
    Last edited by eastmeyers; 02-15-2011 at 10:21 PM.
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  12. #12
    Regular Member quarter horseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Allegan co Michigan, USA
    Posts
    345
    Welcome to OC carry on!

  13. #13
    Regular Member MarineSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Allendale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    195
    From what I have HEARD, unfortunately I can't remember where, but... If a pistol breaks the plane of the door or window of a car, it is now considered concealed (if it is inside the vehicle). It doesn't matter if your pistol is hanging from your rear-view mirror, it's still considered concealed.
    Someone who can't be trusted to walk free in public with a firearm shouldn't be walking around free.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    But wait, it says that the "lawful purpose" list includes these scenarios, not that it is limited to that list.

    Correct, BUT that would be up for a jury to decide, if an overzealous prosecutor wanted to push the issue. Probably wouldn't happen, but you never know.
    In fact the law used to, by it's wording, restrict transport to those examples. In Traverse City about 1.5 years ago a guy was charged with illegal transport of a handgun, because the LEO AND prosecutor thought you could only carry to/from those places.

    Goes before the judge who says, I can't find on a law that was changed two years ago...ooops. So it can happen but the issue is much more known now because of the OC increase.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    In fact the law used to, by it's wording, restrict transport to those examples. In Traverse City about 1.5 years ago a guy was charged with illegal transport of a handgun, because the LEO AND prosecutor thought you could only carry to/from those places.

    Goes before the judge who says, I can't find on a law that was changed two years ago...ooops. So it can happen but the issue is much more known now because of the OC increase.
    Yep, I knew what the law used to say, but did not know about the court case. Reminds me of a Muskegon County prosecutor who tried to argue that a CPL holder could not OC at a hospital. What floors me is these "professionals" can't even read the law.
    If one of us claimed that we had misunderstood the law and were arrested, would they just drop the charges? Furthermore, if did my job with such clear disregard to proper conduct, I would be brought before the tenure commission.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SlowDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Redford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    424
    Isn't it funny hoe LEO's can violate our rights and break the law and it's OK because they misunderstood the law or it changed and they were ignorant of the fact.

    For us it's an immediate charge looking to get the maximum fines and or jail time. Makes ya kinda wonder if they're really out to protect us or CONTROL us....hahahahahahahahaha<sarcasm>
    Only two have offered their lives for you. A Soldier and Jesus....

  17. #17
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Yep, I knew what the law used to say, but did not know about the court case. Reminds me of a Muskegon County prosecutor who tried to argue that a CPL holder could not OC at a hospital. What floors me is these "professionals" can't even read the law.
    If one of us claimed that we had misunderstood the law and were arrested, would they just drop the charges? Furthermore, if did my job with such clear disregard to proper conduct, I would be brought before the tenure commission.
    Wasn't he the one who stated that the way the law was written was not what it meant? and if I recall right he made the statement at a Gun Board meeting to have the CPL holders permit revoked? Which it was, but got it back in about 3 hours.
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Onnie View Post
    Wasn't he the one who stated that the way the law was written was not what it meant? and if I recall right he made the statement at a Gun Board meeting to have the CPL holders permit revoked? Which it was, but got it back in about 3 hours.
    Yes he was! I should have probably included the outcome, thanks for doing that Onnie. I wouldn't want anyone to think this idiotic interpretation was in any way upheld.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Todd Madurski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Warren, MI.
    Posts
    5

    Lightbulb Continuation....

    I think the law has effectively done what they intended to do...write such vague crap that we spend all our time on discussion boards trying to figure out what they mean rather than marching on Lansing and doing it Egypt-style!

    I think it's time to kick it up a notch and start a petition to remove the "no OC in a vehicle without CPL" section of that law....anyone else with me on this?

    Secondly, why is there NOBODY from Michigan that post on GunsXchange.com and GunsAndAmmoTrader.com? that sucks!

    Semper Fi!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    16
    My favorite line from the Prosecutor in that case was "I don't think you're entitled to know more about the law than I do..." Well then maybe you should learn the law, you're entitled to uphold.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    I remember listening to he audio and thought to myself, what a friken jerk!
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

Posting Permissions

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