• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Detained in the city of lapeer.

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Couple of things to point out:

School has been adjourned for summer break. So no classes / education of children were taking place at the time of this incident right? Which is the sole purpose of the Federal ban to "ensure" that no children are hurt by guns. We all know that criminals obey the law right? Can any say Columbine High School Massacre...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Which is why "Robert" chose to carry there officer! It baffles me that this baffles officers, or anyone else?

I assume that there were rides/tickets being sold along with refreshments etc.. being sold, so again, the venue was no longer being used for education. If this was the case.It was being used as a PUBLIC FOR PROFIT entertainment venue & not for education. We'll see how this plays out. Should charges be brought, I will gladly donate to your legal defense fund "Robert".
 
Last edited:

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
According to 18 USC § 922 q(2)(B)(ii), you are exempt from the Federal Gun Free School Zone since you are a Michigan CPL Holder.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

You might consider talking to the Police Chief and the Prosecutor about it to "nip it in the bud". I would hate to see someone the victim of a "Federal Fishing Trip"...
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
PD, thinking out loud for a moment, I've read that section generally to mean "a person licensed by the state to carry a firearm". But I could see a prosecutor interpreting the language more specifically to mean, "a person licensed by the state to carry a firearm on school grounds". I think this broader interpretation fails because there is a substantial difference between school grounds and the 1000 foot radius mentioned in the federal code.

On the other hand, the prosecutor could interpret the language specifically to mean, "a person licensed by the state to carry a firearm in a Gun Free School Zone", but the State of Michigan code does not offer a corresponding definition OR license for such a distinction.

In either of the narrow definitions, the SOM does license OC with a CPL on school grounds, so the issue is moot. Again, I'm just thinking about how a prosecutor might view the federal GFSZ code more narrowly than my own conventional thinking.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
According to 18 USC § 922 q(2)(B)(ii), you are exempt from the Federal Gun Free School Zone since you are a Michigan CPL Holder.

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

And I say that the GFSZ act is a moot point when it comes to legal pistol possession in MI since our License to Purchase/Possess a Pistol meets the requirments of the exemption listed in the GFSZ act.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

...

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

MCL 28.422

28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.
Sec. 2.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.

So ANY person that has obtained a MI License to Purchase/Possess has met the plain language written requirements to be exempt from the Fed. GFSZ act.

The only residents of MI that can be hit for pistol possession within a Fed. GFSZ act are people that are possessing that pistol in violation of MI law.

That's the way I see it anyway...but I'm not a lawyer so it's worth what you paid for it.

Bronson
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
In this case he would have been required to show ID since he was OC in a PFZ ??
My question would be....
Can you be required to show something that you're not required to carry?
Michigan isn't listed with the generally known "Stop and Identify" states.

Driving is a licensed activity and one is required to carry one's license in his/her possession or face the consequences. (In Georgia, it's a $20.00 fine and no points, the police Captain I spoke to over the 4th of July weekend said his officer's wouldn't even bother since in-car computers can display a picture of any licensed driver to compare to any stopped driver.)

Living... as far as I can determine isn't a licensed activity, and no identification is required to live.

"I'm goint to be forwarding this matter to the Lapeer Prosecutor's Officce and to Federal Authorities."
I've always believed in supporting my local police department and in helping people visualize their dreams, I'd probably have responded "Well good luck with that, Sparky. I wish you all the luck in the world."
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
In this case he would have been required to show ID since he was OC in a PFZ ??

I think it is not so much a "requirement"; it just may be more "prudent". My contention is that by exhibiting behavior that for at least 90% of the adult population would be prima facie illegal, it may be wise to dispel the notion that the behavior is illegal as quickly as possible. If the decision is made by the carrier not to show ID, then I believe at that point the officer may decide that an arrest is warranted, based upon "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"
Remember that in Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983) the threshold of probable cause is that there is a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity.
The original stop would most likely be legal as the SCOTUS has ruled that the police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968))

I guess what bothers me about the situation in Michigan is that if a pistol is carried concealed on school property (no one can see it), even though illegal, would allow neither RS no PC. The OC of a pistol on the same property, although legal by a person with a CPL, can easily allow an officer to form RS and, subsequently PC.
This is why it is IMPERATIVE that CC of a pistol by a CPL holder be made legal... immediately.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
And I say that the GFSZ act is a moot point when it comes to legal pistol possession in MI since our License to Purchase/Possess a Pistol meets the requirments of the exemption listed in the GFSZ act.



MCL 28.422



So ANY person that has obtained a MI License to Purchase/Possess has met the plain language written requirements to be exempt from the Fed. GFSZ act.

The only residents of MI that can be hit for pistol possession within a Fed. GFSZ act are people that are possessing that pistol in violation of MI law.

That's the way I see it anyway...but I'm not a lawyer so it's worth what you paid for it.

Bronson

What if you registered a pistol as a CPL holder (an exemption from the LTPCPT) and then let the CPL lapse... would you be able to prove that you possessed a valid license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol?
Also, as I recall, the LTPCPT is really only valid for 5 days, which allows the purchase and the registration. Murky waters here, my friends.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
lapeer+detained+report+edited.jpg


lapeer+detained+report+edited+2.jpg


This sort of underscores what many here have found: our biggest issues oftentimes are not with people who do not own or carry firearms, rather it is with those who do and think that their opinions are paramount to everyone else's.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
What if you registered a pistol as a CPL holder (an exemption from the LTPCPT) and then let the CPL lapse... would you be able to prove that you possessed a valid license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol?
Also, as I recall, the LTPCPT is really only valid for 5 days, which allows the purchase and the registration. Murky waters here, my friends.

Not so murky. All the feds want is that a person has had a background check and can legally possess a firearm in the state the school is in, in this case a handgun (not so sure about long guns as a licenses to purchase is not required.). MI registration law meets that requirement. In regards to a CPL purchased pistol and then it expires, well at the time of purchase and to this day that weapon was/is registered and the person was approved by the state at the time to purchase it.

So all requirements needed for federal exemption have been made.

Again all my opinions IANAL.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Not so murky. All the feds want is that a person has had a background check and can legally possess a firearm in the state the school is in, in this case a handgun (not so sure about long guns as a licenses to purchase is not required.). MI registration law meets that requirement. In regards to a CPL purchased pistol and then it expires, well at the time of purchase and to this day that weapon was/is registered and the person was approved by the state at the time to purchase it.

So all requirements needed for federal exemption have been made.

Again all my opinions IANAL.


An opinion, yes, but one that can have dire consequences. The ATF is not firearm-owner friendly* and without anything that explicitly says that an expired License to Purchase counts as an exemption, I would be very cautious.

* see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-147503.html
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
No word from the police department or the prosecutor.

I did speak with the director of 911 about how the dispatchers can provide pertinent information to responding officers when they receive a 911 call. Basically how the information regarding criminal activity is different than a mwag in a holster who doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal.

Lapeer county 911 is in my opinion one of the best 911 centers in the state, if not the country.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I usually look at things like this as "no news is good news".

I was looking up some preemption legal info the other day and came across a brief written by the aclu regarding med weed; they gave some citations of Michigan legal opinions supporting the notion that local/state LEO have NO authority to submit that info on to the feds. Their argument was based upon the way MI gave certain powers to local government, which is explicitly referenced in the particular MCL for each "corporation"
For example, in regards to a charter township, nowhere in the MCL does it state that "enforcing federal law" is one of their powers... and enforcement could be construed from notification. I'm responding on my phone so I don't have it handy, but it may be worth a Google search. When I get back home on Sunday I'll provide the case; have it bookmarked on my home computer...or I can PM it to you too.
 
Top