• 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.

Hypothetical: Husband and wife have CPLs and this happens?

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
Gotta put my .02 in on this.

Yes he's legal in not notifying. He is not in possession, no duty to notify.
Wife can claim possession since they are in the center console; operator is considered "in possession" of anything in the vehicle. CPL holders can posses anyone's legal handgun.

Did I win anything? :p
 

Gort

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Newport, Michigan, USA
Interesting scenerio.... I also wonder if you take alcohol out of the equasion... if your wife is pulled over and you're riding shotgun and you are carrying... do you need to disclose?

Yes.
A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

To quote OP, Wife is in possession and reports, I have CPL, I am in possession of two weapons. Husband is not in Possession and has no duty.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
If the finding out of the guns in the vehicle was accomplished illegally then that is the point. If not disclosing, how would anyone, without volunteering by the wife, know he is the husband? Why would any LEO(s) even question the passenger if they have no RAS to question. There are many many court cases that uphold that LE is not permitted to question passengers absent RAS.

Please provide a citation of one of the "many court cases" to which you refer. Also, in Michigan, one needs a permit to possess a firearm in a vehicle. The answer as to the legality is "it depends"... If the officer could somehow show possession, which I really don't see how he/she could, then it would be illegal. Although I really don't see how it could be deemed illegal, I used to think that a scenario such as banning firearms in a library located in a state with preemption would also not be seen as "do-able", wonders never cease.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
No question that you are detained, but so what? Only the driver need show a DL, passengers are not required to talk let alone ID themselves.

You sure about that? May get charged with impeding an investigation. Maybe we are a stop an ID state after all. :(

"Police were notified of the situation. When they arrived, the woman told officers that she had no identification on her.

After being informed that if she had an ID and did not present it that she would be arrested for impeding a police investigation, she presented officers with ID that matched the name she had previously given them. It was not the same ID that she had attempted to buy the phones with."

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/09/19/news/doc4e7741a0bc548281377987.txt
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
You sure about that? May get charged with impeding an investigation. Maybe we are a stop an ID state after all. :(

"Police were notified of the situation. When they arrived, the woman told officers that she had no identification on her.

After being informed that if she had an ID and did not present it that she would be arrested for impeding a police investigation, she presented officers with ID that matched the name she had previously given them. It was not the same ID that she had attempted to buy the phones with."

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/09/19/news/doc4e7741a0bc548281377987.txt
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/09/19/news/doc4e7741a0bc548281377987.txt[/QUOTE]I'm

I'm sure. That charge is like Disturbing the public for OCing, they can threaten, they can arrest for anything, but charged, unlikely.

Only the driver needs to present a DL. The passengers are detained via the stop, but they retain the same rights if detained walking down the road. Don't have to answer questions, or ID yourself.
 

Gort

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Newport, Michigan, USA
No question that you are detained, but so what? Only the driver need show a DL, passengers are not required to talk let alone ID themselves.

If Police are detaining you as a passenger, and you have a CPL and a weapon on you, Your cpl licenses requires you to report to the Officer ? Or there is no Weapon in this scenario.
Or I am confused.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
If Police are detaining you as a passenger, and you have a CPL and a weapon on you, Your cpl licenses requires you to report to the Officer ? Or there is no Weapon in this scenario.
Or I am confused.

In this scenario, your gun is possessed by your wife who also has a CPL.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
If Police are detaining you as a passenger, and you have a CPL and a weapon on you, Your cpl licenses requires you to report to the Officer ? Or there is no Weapon in this scenario.
Or I am confused.

I think that's the point, the passenger (husband) is NOT in possession, therefore no requirement to report or ID.

Consider this, If the vehicle is registered to the husband, but the wife is driving, who's in possession of the vehicle? If she's in possession of the vehicle, she's in possession of the contents, INCLUDING the weapons since she has a CPL.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I think that's the point, the passenger (husband) is NOT in possession, therefore no requirement to report or ID.

Consider this, If the vehicle is registered to the husband, but the wife is driving, who's in possession of the vehicle? If she's in possession of the vehicle, she's in possession of the contents, INCLUDING the weapons since she has a CPL.
Not sure it matters in this case who the vehicle is registered to. The same scenario could be in a cab, bus, a friends car, etc...
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Whoever is in the car with the gun would be concealing it. Thats why Im careful not to leave my gun in the car if I step out to pump gas or something while I have a passenger.

The scenario is two people both with CPLs, the wife claims possession and declares to LEO. Husband doesn't have to.

What you are saying is that all people in the car are possessing the firearm. I disagree with that, or every passenger without a CPL would be charged with a CCW when riding in a car with a carrying CPL holder and that doesn't happen.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
Not sure it matters in this case who the vehicle is registered to. The same scenario could be in a cab, bus, a friends car, etc...

Understood, but making an analogy as you said the guns were registered to the husband. Just as if the Vehicle were registered to the husband but the wife was driving, SHE'S in possession. She's in control. As the responsible person in control, she has possession of the vehicle.

Also consider this, it's against the law to have possession of a gun if your BAC is over .02, it's NOT against the law to be NEAR a gun with a BAC over .02. The difference COULD be if the gun were in a holster on HIS belt, then the argument could be made that HE's in possession.

Is there more to the story, is this an actual occurence?
 

RenegadeMarine

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
79
Location
Fraser, Michigan, USA
I was assuming the CPL holder exited the vehicle. Whoever remains in the vehicle, then has posession, and would need a CPL themselves to remain legal.

I believe that I remember reading an AG opinion recently, that stated if a CPL holder exited the vehicle, lets say to enter a store or gas station, but left his firearm in the vehicle, that the passenger(s) (no CPL) would not be considered "in possession" of the firearm. I know that it is not legally binding, but it could possibly be used as part of a defense. And of course I can't seem to find it anywhere! If I am remembering correctly, could someone please post a link to it for me?
 
Last edited:

Gort

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Newport, Michigan, USA
I believe that I remember reading an AG opinion recently, that stated if a CPL holder exited the vehicle, lets say to enter a store or gas station, but left his firearm in the vehicle, that the passenger(s) (no CPL) would not be considered "in possession" of the firearm. I know that it is not legally binding, but it could possibly be used as part of a defense. And of course I can't seem to find it anywhere! If I am remembering correctly, could someone please post a link to it for me?

Passenger is not transporting the weapon.
AG opinion http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10212.htm
 
Top