stainless1911
Banned
Nope, we operate under the presumption of innocence, not guilt. They must default to the legal assumption, that one is entitled to keep and bear arms under the constitution.
The thing about that is however, if the police officer has probable cause, they can stop you. If the officer approaching you knows the laws and the areas listed in MCL 750.234d he would be under the impression, and have probable cause to believe, you are violating MCL 750.234d until you can provide evidence that you are exempt.
I would even go as far as to say, if the officer saw you in your yard OC..then get into your car on your property (still legal cause its your property) but then drive away from your property it would give them reason to stop you because without already knowing if you are exempt under MCL 750.231a he would have reason to believe you are breaking the law.
In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following...
257.301
Sec. 301.
(1) Except as provided in this act, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state....
Well Yance in Michigan to even own a handgun a license is required.
now dont go putting words in my mouth, I havent put anything in yours...I did not say that, I used the comparison of driving in a restricted area where a permit is required, stopping you if they are unsure if you have the proper permit would be the same as stopping you in a walmart asking for a CPL, since without it you cant be there anyways. See the comparison there? Now walking down the sidewalk which is open to the public and has no such restrictions, no, cant stop someone just to check. Same with driving, driving on an open road where general transportation is permitted by the masses, no, cant stop someone just to see if they have a license. I was referring to the proper paperwork to be in areas otherwise restricted to people without such permission. Make sense yet?
Edit: Stopping someone while driving in a restricted area would not necessarily be to check for a valid DL, but to check the DL as a form of identification to correlate with the appropriate paperwork that the person is who they say they are and in fact can be on the premesis. Same for a CPL, without the CPL you are not authorized to be on the premesis of an establishment listed in MCL 750.234d.
I do not understand your comparison since the entire system of public roads already are a "resticted area" where driving is restricted to those who possess a driver's license. One way of looking at the public road system is... the entire road system is the "premises" where you are not authorized to drive without the appropriate paperwork.
And a driver's license is the proper paperwork (permission) to be on/in the public road system that is otherwise restricted to people without such permission.
I'm not questioning that driving on public roads without a driver's license and/or carrying a gun on the premises of an establishment that has a liquor license without a CPL... aren't crimes. What I want to know is.........
Are you saying that police don't have the authority to stop people who are driving a car just to see if they have the proper paperwork, the permission, the license, to be operating a car on the premises of the restricted area called public roads where a license giving permission is required.... but the police do have the authority to stop people carrying a gun just to see if they have the proper paperwork, the permission, the license, to be carrying a gun on the premises of a restricted area where a license giving permission is required?
I'm not following that reasoning at all because the only basic difference is one is about cars and one is about guns.... but the central issue is whether or not a demand to "show your papers" is justified.
The above has nothing to do with if folks willingly do "show their papers" or refuse to "show their papers". I want to know what legal authority an officer would have to make the demand in the first place absent any other extenuating circumstances other than a person engaging in a licensed legal activity.
I disagree because I look at it differently. If you or anyone else chooses to because you are at a place where a CPL is needed and you want to ID yourself that's your choice. I do not think you are legally required to though. Just like you cannot be pulled over simply to check if you have a DL.
The thing about that is however, if the police officer has probable cause, they can stop you. If the officer approaching you knows the laws and the areas listed in MCL 750.234d he would be under the impression, and have probable cause to believe, you are violating MCL 750.234d until you can provide evidence that you are exempt.
I would even go as far as to say, if the officer saw you in your yard OC..then get into your car on your property (still legal cause its your property) but then drive away from your property it would give them reason to stop you because without already knowing if you are exempt under MCL 750.231a he would have reason to believe you are breaking the law.
Nope, we operate under the presumption of innocence, not guilt. They must default to the legal assumption, that one is entitled to keep and bear arms under the constitution.
I like you Neil but take off the rose colored glasses on this matter, when taken to court you are guilty until proven innocent!
I think I understand what you are saying... that because it is a gun that somehow makes demanding a person prove they meet the exemption to carry a gun in a restricted area more justified than demanding a person prove they meet the exemption that allows them to drive a car in a restricted area.Try driving on government property...thats more or less what I'm referring to, areas where only certain individuals are authorized to be. The general public is not allowed to be on most government property, and I mean high fences, guards, kinda restricted area. For Operational Security (OPSEC) only authorized individuals can be on the premises and anyone who is not recognized as authorized is stopped and questioned. However I am going to throw out there that its an apples to oranges situation BECAUSE carrying a gun in walmart is a crime, carrying in taco bell is not. If a police offer is familiar with MCL 750.234d he will know that taco bell is not licensed to and does not sell alcohol, whereas walmart is licensed to and does. Therefore being on the premises of walmart could give the impression that you may be in violation of MCL 750.234d and reasonable suspiscion to stop you and see if you are infact authorized to carry your firearm on the premises.
so for a moment lets drop the car scenario, since that doesnt play into what I'm saying.
Let's not drop that scenario because it is very appropriate. Much more appropriate than areas that are so restricted the general public does not have access.
anyone can carry into taco bell, only CPL holders can carry on the premises of walmart because they are licensed to sell alcohol.
Anyone can drive a car on their own property, only those who have a driver's license can drive on the premises of the public roadways.
Walmart is A
Taco Bell is B
You can carry to both A and B without breaking the law with a valid MI CPL.
Without a valid MI CPL you can ONLY carry to B.
Reasonable suspicion would be that you are at A with your gun, but you can only be at A with your gun if you have a valid MI CPL. Without a CPL you are in violation of the law, constituting a crime. The police need RS that a crime is/has/or was committed, being at A with no CPL means a crime is committed thus they have RS to stop you. Once its established you have your CPL you are free to go.
Reasonable suspicion would be that if you are driving a car on a public roadway, but you can only drive if you have a valid driver's license and without a driver's license you are in violation of the law, constituting a crime. The police need RS that a crime is/has/or was committed so driving with no driver's license means a crime is committed thus they have RS to stop anyone driving a car anywhere on the premises of the public roadway. Once it is established that you have your driver's license you are free to go..... Right?
With a CPL you commit no crime while being at A
With a driver's license you commit no crime while driving on the premises of the public roadway.
With no CPL you commit a crime being at A.
With no driver's license you commit a crime while driving on the premises of the public roadway.
Since you are potentially committing a crime being at A, it could give RS to stop you.
Since you are potentially committing a crime driving on the premises of the public roadway it could give RS to stop you.