mcl.. 28.425f ticket

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.

Yance said:

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.

Click to expand...

While there is no case law on this exact subject, i think there is evidence that suggests it would be improper to stop a person who is oc'ing in an area listed in 750.234d because we do have a SCOTUS case on the unconstitutionality of stopping a motorist just to check his papers and make certain he has a valid license.

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.

Click to expand...

The statute that requires one to be a licensed driver (257.301), and the statute that prohibits firearms (750.234d) from certain premises are written almost identical.

750.234d:

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following...

Click to expand...

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....

Click to expand...

If you cannot stop people who are driving just to check their papers, even though it is unlawful to drive without a license, then how can you argue that it is ok to stop a person who is carrying a firearm just to check their papers?

Well, think about it like this, there are certain locations where only authorized vehicles may be...when they see you driving in there, especially if the vehicle isnt recognized as one that is there often, they would assume you are not supposed to be there and then stop you to see if you are exempt and allowed to drive in the area. Not necessarily having a DL, but more so a pass or ID to be in the restricted area. Same with carry in the areas in 750.234d, its essentially a restricted area unless you are exempt, so with that in mind you could be violating that law and could give way to reasonable suspicion that you are violating a law. It wouldnt be like walking on a public sidewalk because you arent restricted from doing so.

Requiring you to show ID would have to be written into the statute concerning the restricted area. If iot isn't illegal, then it's legal.

Although, given that if you arent exempt from MCL 750.234d, you would be in violation of it, I could see that if it was taken to court it would not go your way.

so it is your position that the SCOTUS is wrong and officers do in fact have the right to stop every motorist just to check their papers? Afterall, it is unlawful to operate a vehicle without a proper license.

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.

Well Yance in Michigan to even own a handgun a license is required. So if I'm walking down the street (I have no Michigan CPL) can that officer me to check my papers and make sure I am indeed carrying the gun that is licensed to me to carry? And I really don't think the whole restricted area thing holds much water. Unless the officer has some sort of reasonable suspicion that you do not have a CPL he cannot detain you for violation of 750.234d.

The answer is....NO. The recent MSP legal update 86 covered this, the act of carrying a firearm itself is not reason enough to stop and ask for ID or a CPL without reasonable suspiscion that a crime is being committed. However if you are in a restricted area where you are otherwise not allowed to be with a firearm unless you have a CPL, then that would give reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. And yes, it is a crime, without a valid michigan concealed pistol license, MCL 750.234d 1(h), being on the premesis of an establishment licensed under the michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws would in itself be a crime. MCL 750.234d (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both. so obviously, if you are in possession of a firearm on the premesis of a walmart you would be GUILTY of a crime. Therefore by possessing the firearm on the premesis an officer could legally stop and ask for ID and a CPL because he could have the reasonable suspicion to believe you are in violation of MCL 750.234d (h). How much more clear do I need to make this?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(l0...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234d

xmanhockey7 said:

Well Yance in Michigan to even own a handgun a license is required.

Click to expand...

Technically a license is only required to purchase it, you must qualify under MCL 28.422 to purchase and possess a handgun, however after the 30 day period immediately following purchase you no longer are required to carry your RI-10 the Application and License to Purchase a Pistol. To obtain the license to purchase the pistol you must meet the qualifications in MCL 28.422, once you do you can purchase a pistol, however you need no permit to possess the pistol as long as it is legally registered to you, or you have a valid MI CPL and it is legally registered to another resident of the state of MI.

MCL 28.422 (6): The licensee may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the license. However, the person is not required to have the license in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(l0...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-422

Yance said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bikenut said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. anyone can carry into taco bell, only CPL holders can carry on the premises of walmart because they are licensed to sell alcohol.

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.

With a CPL you commit no crime while being at A

With no CPL you commit a crime being at A.

Since you are potentially committing a crime being at A, it could give RS to stop you.

xmanhockey7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

True, but if on Walmarts property you are required to have a cpl if you are armed, they sell liquor and the law is quite clear on this, mcl cited above. The officer would be within his rights to demand to see it If he has the slightest reason to suspect you are armed.


Refuse to show it and I see a ticket in someone future or a trip to the cross bar hotel.
off of the property where there is no sale of liquor, you are good to refuse

of course IMO

Yance said:

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.

Click to expand...

and there has been may posts here of someone being seen by police OCING and not who was not approached until they entered their car, they then were approached by the cop to verify they had a CPL.

I know of one person directly who has had this happen to them.

edit

stainless1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

If that was true Jeff would not be in court in Warren with the HamNEggs case

the cop would not have thrown him to the ground and stomped on him until he found out if Jeff was violating a law.

where was his presumption of innocence then?


In a perfect world you would be correct, and the law does say that is how its suppose to be but this is an imperfect word with imperfect laws being enforced by imperfect people.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Until people in power are held accountable for their illegal action, some police, some prosecutors and some court system will violate your rights every chance they get to further THEIR cause.

while this certainly is not every Police Officer, Every Prosecutor or every court system, most could care less about you, they are only concerned about themselves.

I like you Neil but take off the rose colored glasses on this matter, when taken to court you are guilty until proven innocent!

just stand mute and see what happens to you! we will see you in 3 to 5!

If they had reason to suspect that you were at A without a CPL then they could check. Just being armed does not give them suspicion that you are armed, they have to assume you're innocent. Until then, they cant search for a CPL.

If they had reasonable suspicion that you were concealing at A or B without a CPL then they can search for a gun and/or a CPL. Without reasonable suspicion, they cannot just assume that you are carrying concealed then go searching for it, even if you are carrying an illegal gun.

Onnie said:

I like you Neil but take off the rose colored glasses on this matter, when taken to court you are guilty until proven innocent!

Click to expand...

I know, but we are talking about the strict letter of the law here, and that is the presumption of innocence. Thats not usually how it works, but that's a different story.

Even OC at walmart would be illegal since 750.234d states the POSSESSION of a firearm is prohibited, not just the concealed carry of it such as:

MCL 28. 425o (1)(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

Which is what I believe you are referring to.

MCL 750.234d simply states:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.


Since the wording of 750.234d clearly states that you cannot be on the premises w/out a CPL you would be committing a crime by being in possession of a firearm UNLESS you had a CPL. That is what the RS could be, that you have a firearm on the premises of an establishment that is listed in 750.234d and that you are violating that law. Until you show you have a CPL and are exempt and allowed to be there you could be seen as actively committing a crime by LE. Could it happen...yes....would it happen...cant honestly say.

Yance said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I am asking what the difference is between the two that makes it justifiable for an officer to demand a person prove they meet the exemption for carrying a gun but demanding a person prove they meet the exemption for driving isn't justified.

Both activities demand special permission to engage in that activity in a restricted area. Both activities are legal with that little permission slip. So why is it ok to demand one license be shown but not the other? What is the difference?