• 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.

Birmingham: Open Carry is brandishing (Sounds like we need to attend another meeting)

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
What is this disclosure law you're talking about? There is no specific law on disclosure. The only one I can think of is the one pertaining to concealed carry.

If you're stopped there is nothing wrong with handing over your CPL. I have nothing to hide because I lawfully carry my firearm. Too many people are just looking for UNECESSARY confrontation. I'm rearely bothered by police for open carry. If the kid just handed over his ID this whole fiasco could have been avoided. Looking at it from the officers perspective Combs looks way under 18. I see it no different then a kid like him sitting in a bar with a beer in front of him & drinking it. If an officer has reasonable suspecion the person is breaking the law by under age drinking he has a duty to ask for the kids drivers license. Not only the officer would have the duty but even a manger for the bar. In Michigan you're required to have a valid ID showing you're over 21 regardless of how you look which makes it pretty open to ask for ID & if it can't be produced the person should be asked to leave the bar. This goes with the similar law stating an individual MUST be 18 to carry a firearm. He surely made the stupid decision to not comply. 1 check of an ID and he would have been on his way. Instead he got what he asked for a confrontation to make a spectacle of himself in front of all a crowd of people. I'm all for open carry of any firearm and am not against the fact he legally carried the rifle (based on what I read) but the way he handled the police was not smart.

People here tend to rah rah every time a confrontation occurs but fail to think about the situation and how to properly handle it. I support open carry I don't support people who don't use common sense in dealing with the police.

Mike

Considering your ancestors and the atrocities they have endured, I find your position troubling.
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
Considering your ancestors and the atrocities they have endured, I find your position troubling.

Venator. I don't see people being excluded because of race, color, or religion. Seems to me like you're trying to draw a distinction where one doesn't exist. If my ancestors were allowed to bare arms like we can in this country those atrocities would have been impossible.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Perhaps this is a very stupid question... perhaps not....

I've seen folks suggest that the young man could easily have avoided any and all problems had he simply provided ID, whether required by law or not, to prove he was of an age to be legally carrying a long gun.

Well.. here comes the question....

Is it possible that the police would still have arrested him, and charged him with the very same crimes he was charged with,............... even after providing ID?
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Venator. I don't see people being excluded because of race, color, or religion. Seems to me like you're trying to draw a distinction where one doesn't exist. If my ancestors were allowed to bare arms like we can in this country those atrocities would have been impossible.
Mike I think you know exactly what I mean, the atrocities occurred in part to a police state and the sheep complying. All races, color, religions, sexual orientation, mental capacity, etc.

Either he was committing a "crime" and should be arrested or he was not. The ID is a red herring.
 

SVI7

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
21
Location
SE MI
Is it possible that the police would still have arrested him, and charged him with the very same crimes he was charged with,............... even after providing ID?

Considering this is pretty much exactly what happened, I would say yes, it is definitely possible.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Considering this is pretty much exactly what happened, I would say yes, it is definitely possible.

If they wouldn't have arrested him on the spot, they would have known where he lived (from his ID) and they'd assuredly be by later to pick him up :(
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Either he was committing a "crime" and should be arrested or he was not. The ID is a red herring.

PRECISELY!

The young man lawfully declined to show ID. Then he was wrongfully arrested!

Do not let the molehill that is the former get in your way of seeing the mountain that is the latter, folks!

The authorities, some media, and many comments online are trying ferociously to distract rightful concern with the mountain by pointing at a molehill.

Lawfully refusing to ID yourself, at worst, is "rude".

Wrongful arrest is a form of kidnapping by agents of the state (no matter how briefly it lasts). Wrongful prosecution is abuse of power by the state and, thus, a SERIOUS violation of your rights.

Which is far, far worse?

Folks, get your head straight about exactly what is involved with Sean Combs' situation!
 
Last edited:

SVI7

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
21
Location
SE MI
I keep seeing this quote from Judge Marc Barron, and I am not sure exactly what he means. Can somebody decipher this for me? How does this work with preemption exactly? What is a Home Rule city?

"City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city.""City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city."
 
Last edited:

mwaterous

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
197
Location
New Mexico
Wow, after reading the comments on that article (patch) I'm thinking we'll be avoiding Michigan in the future if we ever decide to move out of NM (no offense to the good guys there). Sorry you guys have to put up with that over there, and I hope all the charges are dropped for being as ridiculous as they are.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I keep seeing this quote from Judge Marc Barron, and I am not sure exactly what he means. Can somebody decipher this for me? How does this work with preemption exactly? What is a Home Rule city?

"City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city.""City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city."

If you read through the MCRGO v Ferndale, the judges discussed this issue. Basically, Home-Rule cities can enact ordinances to promote safety, borrow money, etc. However, there are situations in which the state preempts the ability of cities to enact ordinances beyond those expressly allowed by the state. Examples include the vehicle laws, the fire code, and firearms. So, basically, if the state did NOT preempt the ability of cities to regulate firearms, any city could restrict firearms ALMOST any way they saw fit. However, preemption has taken the away the ability of cities to regulate firearms.
 

SVI7

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
21
Location
SE MI
If you read through the MCRGO v Ferndale, the judges discussed this issue. Basically, Home-Rule cities can enact ordinances to promote safety, borrow money, etc. However, there are situations in which the state preempts the ability of cities to enact ordinances beyond those expressly allowed by the state. Examples include the vehicle laws, the fire code, and firearms. So, basically, if the state did NOT preempt the ability of cities to regulate firearms, any city could restrict firearms ALMOST any way they saw fit. However, preemption has taken the away the ability of cities to regulate firearms.

That is what I though, I guess I was just confused as to why he would even mention Home Rule cities if that doesn't actually have any bearing on the gun laws.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
Mike I think you know exactly what I mean, the atrocities occurred in part to a police state and the sheep complying. All races, color, religions, sexual orientation, mental capacity, etc.

Either he was committing a "crime" and should be arrested or he was not. The ID is a red herring.

Just get on the train; its for your safety. Don't make a scene; we're here to help you. Get on the train, quickly, now!

Next, we'll have to pin our CPLs to our outer garments. Then they won't have to ask for your papers......
 

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
That is what I though, I guess I was just confused as to why he would even mention Home Rule cities if that doesn't actually have any bearing on the gun laws.

Did anyone make it to the meeting tonight?

They don't allow comments until later, but at the rate I'm going I don't think that I will make it before they wrap up.:(
 

SVI7

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
21
Location
SE MI
The trial is a go!

Just got word that the trial will take place tomorrow morning as originally planned. It is suspected that it will take more than one day however. Anyone still planning on visiting birmingham tomorrow evening?
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
What is this disclosure law you're talking about? There is no specific law on disclosure. The only one I can think of is the one pertaining to concealed carry.

If you're stopped there is nothing wrong with handing over your CPL. I have nothing to hide because I lawfully carry my firearm. Too many people are just looking for UNECESSARY confrontation. I'm rearely bothered by police for open carry. If the kid just handed over his ID this whole fiasco could have been avoided. Looking at it from the officers perspective Combs looks way under 18. I see it no different then a kid like him sitting in a bar with a beer in front of him & drinking it. If an officer has reasonable suspecion the person is breaking the law by under age drinking he has a duty to ask for the kids drivers license. Not only the officer would have the duty but even a manger for the bar. In Michigan you're required to have a valid ID showing you're over 21 regardless of how you look which makes it pretty open to ask for ID & if it can't be produced the person should be asked to leave the bar. This goes with the similar law stating an individual MUST be 18 to carry a firearm. He surely made the stupid decision to not comply. 1 check of an ID and he would have been on his way. Instead he got what he asked for a confrontation to make a spectacle of himself in front of all a crowd of people. I'm all for open carry of any firearm and am not against the fact he legally carried the rifle (based on what I read) but the way he handled the police was not smart.

People here tend to rah rah every time a confrontation occurs but fail to think about the situation and how to properly handle it. I support open carry I don't support people who don't use common sense in dealing with the police.

Mike

I have also had very few negative interactions with police, but what you are saying goes against everything that freedom stands for. Where do we draw the line? This person was not breaking the law. Everything he was doing that night was legal. But what you are saying is that because the officer decided to the kid might not be old enough, he had reasonable suspicion? If an officer walks up to you, and tells you that he thinks you are a felon, with no further explaination, do you just give in, and let him check? Thats what they want us to do. This kid did exactly what he had the right to do. How dare you chastize someone for fully, and legally exercising their rights? You must be one of those "down the middle" people.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
That is what I though, I guess I was just confused as to why he would even mention Home Rule cities if that doesn't actually have any bearing on the gun laws.

If I am correct, didnt Ferndale try the "Home Rule" approach?

Thats what alot of cities here in Iowa are reaching for. The sad part is, the "home rule" laws here are CLEARLY explained to not interfere with the general assembly. I.E State law. And even Iowa Code 724.28 clearly preempts local ordinances, the cities have tried resolutions to ban firearms.
 
Top