Disclose while Open Carrying in Vehicle

[DanM]

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

I go with zig if you take a gun into a car you fall under the concealed law. "whether concealed or not" I say is either an oversite on the idiot law maker, or just pointing out whether plain sight, or not. I don't think the cop is going to say "hey are you open carrying in a car? "Well I guess I don't need to see your CPL" just my humble opinion

No, if you carry a gun in a car, without a CPL, you fall under the "carrying a gun in a car without a CPL is unlawful" law. I don't know how many times this has to be pointedout. The law covering thisact doesn't "consider the gun concealed". The law covering thisact merely considers the act unlawful. In fact, the only thing said in the law about the gun explicitly and without ambiguity recognizes the gun may either be concealed or not; therefore, without question, thislaw does not offeranyone, including LEOs, legal standing to claim that "this law says that agun is considered concealed when carried in a car".

But, it seems from thelaws presented, the LEO can lawfully stateto you (if you are carrying unconcealed in your car) something like the following:

"I see your unconcealed gun. Carrying a gun in a car, concealed or notconcealed,without a CPL is unlawful. If you do not have a CPL, you are under arrest. If you do have a CPL, you did not have to disclose that you are carrying the gun, because it is not concealed, but Irequest to see your CPL. If you do not present your CPL to me, you are under arrest for suspicion of carryinga gun in a car without having a CPL."

 

[SQLtables]

imported post

DanM wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

I go with zig if you take a gun into a car  you fall under the concealed law. "whether concealed or not" I say is either an oversite on the idiot law maker, or just pointing out  whether plain sight, or not. I don't think the cop is going to say "hey are you open carrying in a car? "Well I guess I don't need to see your CPL" just my humble opinion

 

No, if you carry a gun in a car, without a CPL, you fall under the "carrying a gun in a car without a CPL is unlawful" law.  I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out.  The law covering this act doesn't "consider the gun concealed".  The law covering this act merely considers the act unlawful.  In fact, the only thing said in the law about the gun explicitly and without ambiguity recognizes the gun may either be concealed or not; therefore, without question, this law does not offer anyone, including LEOs, legal standing to claim that "this law says that a gun is considered concealed when carried in a car".

But, it seems from the laws presented, the LEO can lawfully state to you (if you are carrying unconcealed in your car) something like the following:

"I see your unconcealed gun.  Carrying a gun in a car, concealed or not concealed, without a CPL is unlawful.  If you do not have a CPL, you are under arrest.  If you do have a CPL, you did not have to disclose that you are carrying the gun, because it is not concealed, but I request to see your CPL.  If you do not present your CPL to me, you are under arrest for suspicion of carrying a gun in a car without having a CPL."

Again, I agree.

 

[Venator]

imported post

DanM wrote:

No, if you carry a gun in a car, without a CPL, you fall under the "carrying a gun in a car without a CPL is unlawful" law. I don't know how many times this has to be pointedout. The law covering thisact doesn't "consider the gun concealed". The law covering thisact merely considers the act unlawful. In fact, the only thing said in the law about the gun explicitly and without ambiguity recognizes the gun may either be concealed or not; therefore, without question, thislaw does not offeranyone, including LEOs, legal standing to claim that "this law says that agun is considered concealed when carried in a car".

But, it seems from thelaws presented, the LEO can lawfully stateto you (if you are carrying unconcealed in your car) something like the following:

"I see your unconcealed gun. Carrying a gun in a car, concealed or notconcealed,without a CPL is unlawful. If you do not have a CPL, you are under arrest. If you do have a CPL, you did not have to disclose that you are carrying the gun, because it is not concealed, but Irequest to see your CPL. If you do not present your CPL to me, you are under arrest for suspicion of carryinga gun in a car without having a CPL."

If the bold above is true, why does the law heading say this...750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

I'm just asking.

 

[DanM]

imported post

Venator wrote:

DanM wrote:

The law covering thisact doesn't "consider the gun concealed".

If the bold above is true, why does the law heading say this...750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

I don't know why the header is the way it is. I see a lot of imperfect writing in the MCL thatI can't explain as to why it's there. I believethat the meaning of a law is determined from thecontentof the law itself, not the header of the section it is in. For example, the many law headers which refer only to "pistols" do not ONLY apply to pistols.Included are revolvers as well and, indeed, any firearm fitting a certain description for "pistol" which is given meaningthrough explicit definitions in the content of the law.

It is just alayman opinion thatmere section headers have no weight in determining meaning of laws. I could be wrong.

 

[conservative85]

imported post

DanM wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

I go with zig if you take a gun into a car you fall under the concealed law. "whether concealed or not" I say is either an oversite on the idiot law maker, or just pointing out whether plain sight, or not. I don't think the cop is going to say "hey are you open carrying in a car? "Well I guess I don't need to see your CPL" just my humble opinion

No, if you carry a gun in a car, without a CPL, you fall under the "carrying a gun in a car without a CPL is unlawful" law. I don't know how many times this has to be pointedout. The law covering thisact doesn't "consider the gun concealed". The law covering thisact merely considers the act unlawful. In fact, the only thing said in the law about the gun explicitly and without ambiguity recognizes the gun may either be concealed or not; therefore, without question, thislaw does not offeranyone, including LEOs, legal standing to claim that "this law says that agun is considered concealed when carried in a car".

But, it seems from thelaws presented, the LEO can lawfully stateto you (if you are carrying unconcealed in your car) something like the following:

"I see your unconcealed gun. Carrying a gun in a car, concealed or notconcealed,without a CPL is unlawful. If you do not have a CPL, you are under arrest. If you do have a CPL, you did not have to disclose that you are carrying the gun, because it is not concealed, but Irequest to see your CPL. If you do not present your CPL to me, you are under arrest for suspicion of carryinga gun in a car without having a CPL."

Hey Dan, I have a cpl. I was talking in the context of having a CPL,& Ifin avehicle with afirearm whether it is in the open or not, you better havea CPL on your person. As to whether the Law, or the Police will ask for a CPL, or whether you Have to disclose,concealed or not, really don't matter.There is no law that says you cannot open carry (w/CPL)in a car (as far as I can see) but there is a law that says if you butt gets into a vehicle you better have a cpl. So if in doubt, don't have it out. The second law don't negate thefirst law.
To everyone else I'd advise youto disclose,We are the good guys, kill them with kindness.

Remember this...There are three degrees of carry, Open, Concealed w/CPL, & Open w/CPL. So I would say that if there is no law then it is legal. There is no law about eating grass, or walking bare foot...Look at the 9th Amendment.

Side note I was pulled over by Swartz creek police, before the officer reached my truck I hadmy driverslicense, insurance, & CPL out. As shewalked away she stopped & said do you have a gun with you. I said yes. (it was in plain site on the seat, so much for trained observers) Once she returned that particular officer never said anything about it being in the open.

 

[DanM]

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

To everyone else I'd advise youto disclose,We are the good guys, kill them with kindness.

Personally, although I've argued above about what the content of the law seems to mean, if I'm in avehicle carrying a gunI will immediately disclose that I have a CPL and I'm carrying a gun, in allsituations. As Venator and others suggest, there could be a point of view on these laws which read into them that all carry in vehicles is "considered concealed", and that is a gray area. Indeed, MSP's response to Venator seems quite clear that MSP's point of view is that way.

So, until there is an AG opinion or some case law clarifying this gray area,I willimmediately disclose.Currently, I can'tafford the time or moneyto be a testcase.

 

[custom.45acp]

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Side note I was pulled over by Swartz creek police, before the officer reached my truck I hadmy driverslicense, insurance, & CPL out. As shewalked away she stopped & said do you have a gun with you. I said yes. (it was in plain site on the seat, so much for trained observers) Once she returned that particular officer never said anything about it being in the open.

This is exactly why I said it should be disclose at all times. She didn't even see it in plain view.

I, too, would disclose any/all times when speaking to a PO.