Harassment in Oakland County

[Guest]

imported post

hercprsound wrote:

Maybe I missed something here, and I feel a little silly asking, but what is RAS?

Don't feel silly.

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion

Being capable of articulating a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be, or is being, committed.

You need a lawyer!!!

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

hercprsound wrote:

Maybe I missed something here, and I feel a little silly asking, but what is RAS?

This:

http://www.laaw.com/seizure_chart.htm

 

[DanM]

imported post

hercprsound wrote:

Maybe I missed something here, and I feel a little silly asking, but what is RAS?

Reasonable and articulable suspicion. A police officer may not legally detain or arrest you on a "hunch" or because you "just look suspicious". He must have a reasonable basis for suspicion, and that basis must have specific facts he can articulate.

Remember, there are no stupid questions. But sometimes there are inquisitive idiots. JK . . .good that you brought up your question!

 

[mel5051]

imported post

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion".

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Venator wrote:

xd-40 wrote:

Venator wrote:

T Vance wrote:

Here's a question:

I'm aware that you can carry concealedat/on "Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian", and that you may OC on school grounds with a CPL.

So what if you are not "dropping off" but are just on the property to use the facilities? Let me explain a little deeper...

You pull onto school grounds, and are not dropping off a student. You are carrying in your holster in your car with a CPL (technically CC). You park, get out, now you are OCing. You use their facilities (such as a track, baseball field, soccer field, etc). You go back to your car, get in (now back to CC), and drive away. I know this isn't hercprsounds scenario, but in the scenario I just described do you think in what I described you are technically breaking a rule of your CPL?

In 2003 they preempted the parking lot of the places listed as a no no for CC (except casinos). So CC in a parking lot of a school is ALLOWED. OC is allowed for OC and if he had permission from the school or church he's allowed.

not to sound like a nitpicker, but ..... where in the law does it say that permission is required to OC with a CPL on either premises?

you don't have to have "permission", you just have to avoid getting asked to leave

I meant "and" as alsoas in another option to OC. Not that you had to have it. Not much is know about this case, but my point was if the guy had permission he would be allowed to OC or CC on the property (with a CPL). Hence my argument that a LEO needs more RAS than someone having a gun in a banned place.

Not so fast there.

Possession of a concealed pistol is RAS.

Federal judge rules concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d15-Federal-judge-rules-concealed-carry-is-probable-cause-of-criminal-activity?cid=exrss-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner

That ruling only applies in that circuit, and it should be overturned by the USSC on appeal since the USSC has already stated that there is no firearm exception to Terry. So, Venator is correct that the gun alone is not RAS for a Terry stop. This was an activist judge who ruled contrary to what the US Supreme Court already ruled.

 

[T Vance]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

That ruling only applies in that circuit, and it should be overturned by the USSC on appeal since the USSC has already stated that there is no firearm exception to Terry. So, Venator is correct that the gun alone is not RAS for a Terry stop. This was an activist judge who ruled contrary to what the US Supreme Court already ruled.

The Supreme Court. The highest ruling court in our land! Anything they say overules any other court. That is the last stop when people appeal cases as they move up the ladder.

 

[lapeer20m]

imported post

i also want to point out that the law does not state that a pistol IN a vehicle is necessarily concealed as the law recognizes that it is illegal (without cpl) to carry a pistol "concealed or otherwise" in a vehicle.

 

[Guest]

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

i also want to point out that the law does not state that a pistol IN a vehicle is necessarily concealed as the law recognizes that it is illegal (without cpl) to carry a pistol "concealed or otherwise" in a vehicle.

I brought this up on another board and ziggityziggityziggity pointed out the error of my thinking. He said it was concealed by definition.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

I dropped off a letter to Sherriff Bouchard on Monday the 21st. Asking him to intervene, to discipline the offending officer, and I made the FOIA request within the letter. Michigander helped medraft it, (thanks M,) I have yet to hear from Mr. Bouchard, so as it is now, my court date is at 52-2 in Clarkston on Jan 11, at 9am. I'll be sure to let you know how it went. As long as I am still free to do so.:uhoh:

 

[reidksmith]

imported post

To the original poster:

I read your post but did not have time to read the rest of the thread and so I am unaware of what other assistance has been offered to you.

I'm going to PM you the names of some attorney's that are taking on a case similar to yours for a nominal fee. Hopefully they will be willing to represent you as well. The law is obviously on your side.

In addition, below are some MI State Senators you should contact regarding this issue. I would also strongly suggest contacting the Michigan State Police. However, try to keep your contact brief and abit more concise if youchoose email. Simply state that you were charged with a violation of CPL-pistol free zones when open carrying on a church-owned property which also housed a school, (I believe that is close to the situation). You can leave out the rest of the law-enforcement issue. What is important, at the state level, is that the MSP see the legal problem that arises from (presumably) prohibiting open carry in a vehicle. For the senators, they need to see more evidence that gun free zones are making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. As surprising as it may sound, I have spoken to several law-makers who strongly support removal of all gun-free zones for this exact reason. If you are willing, let them know that you would be willing to testify at a senate hearing on a relevant bill.

State Lawmakers to contact:
Sen. Cropsey, Kuipers, and Richardville, Patterson, and Sanborn. All are good guys.
Also, throw in a word with Rep. Amash and Schmidt. Schmidt was the primary sponsor of HB 5474, which would extend state pre-emption of firearms laws to higher education campuses. This came about when the MSP brought him an issue similar to yours - an plurality of people who were unknowingly violating ordinances but complying with state law.

I'll be in touch.

Reid

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

Thanks. I have, in my email, every member of our house and senate at the state level, i think. This way, I can email them all at once regarding firearmsissues.

I did speak with Dean Greenblat about this, and even at his generous offer at a reduced rate, I am simply unable to afford it. If there's a fine, I'm going to jail, simple as that.

There is no excuse for either the PFZ creating criminals, or a situation where the financially challenged have to go to jail while others can simply buy their way out of their legal issues. But I guess thats the system we have. :banghead:

So much for actually fighting crime, I guess its easier to prosecute cooperative law abiding citizens who fall into their traps, than it is to actually try to persue, and subdue a real criminal. Also, the average citizen has the cash or credit to cover their fines, while the criminal might not. And the law abiding citizen will likely not skip out their probation either. Easy money.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

reidksmith wrote:

To the original poster:

I read your post but did not have time to read the rest of the thread and so I am unaware of what other assistance has been offered to you.

I'm going to PM you

Ok, but I am no longer using the hercprsound account, although I will look for your PM. I don't know how to disable it.

 

[reidksmith]

imported post

I'll send it to your stainless account.

 

[donald150]

imported post

hercprsound wrote:

@ mike quote :

c) “School property” means a building, playing field, or property used for school purposes to impart instruction to children or used for functions and events sponsored by a school, except a building used primarily for adult education or college extension courses.

So, this could mean anywhere ??? I. E. a feild trip? So, technicxally, the property in question, although owned by the church, NOT the shool, is considered "school property" ?

If this is true, then couldn't anywhere the school goes with the kids be then considered "school property", such as the Detriot Zoo, or another locationduring a feild trip??? If so, how are we as gun owners supposed to know this?

Regarding the Detroit ZOO:

FYI

Last year I was part of the crew that replaced the main Zoo parking lot.

If you go in the "employee" entrance to the Zoo (off of the westbound service drive just west of the "main" parking lot) There is a sign mounted to the wall that says something to the effect of: This facailty seats more than 2500 people.

I have not noticed it at the main entrance to the Zoo but it is clearly marked at the entrance we went in off the 696 service drive.

Kind of a shady, round about way of saying no firearms allowed

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

Thanks, I was completely unaware of this. Is it legally enforceable though, as the sign isnt then posted where you can see it?



Also, wouldn't this be a school zone under some vague technicality of the law?

 

[donald150]

imported post

In this cas it really dosen't have anyting to do with it being a school actvity place. It falls under the " facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more." Like I said I dont know if it is posted at the main gate.

I can't think of any other reason to post a sign saying this facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 ,other than to ban firearms.

That statute is part of the CPL law. Correct me if I am wrong but the sign does not say noy firearms so you could OC until told you had to leave??

 

[conservative85]

imported post

donald150 wrote:

In this cas it really dosen't have anyting to do with it being a school actvity place. It falls under the " facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more." Like I said I dont know if it is posted at the main gate.

I can't think of any other reason to post a sign saying this facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 ,other than to ban firearms.

That statute is part of the CPL law. Correct me if I am wrong but the sign does not say noy firearms so you could OC until told you had to leave??

That is how I take it.
The issue has come up before. Bottom line in this case is whether it is a private, or public property. Safe bet is to OC.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

I would like to suggest heading to the Zoo thread http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25474&forum_id=30&highlight=Detroit+zoo .. We've already had quite the discussion on this .. There may be a few more threads out there on the same topic.

Mike

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

donald150 wrote:

In this cas it really dosen't have anyting to do with it being a school actvity place. It falls under the " facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more." Like I said I dont know if it is posted at the main gate.

I can't think of any other reason to post a sign saying this facility has a seating capacity of 2,500 ,other than to ban firearms.

That statute is part of the CPL law. Correct me if I am wrong but the sign does not say noy firearms so you could OC until told you had to leave??

It's my understanding the DZoo is owned and maintained (taxpayers) by the City and therefore preempted (local unit of government) see MCL 123.1102. It's also my understanding they (DZoo)are fully aware of this but still keep it posted and they ask you to put the iron away in your vehicle or leave the premises.

Edit: Grammer LMAO (they is--->they are)

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

I'd say that calls for a damn good OC pincic at the Detroit Zoo this spring

:celebrate