HI OCrs, new here w/a couple of Questions

[Venator]

imported post

DanM wrote:

Venator wrote:

DanM wrote:

Venator wrote:

Dan you misunderstand. . . .

Oh, I thought we wereon the subject I've been engaged in here: OC in a vehicle being "considered concealed" by the law.

I was referring to the man that was charged with carrying concealed in a vehicle. You were saying that it wouldn't be a concealed weapons violation.

I think you havea misunderstanding or I wasn't clear. I have been arguing against the statement"OC in a vehicle is 'considered CC'". I haven't been arguing against the statement "CC in a vehicle is 'considered CC'".

Okay now I'm confused.

If you do not have a CPL and you have a loaded firearm in your car whether OC or CC anywhere in the vehicle, the charge is CCW in a vehicle, unless it was on the person, then perhaps both charges would apply...1 count CCW on a person, 1 count CCW in a vehicle.

What I think you are saying is if a persons DOES NOT have a CPL and is carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle but it's open (say on the dash)you would not be charged with a CCW. Correct?

My opinion is that you would be charged with a CCW in a vehicle. I may be wrong.

 

[Bronson]

imported post

My opinion is that you would be charged with a CCW in a vehicle. I may be wrong.

They maycharge you with that but if Dan is correct perhaps they wouldcharge you with "unlawful transport".

They would probablypursue the charge that carried themore severepunishment.

Bronson

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

IMO, the intent of the laws pertaining to licensedcarry in a vehicle is quite clear. I personally, would not attempt to split hairs here. In Michigan, with a CPL, it doesn't matter if the pistol is exposed on your hip, on the dash, on the seat next to you or duct taped to your foreheadifyou are in the compartment of your vehicle you are CC.

 

[PDinDetroit]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

or duct taped to your forehead

Now that sounds like a good BG deterrent! Most would run the other way upon just the sight of such a display.

+1 on your post as well!

 

[conservative85]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

IMO, the intent of the laws pertaining to licensedcarry in a vehicle is quite clear. I personally, would not attempt to split hairs here. In Michigan, with a CPL, it doesn't matter if the pistol is exposed on your hip, on the dash, on the seat next to you or duct taped to your foreheadifyou are in the compartment of your vehicle you are CC.

+ 1... Inside a car/trk is cc I believe that is defined by the department of Nazi re constructionist.

Now on the self propelled, I take that to be a moped, motorcycle!

As far as the "other than pistol", I see no reason to have a cpl on a bike or motorcycle

 

[DanM]

imported post

Venator wrote:

If you do not have a CPL and you have a loaded firearm in your car whether OC or CC anywhere in the vehicle, the charge is CCW in a vehicle, unless it was on the person, then perhaps both charges would apply...1 count CCW on a person, 1 count CCW in a vehicle.

What I think you are saying is if a persons DOES NOT have a CPL and is carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle but it's open (say on the dash)you would not be charged with a CCW. Correct?

My opinion is that you would be charged with a CCW in a vehicle. I may be wrong.

Again, let me be clear about what I have all along been discussing. I'm notarguing againstthe statement "OC in a vehicle without a CPLcould be charged as 'CCW in a vehicle'". I'm arguing against the statement "OC in a vehicle is considered CC[concealed carry]".

The law does not consider OC in vehicle to be CC. In fact it looks like the opposite: the law, and its authors, contemplates pistols "concealed or otherwise" in vehicles. I've analyzed the language of the law quite clearly, I think. Seeearlier posts.

I do not consider OC in a vehicle to be CC. OC is OC and CC is CC, to me, whether you're "in" a vehicle, "in" a building, or "in" anything. OC'ing in a vehicle without a valid CPL is unlawful. OC'ing in a vehicle is not CC . . .it is OC . . . in a vehicle. That is all.

Some prosecutors consider OC in a vehicle CC and charge "CCW in a vehicle" if you don't have a CPL? Well, that's an imperfect way of expressing the violation. A better way to express the violation, according to the law, might be "Unlawful carry in a vehicle". I've seen prosecutors, police, etc. use terms very loosely in documents, so this doesn't surprise me.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

I have to agree with Dan on this one... The correct charge according to the letter of the law would be "unlawful carry in a vehicle" for OC without a CPL in a motor vehicle.

It is not listed as CC in the law but rather as an Unlawful act. Now it is easy to say that it is considered CC as that is what so many people call it prosecutors included however according to the letter of the law it is not. Technically they should be charging folks with unlawful carry only not CC in a vehicle.

 

[Venator]

imported post

A real life case. There must be more to it than that. Look at the charges made and what he supposedly did. Which was to have unloaded and casedhandguns in his truck. Seems he got railroaded...pun intended (read the entire article to get that joke)


Londo pleads guilty in gun case
by Ray Kisonas , last modified August 25. 2009 11:44AM
Spread The News

An agreement has been reached in the illegal gun possession case
involving former county Administrator Charles Londo, who pleaded
guilty to a misdemeanor and will pay fines. He will not serve any jail
time.

A Monroe judge who accepted the agreement this morning said in court
that he wanted to make it clear that Mr. Londo is not receiving
preferential treatment just because he once was the county's chief
financial officer.

"There is no attempt to provide any favoritism," First District Judge
Jack Vitale said from his bench. "There are some people who believe
you were not treated harshly enough, and there are some who believe
you were treated too harshly. People inevitably do this kind of
thing."

Mr. Londo, 62, was detained but not arrested when he admitted to a
Michigan State Police trooper that he had four unloaded and cased
handguns in his truck when he was pulled over Aug. 12. His permit to
carry weapons inside a vehicle had expired months ago.

This morning, Mr. Londo pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm at
an establishment that is licensed to sell liquor, which would have
been the golf course where he was prior to being pulled over. In
exchange for the plea, the Monroe County Prosecutor's Office dropped a
felony carrying a concealed weapon charge.

Mr. Londo, dressed in a dark suit and flanked by his attorney, Bill
Godfroy of Monroe, declined to make a statement before the judge. He
was sentenced to $200 in fines and costs. He also must pay a $110 fine
for driving around railroad crossing gates, which is why the trooper
pulled him over.

Mr. Londo said afterward that the most difficult part of the situation
was losing his four handguns. Under state law, the guns are forfeited
and will be destroyed.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

It would seem that the fellow should have kept his mouth shut! Also those cases should have been locked if he didn't have a CPL and they were in the cab... They also should have been behind the seat.

Also driving around a RR crossing while a cop is watching shows that he has no SA!!

I don't like the plea BC unless the guns were out of the vehicle or the vehicle was parked in the clubhouse then it shouldn't matter that he had them in the parking lot of a LL establishment.

 

[springerdave]

imported post

So, he had unloaded and cased handguns apparently in a parking lot of an establishment with a L-License and was told by his lawyer to plead guilty to that? I hope that the others here that don't have CPL's hear this and use the info to avoid prosecution. Looks like you are not to even be on the premises of such establishment, such as in getting gas at a station that sells alcohol. I agree, Venator that he seemed to be "railroaded". BTW the guy that wrote that news article should bring suit against his parents for giving him that name, Kis-on-as:lol:.springerdave.

 

[Venator]

imported post

I think it was trumped up.

Look, does that mean if I have my hunting guns lawfully stored in my vehicle, that I am not allowed to be on the premises of any of these places listed in .234d? 750.234d doesn't differentiate between handguns and long guns it says firearms.

Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: a) A Bank[/b]. b) A church[/b]. c) A court[/b]. d) A theatre[/b]. e) A sports arena.[/b] f) A day care center[/b]. g) A hospital[/b]. h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act.

[/b]If so then no more going hunting after church, no more stopping at the bank to get cash on your way up north to deer hunt. no more stopping at Meijers to pick up shooting supplies on the way to the range or hunting. no more filling up you car on the way hunting or shooting or any other lawful purpose.

It's absurd. Parking lots have to be exempt or persons would not be allowed to travel anywhere with handguns or long guns without a CPL. Seems to me hundreds of thousand's of people are committing this offense every November 15th.

His attorney is an idiot and caved into pleading to a misdemeanor instead of a felony and it's clear he has no understanding of firearm laws.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Well he wasn't too smart himself... he did go around the RR crossing gates in full view of a MSP car.... and then flapped his teeth to the officer about his itinerary and contents of his vehicle!

So it is not surprising that he would have an idiot for a lawyer!

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

Venator wrote:

I think it was trumped up.

Look, does that mean if I have my hunting guns lawfully stored in my vehicle, that I am not allowed to be on the premises of any of these places listed in .234d?  750.234d doesn't differentiate between handguns and long guns it says firearms.

Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following: a) A Bank[/b]. b) A church[/b]. c) A court[/b]. d) A theatre[/b]. e) A sports arena.[/b] f) A day care center[/b]. g) A hospital[/b]. h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act.

[/b]If so then no more going hunting after church, no more stopping at the bank to get cash on your way up north to deer hunt.  no more stopping at Meijers to pick up shooting supplies on the way to the range or hunting.  no more filling up you car on the way hunting or shooting or any other lawful purpose.

It's absurd.  Parking lots have to be exempt or persons would not be allowed to travel anywhere with handguns or long guns without a CPL.  Seems to me hundreds of thousand's of people are committing this offense every November 15th.

His attorney is an idiot and caved into pleading to a misdemeanor instead of a felony and it's clear he has no understanding of firearm laws. 

I do agree with you that he wasn't the brightest when he talked to the LEO, nor when he tried to avoid the rail gates in the first place.

However, just because many thousands of people violate a law does not necessarily negate it (remember the 55 speed limit?).

It appears that all of those hunters (w/out a cpl) are violating the law. The issue is going to be is to what degree is it enforced. Basically, a LEO is given the privelege of deciding who to cite for the violation and who gets a pass (just like the old 55 speed limit).

This may be a good point to bring up if/when we ever have legislation to change the current law.