mcl.. 28.425f ticket

[lapeer20m]

Another good point is that even if you are open carrying at walmart you are NOT Required to be in possession of your cpl or id. How can you be required to present something that you are not required to carry?

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.
Sec. 5f.

(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.

(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:

 

[lapeer20m]

An officer demanding you present your cpl because you are open carrying at walmart is exactly the same as an officer demanding you present your license to carry transport or possess a pistol while open carrying on a random sidewalk.

 

[Bronson]

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.

The SCOTUS has declared that police are not allowed to stop people on the roads just to see if they are licensed to drive. The SCOTUS (or SCOM), as of yet, has NOT declared the same for pistol possession.

Don't get me wrong it's a good argument but until otherwise interpreted it only applies to being stopped to prove you have a driver's license while driving.

It's the reverse application of what we always say...if it's not specifically illegal then it's legal. Until the police are told, specifically, that they cannot stop an OCer who is in a restricted area to check for exemption then they may do so.

Or as one officer said: "To a cop, all laws are constitutional until somebody higher up tells us they aren't."

Bronson

 

[Yance]

Thanks bronson, thats essentially the point I was getting to.

 

[Bronson]

An officer demanding you present your cpl because you are open carrying at walmart is exactly the same as an officer demanding you present your license to carry transport or possess a pistol while open carrying on a random sidewalk.

Ummm, not it isn't.

The law doesn't require me to carry my LTPCPT after 30 days. But the law does require me to meet one of several exemptions to be on Walmarts property.

However, I do agree that the law does NOT require me to prove that exemption to the officer on scene. But if I choose to not provide that information there may be consequences like being cited or arrested because the officer is going to operate under the evidence available to him.

1. I have a gun
2. I am on the premises where it is illegal to possess a gun unless I am exempted
3. he has seen no proof that I am exempted
4. based on the evidence available to him I am breaking the law

Once I am cited or arrested it moves up the chain out of the officers bailiwick and into the court's/prosecutor's. At that level there IS a law that places the responsibility of proving any exception/exemption of any firearm law squarely on the defendant. Basically they don't have to prove I am NOT exempt, I have to prove that I AM.

776.20

776.20 Firearms violations; burden of establishing exception. Sec. 20.

In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.

So while I agree that we are not legally required to show our proof of exemption to the officer on scene I would ask, what do you gain? If I do not prove it the officer can make a very strong case (that I believe the courts would uphold) that based on the evidence available to him he had PC to cite or arrest me. After the arrest I will have to prove to the courts that I had the exemption which I claimed to have but refused to show to the officer at the original scene.

So what I've done is wasted everybody's time, cost myself money and days off work, and put a bad taste in the mouth of the officer in regards to OCers. I just don't see the profit in picking fights I cannot win.

Bronson

 

[Bronson]

Pretty sure you must be making a driving error to be legally pulled over (checkpoints and true random stops excepted).

I was once pulled over because I was following all the laws. It was late at night and the officer told me that I was driving "too good" (two miles under the posted limit, using blinkers, not moving side to side in the lane, etc) and that in his experience the only people who follow all the laws are drunk people trying to not get caught :banghead::banghead:

Bronson

 

[Bikenut]

The SCOTUS has declared that police are not allowed to stop people on the roads just to see if they are licensed to drive. The SCOTUS (or SCOM), as of yet, has NOT declared the same for pistol possession.

Don't get me wrong it's a good argument but until otherwise interpreted it only applies to being stopped to prove you have a driver's license while driving.

It's the reverse application of what we always say...if it's not specifically illegal then it's legal. Until the police are told, specifically, that they cannot stop an OCer who is in a restricted area to check for exemption then they may do so.

Or as one officer said: "To a cop, all laws are constitutional until somebody higher up tells us they aren't."

Bronson

Ok... that is a good answer to my question. Although I don't like the idea that each and every little aspect of a broad concept must be micro managed through endless court cases it is the system we have. Thank you Bronson.

First of all I'm not questioning what was said... only commenting on the portion I put in bold.....

The idea that the police have the authority to do anything at all unless there is a law or court case that says they don't have such authority... scares the crap out of me because then, instead of only having the authority to do things the law says they can, they become omnipotent with the only impediment to their power being what is said they can't do.

 

[Yance]

Well in any given case, any person can do what they arent specifically told they cannot do. It does make things difficult that we need court cases and SCOTUS decisions before we the people can exercise our rights without being harassed for it.

 

[xmanhockey7]

I was once pulled over because I was following all the laws. It was late at night and the officer told me that I was driving "too good" (two miles under the posted limit, using blinkers, not moving side to side in the lane, etc) and that in his experience the only people who follow all the laws are drunk people trying to not get caught :banghead::banghead:

Bronson

So the officer admitted to stopping you for no reason other than following the laws?

And it seems to me if an officer can ask for your CPL because you are on the premises of a location listed on 750.234d. they can also stop you walking down the street and ask for I.D. to make sure you're not a felon with a gun or that the gun is actually registered to you if you do not have a CPL. Just the way I see it. And I do have 20/15 vision

 

[Yance]

This goes back to Terry V Ohio . A person is not restricted from "wakling down the street" or public sidewalk because there are no restrictions involving firearm possession on public property. Therefore LE cannot approach you based on the mere fact that you have a firearm. I believe MSP 86 covered this as well.

If my cites are off, someone throw the correct ones out there for me.

 

[stainless1911]

776.20 In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.

So it can be said that in this case, we are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Yance]

We are guilty until proven innocent, thats why we are arrested first and have to prove our innocence rather than the courts prove we are guilty and arrest us only after found to be guilty.

 

[stainless1911]

Then why do they keep teaching the opposite in schools, and everywhere else?

 

[Bikenut]

Then why do they keep teaching the opposite in schools, and everywhere else?

To give those who are controlled the illusion that freedom and justice still exist.

 

[Yance]

They tell us what we want to hear, if its the truth or not is up for debate.

Same goes for all these nonsense laws, we are told these laws will make people "safe" and who could oppose safety?

I cant find one gun law that has ever saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has!

 

[Bronson]

So it can be said that in this case, we are guilty until proven innocent.

Not really. In this particular instance, with the evidence available to the officer, you were breaking the law.

1. it is illegal to possess a gun on certain prohibited premises unless meeting one of several available exemptions.
2. the officer sees you in possession of a gun on one of these prohibited premises.
3. you do not provide any thing showing you meet one of the exemptions

all of this equals...

4. he makes an arrest or issues a citation based on the evidence available.

Here's an odd situation that actaully happened to me.

I had an old '77 Ford Maverick that didn't run anymore. I had called the junkyard and they were sending a tow truck the next day to remove the car and crush it. At the time I was involved in medieval recreation and thought it would be fun to see just how difficult it was to penetrate the car's metal skin with swords, axes, spears and various other medieval period weaponry.

Myself and a few friends proceeded to hack and slash at the car (it's very difficult to penetrate metal plate with a sword by the way) and generally having a good ol' time. Then the officer showed up.

He was driving by and saw us "vandalising" the car in the backyard and stopped to investigate. He asked us to step away from the pile of weaponry and asked what we were doing. I explained that the car was mine and showed him my ID and the car's title and explained the situation. Once he determined that I was indeed the owner he basically just looked at us like we were martians, told us to be careful, and left.

Now had I NOT been able to prove to the officer that I was the owner of the vehicle would he have been in the right to arrest us (or at the very least detain us while he investigated) for vandalising the car? I say yes.

What everyone seems to be missing or ignoring is that when we carry in a restriced area we ARE BREAKING THE LAW. That in and of itself is all the RS an officer needs to investigate. The law allows certain exemptions but until there is proof that those exemptions are met the officer is going to operate on the evidence that he has seen you possess a firearm where it is generally illegal to possess a firearm.

An officer cannot detain you just for the possession of a pistol if there is not evidence that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. If you are possessing in a restricted place you ARE committing a crime so the RS requirement has been met and the officer can investigate.

Is it silly that an OCer is legal standing on the sidewalk and cannot be approached by an officer but if he takes one step to the left onto the grocery store parking lot he is breaking the law and can be investigated? Yes it is, but it is the current law we have to deal with.

Bronson

 

[Bronson]

So the officer admitted to stopping you for no reason other than following the laws?

Yes he did.

I was 19 and just happy to not get a ticket.

Bronson

 

[stainless1911]

Well put, thank you.

 

[Yance]

Bronson, you made my point better than I could have made my point. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Shadow Bear]

To give those who are controlled the illusion that freedom and justice still exist.

That's why its called the American 'Dream'. Its only in your mind....