Yance
Regular Member
the law requires a license to operate a vehicle, but i don't see police stopping everyone getting into a vehicle to ask to see a driver's license
I cant even begin to explain how completely tired of seeing this rebuttle to the discussion about being asked for a CPL by LEO. I'm sure, beyond a doubt, youve been here long enough to know this already:
DrTodd said:In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the US Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.
But if not there it is for you.
I would also go as far as to argue that one doesnt carry with a license to carry, but they carry under the authority of MCL 28.422 (without a CPL) because the 28.422 itself permits anyone who qualifies under that section to purchase a pistol to carry it as well. After 30 days you do not have to keep anything on your person unlike with a CPL..(or drivers license for those of you that continue to make that argument). It is a license to purchase, yes...but to carry its probably safe to say after those 30 days you carry under the authority of it, even the Purchase Permit states "Authority: MCL 28.422" and I know because I just looked at the one in my wallet.
Last edited: