A statement from the leadership of Michigan Open Carry on the Passage of SB 59

[scot623]

Here in Kentucky we can carry everywhere except Court of Justice courthouses (just the COJ; we can still carry in ALL other courthouses and government buildings) and K-12 schools without obtaining the government's permission and without spending our time and money on unnecessary training.

I'm confused...according to handgunlaw.us you can't carry in any of the following. Am I missing something?

237.110
 Police station or sheriff's office.
 Detention facility, prison or jail
 Courthouse (Court of Justice, courtroom or court proceeding).
 County, municipal, or special district governing body meetings
 General Assembly session, including committee meetings.
 Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense beer or alcoholic beverages for consumption on
the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose;
 Elementary or secondary school facilities or any other property owned, used, or operated by any
board of education, school, board of trustees, regents, or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. The provisions of this section shall not apply to institutions of postsecondary or higher education. Note: Unlawful possession of a weapon on school property in Kentucky is a felony punishable by a maximum of five (5) years in prison and a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine.
 Child-caring facilities, day care centers, or any certified family child care home.

 

[autosurgeon]

Might I suggest you ask why we chose to support it? Politics is not a clean simple game like some want people to believe.

 

[TheQ]

So an organization predicated on supporting open carry in the state of Michigan has decided to support legislation which effectively further restricts a person's ability to open carry?

See post 43.

 

[OC4me]

Deleted . . . mistaken post.

 

[Yance]

This bill does not criminalize OC in general, it would simply be prohibited in PFZ's under SB 59 if signed into law, it does not take away your right to OC out in public as you would any day of your life. But in all honestly how many of you that are complaining about MOC's support of this bill actually OC into a PFZ on a DAILY basis?

As was previously stated, OC in a PFZ was not held up by any law or court precedent, it was an individuals understanding of the law..a loop hole. We never really had OC in a PFZ to begin with, now that the governor is aware that by the loop hole people could OC into a PFZ MOC's leadership was left in a VERY difficult place.

Do we:

-support this bill because of all of the benefits while closing a loop hole in the law

-not support this bill and we do not gain PFZ carry, retain the CPL licensing board, then potentially face a bill that prohibits OC in a PFZ anyways because Gov does not approve of OC in a PFZ.

So which one would you have been more upset with? Think about that.

 

[autosurgeon]

Yes you are missing a quite a lot. Think of HandGunLaw.us as more like abbreviated Cliff Notes as opposed to the final say on Michigan laws.

He was referencing KY state law as a resident of that state told us he can carry in places listed as no go on the KY AG website.

 

[Yance]

So an organization focused on supporting gun rights in the state of Michigan has decided to support legislation which effectively enhances a person's ability to carry a firearm for self defense in more areas while streamlining the CPL process?

FIFY


and to answer the question above....Yes, after much deliberation.

 

[DanM]

"Concealed means concealed". Sighs. I can't believe I just said that.

It is clear that the proof would have to be the standard of evidence that the person "intended".

The record is clear. There have been the bringing of charges and/or prosecutions agains legal CC'ers for unintentional printing or exposure in states that do not allow OC in some or all places in such states.

"Concealed" means whatever your prosecutor thinks he/she can convince a jury in his/her area of the state is "concealed" . . . versus "not concealed", or "display", or "openly carried", etc. And also "intentional" means whatever your prosecutor thinks he/she can convince a jury in his/her area of the state is "intentional".

That's the bottom line. When you are being prosecuted, "concealed", "intentional", "display", and "openly" are not stipulated to be your definitions. They are whatever the prosecutor thinks he might be able to convince a jury from his area that they are.

Also, do you agree that there in fact is not an absence of criminal penalties if you violate the proposed OC in PFZ ban?

Minor Printing or accidental exposure clearly is exempted.

I don't see those exemptions in the law. Further, if they were there, how is "minor", "printing", and "exposure" defined?

I am not kidding, if I am going to have to not be in jeopardy when I CC in a PFZ, I need to know EXACTLY what NOT to do in order to be considered "concealed" at all times.

 

[Yance]

If anyone has complaints about the MOC board deciding to support this legislation please re-read post number #46 then think about your position on MOC's support of the bill.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

This bill does not criminalize OC in general, it would simply be prohibited in PFZ's under SB 59 if signed into law, it does not take away your right to OC out in public as you would any day of your life. But in all honestly how many of you that are complaining about MOC's support of this bill actually OC into a PFZ on a DAILY basis?

As was previously stated, OC in a PFZ was not held up by any law or court precedent, it was an individuals understanding of the law..a loop hole. We never really had OC in a PFZ to begin with, now that the governor is aware that by the loop hole people could OC into a PFZ MOC's leadership was left in a VERY difficult place.

Do we:

-support this bill because of all of the benefits while closing a loop hole in the law

-not support this bill and we do not gain PFZ carry, retain the CPL licensing board, then potentially face a bill that prohibits OC in a PFZ anyways because Gov does not approve of OC in a PFZ.

So which one would you have been more upset with? Think about that.

Was this mentioned at ALL the OC seminars? What about all the folks who were handed copies of Legal Update #86, or were given verbal information in regards to OC in the PFZ's: Will the decision-making members (9) of MOC be in touch with these folks and MSP to inform them that's its all been just a big misunderstanding?

ETA: ing

 

[TheQ]

Was this mentioned at ALL the OC seminars? What about all the folks who were handed copies of Legal Update #86, or were given verbal information in regards to OC in the PFZ's: Will the decision-making members (9) of MOC be in touch with these folks and MSP to inform them that's its all been just a big misunderstand?

It is incumbent upon EVERY gun carrier (double that for OCers) to stay current on Michigan Laws. After the law passes, we will write up and well publish an update summarizing the changes on all of our social outlets.

 

[Tucker6900]

Can someone explain how this is a positive move forward for the carry movement?

This just seems like more violation of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". "Oh yeah, you can conceal in a PFZ. But because its so much different than open carry, the state requires you to get more training." Seems a little backwards to me. Wouldnt training be more effective if we were required to train on weapon retention? I dont see the point in this.

 

[Yance]

The record is clear. There have been the bringing of charges and/or prosecutions agains legal CC'ers for unintentional printing or exposure in states that do not allow OC in some or all places in such states.

"Concealed" means whatever your prosecutor thinks he/she can convince a jury in his/her area of the state is "concealed" . . . versus "not concealed", or "display", or "openly carried", etc. And also "intentional" means whatever your prosecutor thinks he/she can convince a jury in his/her area of the state is "intentional".

That's the bottom line. When you are being prosecuted, "concealed", "intentional", "display", and "openly" are not stipulated to be your definitions. They are whatever the prosecutor thinks he might be able to convince a jury from his area that they are.

Also, do you agree that there in fact is not an absence of criminal penalties if you violate the proposed OC in PFZ ban?



I don't see those exemptions in the law. Further, if they were there, how is "minor", "printing", and "exposure" defined?

I am not kidding, if I am going to have to not be in jeopardy when I CC in a PFZ, I need to know EXACTLY what NOT to do in order to be considered "concealed" at all times.

The bill says "willfully displays or openly carries" If you're shirt comes up and exposes your pistol you will be fine, if you walk in with an obvious OWB holster and your shirt tucked in, making no attempt to conceal then you would be in violation. Printing is not included in the bill, nor is accidental showing of a concealed arm. You would have to be obviously and intentionally attempting to open carry to be in violation.

 

[Tucker6900]

The bill says "willfully displays or openly carries" If you're shirt comes up and exposes your pistol you will be fine, if you walk in with an obvious OWB holster and your shirt tucked in, making no attempt to conceal then you would be in violation. Printing is not included in the bill, nor is accidental showing of a concealed arm. You would have to be obviously and intentionally attempting to open carry to be in violation.

Is that information going to be passed on to the arresting officers? And if so, are they going to care?

It appears one right, sorry, privilege, has been given up for another, and both still require permission from the .gov. It also appears that another legal loophole, that WILL be exploited by judges and DA's, has been opened.

 

[detroit_fan]

I got an email from the NRA, and it included the following about SB59-

"Further requirements to streamline and improve the license process include establishment of a system for refunds of fees, requirement of county sheriffs who maintain fingerprinting capability to provide reasonable access to fingerprinting services, and a requirement to either issue or deny the license within a 45-day period from the date of application."


Current law states- the concealed weapon licensing board shall issue or deny issuance of a license within 45 days after the concealed weapon licensing board receives the fingerprint comparison report provided under subsection.

Would SB59 mandate they approve the license within 45 days of application, instead of 45 days after the fingerprint report was provided? If so, this would end the months-long wait some counties put you through, correct?

 

[davidmcbeth]

It appears one right, sorry, privilege, has been given up for another, and both still require permission from the .gov. It also appears that another legal loophole, that WILL be exploited by judges and DA's, has been opened.

+1

"We thought the bill was clear in meaning this but the courts ruled otherwise .... sorry !" Will be statement of people who support this bill.

 

[Ezerharden]

Ok I have spoken with another member of the Board, and for myself I will say we need to cut TheQ some slack here. I urge all MOC members to attend the TS meeting tonight at 8pm if you care about this issue.

 

[DanM]

The bill says "willfully displays or openly carries"

No, it says "shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol", as I correctly quoted it above.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0059.pdf

If you're shirt comes up and exposes your pistol you will be fine, if you walk in with an obvious OWB holster and your shirt tucked in, making no attempt to conceal then you would be in violation.

None of those definitional statements are in the bill. It might be helpful if they were, but they are not.

Printing is not included in the bill, nor is accidental showing of a concealed arm.

That's right. All that's there is "intentionally", "display", and "openly carry". Re-read my points in prior posts about all that matters is what a prosecutor believes he can convince a jury in his area to go along with in interpreting those words and how the facts of your case are enough of a fit to secure your conviction.

You would have to be obviously and intentionally attempting to open carry to be in violation.

No. To be held in violation and charged, all it takes is prosecutor willing to roll the dice that he can successfully argue to a jury in his area that, based on the facts of your case, you did "intentionally display or openly carry a pistol".

Believe me, there are PLENTY of prosecutors out there that have no problem rolling the dice on you if they think they've got a better than even chance with the kind of juries they have in their area.

 

[Michigander]

I do agree Dan, that if this bill passes, this will as a matter of certainty be a problem.

If it passes, it will be a matter of case law. More expensive, tedious court cases, and a loss of a good deal of freedom, even if it's a niche issue most people don't care about.

This definitely isn't a happy situation.

 

[DrTodd]

See post 43.

Lame answer, Q. If MOC were started as an association advocating for concealed-carry, I would accept the organization advocating for this. I can also see advocating for a bill that helps CC but remains neutral in its treatment of OC. However, MOC was founded to advocate for Open Carry... which this bill restricts. So how does this further what MOC states as their founding goal?