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

[DrTodd]

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


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


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.



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.

It is a civil infraction, not a "criminal" trial. All a prosecutor must show is you more likely than not did what they say you did.

 

[TheQ]

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?

Would you like to attend our 8 PM meeting? I'll give you an invite. PM me.

 

[Yance]

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


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


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.



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.

However I challenge you then to show me where OC in a PFZ is held up by law or court precedence. Its not. OC in a PFZ is nothing more than a theory based on our attempt at understanding how the laws work together. We could be right or we could be wrong, thus far it has proved successful...except for the pesky People V Watkins case where the judge said it was absurd. Most people chose not to test OCing in a PFZ under current law because it was obvious a judge may try their best to see you prosecuted because the understand that you could OC in a PFZ was "absurd."

Also, I cant say what is "intentional OCing" it would be up to a judge. But if all you did was take your coat off...your shirt uncovers your gun..and you recover your firearm it would be quite the argument in your favor that you were not intentionally trying to "openly display" your firearm.


Lastly please see my bolded and red text in the quoted section. You are right..all it takes is one judge to convince a jury....*gasp* that OC in a PFZ is NOT permitted under current law. And there are NO facts or evidence to back up your claim that it is, therefore you would be left at the mercy of the jury either way. So would you rather have CC in a PFZ or no CC in a PFZ and those of you who do OC in a PFZ continue to roll the dice that a jury will agree with your understanding of the law?

 

[Yance]

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

During the seminars I have attended and helped present we made it clear that it was an UNDERSTANDING of the law and that there are some judges that may try to convict you of a MCL 28.425o violation, especially after the People V. Watkins case, even for OCing in a PFZ. As well, MSP update 86 IS NOT legally binding..in any way, in fact it is only binding on the STATE POLICE, if you presented it before a judge they do NOT have to rule the way MSP update 86 is written.

 

[DanM]

However I challenge you then to show me where OC in a PFZ is held up by law or court precedence. . . .

Want a little mustard with that red herring? I am not talking about OC'ing in PFZ's. My posts are addressing this bill's language with regard to CC'ing in a PFZ. Specifically, that while CC'ing in a PFZ you "shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol". I see the real potential for CC'ers in PFZ's to have to spend money defending themselves against some prosecutors in some areas who have their own interpretation, or know that the juries in their area will have their own interpretation, of "intentionally", "display", and "openly". Other states that restrict or ban open carry have incidents of CC'ers being charged for inadvertent printing or exposure.

Would you like to directly respond to exactly what I have been writing, or do you concede that what I'm writing about is a valid concern?

 

[Yance]

Want a little mustard with that red herring? I am not talking about OC'ing in PFZ's. My posts are addressing this bill's language with regard to CC'ing in a PFZ. Specifically, that while CC'ing in a PFZ you "shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol". I see the real potential for CC'ers in PFZ's to have to spend money defending themselves against some prosecutors in some areas who have their own interpretation, or know that the juries in their area will have their own interpretation, of "intentionally", "display", and "openly". Other states that restrict or ban open carry have incidents of CC'ers being charged for inadvertent printing or exposure.

Would you like to directly respond to exactly what I have been writing, or do you concede that what I'm writing about is a valid concern?

Maybe I got a little off track...however you can risk either trying to prove you did not intentionally OC or you can try to prove that the law says you can OC in a PFZ in a weird relationship between the laws...which do you think will be easier to convince a jury of?

But there is real potential that a prosecutor will go after you for OCing in a PFZ under current law...But I see you didnt address my bolded and highlighted text. So, again...Would you rather have CC in a PFZ or no CC in a PFZ and those of you who do OC in a PFZ continue to roll the dice that a jury will agree with your understanding of the law?

This bill affords another good reason to always carry a recorder. If you do get caught in a he said/she said about you intentionally displaying your firearm it will be a lot easier to have a recording of any conversations.

 

[Yance]

Also...

Werent the lot of you just saying not too many months ago that the "michigan pistol" people should let go of that for support of HB 5225? You folks were saying they should "compromise" because the good outweighed the bad, that of losing the michigan pistol and gaining registration and purchase permit repeal? Seems as though we were forced into a compromise because the good outweighed the bad.

The people that are offended by MOC supporting this bill seem to be acting like MOC just supported a bill that outright bans open carry across the state of Michigan. Forget the fact that MOC is supporting a bill that streamlines the CPL process AND PERMITS PISTOLS IN THE PFZ's...But not like people werent screaming to be allowed to carry in a PFZ anyways, I must have been making that up.

Look, you have two options and yes, this is how it is.

1.) support this bill and be permit 340,000+ people to carry in a PFZ and streamline the CPL process, and OC with permission of the owner (while you will already be CCing)

2.) oppose this bill, lose carry in a PFZ, retain the CPL licensing boards in each county, and OC in a PFZ on the hope that a jury will agree with your understanding of the law if you are unfortunate enough to be prosecuted for it.

Please, which would would you rather pick because those are the ONLY two options we have.

 

[DrTodd]

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.

Yance, very wishful thinking. It is left up to a judge to decide whether you were open-carrying or not. No jury, no "preponderance of the evidence"; it is a civil infraction. If the judge believes you likely did it, you will be found to have violated the law.

 

[TheQ]

Want a little mustard with that red herring? I am not talking about OC'ing in PFZ's. My posts are addressing this bill's language with regard to CC'ing in a PFZ. Specifically, that while CC'ing in a PFZ you "shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol". I see the real potential for CC'ers in PFZ's to have to spend money defending themselves against some prosecutors in some areas who have their own interpretation, or know that the juries in their area will have their own interpretation, of "intentionally", "display", and "openly". Other states that restrict or ban open carry have incidents of CC'ers being charged for inadvertent printing or exposure.

Would you like to directly respond to exactly what I have been writing, or do you concede that what I'm writing about is a valid concern?

Please, there's been enough hostility against people in this thread. People who had to make a very tough decision. They had to make this decision because they raised their hand to step up when people were needed to help.

Let's end the hostilities now. If you're interested in helping, great! PM me and I can help you get on board.

If you're an MOC member and would like to run for President or Secretary, those positions are open for election this coming summer.

 

[TheQ]

Yance, very wishful thinking. It is left up to a judge to decide whether you were open-carrying or not. No jury, no "preponderance of the evidence"; it is a civil infraction. If the judge believes you likely did it, you will be found to have violated the law.

A jury trial can be demanded for a C/I.

People v Watkins was a C/I. The defendant opted for a bench trial.

 

[DrTodd]

Also...

Were't the lot of you just saying not too many months ago that the "michigan pistol" people should let go of that for support of HB 5225? You folks were saying they should "compromise" because the good outweighed the bad, that of losing the michigan pistol and gaining registration and purchase permit repeal? Seems as though we were forced into a compromise because the good outweighed the bad.

The people that are offended by MOC supporting this bill seem to be acting like MOC just supported a bill that outright bans open carry across the state of Michigan. Forget the fact that MOC is supporting a bill that streamlines the CPL process AND PERMITS PISTOLS IN THE PFZ's...But not like people werent screaming to be allowed to carry in a PFZ anyways, I must have been making that up.

Look, you have two options and yes, this is how it is.

1.) support this bill and be permit 340,000+ people to carry in a PFZ and streamline the CPL process, and OC with permission of the owner (while you will already be CCing)

2.) oppose this bill, lose carry in a PFZ, retain the CPL licensing boards in each county, and OC in a PFZ on the hope that a jury will agree with your understanding of the law if you are unfortunate enough to be prosecuted for it.

Please, which would would you rather pick because those are the ONLY two options we have.

I was just thinking that representatives would keep the goals of what the organization was founded upon in mind if they choose to speak as a group on any issue. Since the bill not only does nothing for OC but actually does more than that by further restricting open carry, I would have assumed that the organization as a whole would have said that they would not support this... individual stances notwithstanding. Also, CC is not OC...

So I ask once again a very simple question: How does this bill further the cause of open carry in Michigan?

 

[DrTodd]

A jury trial can be demanded for a C/I.

People v Watkins was a C/I. The defendant opted for a bench trial.

So someone could spend thousands of dollars fighting a 500 dollar fine. Nice!

But seriously, even if we recognize the number of members with a CPL and incorporate that into the MOC umbrella and the issue was a choice between adding an optional course for CC in previously prohibited areas but losing OC in those areas, the argument could be made. But, don't forget the NEW renewal provisions and the costs associated with that...

 

[FreeInAZ]

So someone could spend thousands of dollars fighting a 500 dollar fine. Nice!

Excellent points as usual DrTodd.

 

[Yance]

I was just thinking that representatives would keep the goals of what the organization was founded upon in mind if they choose to speak as a group on any issue. Since the bill not only does nothing for OC but actually does more than that by further restricting open carry, I would have assumed that the organization as a whole would have said that they would not support this... individual stances notwithstanding. Also, CC is not OC...

So I ask once again a very simple question: How does this bill further the cause of open carry in Michigan?

Its like this...people wanted to carry in PFZ's so we decided lets let everyone in Michigan win this round. Now, once this passes in a year or so we say "hey, look you've allowed CC in these places and no one was hurt, those people showed they were responsible, so let them OC..they already have their guns on them any ways"

It will be a lot better to win that battle than it will to oppose this bill...kill it...then ask them to write a bill that allows any form of carry in a PFZ. As well Gov Snyder is AGAINST open carry in a PFZ, otherwise SB-59 would have passed as written. If we opposed this bill do you think the Gov, now aware of OC in PFZ's, would allow that to continue? I very highly doubt it.

We would have opposed this bill then LOST open carry in PFZ's and you know what everyone would be saying then? "Way to go open carriers now you ruined it for all of us, you just couldnt give a little compromise, now we have no CC in a PFZ AND no OC in a PFZ."

It was a very tough decision..believe me its one that does not settle well with me...but we have to think past the tip of our nose. Yes, up front this bill looks bad for OC, but we need to stop complaining about it and start thinking NOW about what we can do to take advantage of it. The board of MOC agreed that there was still much to be fought for and that IN THE END we would be better off supporting this and then pushing for more relaxed laws.

The fact is you have to start somewhere, may not be where you want to start, but you have to start with something at some point. However its not about where you start its where you end up. If we never gain OC back then feel free to blow up my inbox with your complaints, but if down the road we make serious improvements to the right to carry in this state because of this bill everyone will be glad that we took the necessary steps.

 

[Yance]

So someone could spend thousands of dollars fighting a 500 dollar fine. Nice!

But seriously, even if we recognize the number of members with a CPL and incorporate that into the MOC umbrella and the issue was a choice between adding an optional course for CC in previously prohibited areas but losing OC in those areas, the argument could be made. But, don't forget the NEW renewal provisions and the costs associated with that...

Cheaper than paying thousands or 500 dollars, wouldnt you agree?

 

[DrTodd]

Cheaper than paying thousands or 500 dollars, wouldnt you agree?

I can do that now at no additional cost for an extra course; just need to Open Carry. Even better: I don't need to pay even more money to take a course to renew every five years. Also I think your belief that there will not be malicious prosecutions for accidentally exposing a firearm may be a bit wishful. And yes, I OC every weekday in a "no cc" zone.

 

[DanM]

It is a civil infraction, not a "criminal" trial. All a prosecutor must show is you more likely than not did what they say you did.

1st offense is a civil infraction, 2nd and 3rd are misdemeanor and felony, respectively. You are correct, on the 1st offense, the prosecutor would have even less of a burden to get a successful roll of his dice.

 

[KYGlockster]

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.

Yea you missed the point of my ENTIRE post! These places are only off limits to people who are carrying a CONCEALED weapon! If you are carrying openly then these places are NOT off limits! We can carry in all of these places without obtaining a license to do so at the age of 18, except in the two places I stated in my original post.

And to the other poster that questioned my ability to post in this sub-froum: I am always in contact with legislators in my state, and I do work to make sure the government does NOT infringe on our rights. We have feverishly fought to have the laws we have today -- or lack thereof! Others have done MUCH more than I have, but I would never support legislation that removes a right and replaces it with a privilege! This is common sense! And thank you for attempting to silence my ability to exercise my First Amendment rights through your bias post!

 

[KYGlockster]

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.

Again my friend; those places are ONLY OFF LIMITS TO THOSE THAT ARE CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON! The ONLY places off limits for those openly carrying are Court of Justice courthouses and K-12 schools. Please do not attempt to understand the laws of this state better than I do, as I have studied them for years now, and there isn't many to memorize; in fact there are NO laws concerning the ban of openly carried firearms other than k-12 schools. The COJ can ban anything under a different statute that allows them to do as they please inside buildings under their control. However, if there is a public office being shared with the COJ then we can carry to that office. Keep in mind that county courthouses are not COJ courthouses. We can carry in ALL other government buildings, and Kentucky does not legislate areas they have no control over -- like churches and such.

Perhaps you should read the Attorney General opinions and the Holland v. Commonwealth case before you attempt to state those places are off limits to open carriers, which was the topic of my OP.

Concealed carry is a PRIVILEGE in Kentucky; OPEN carry is a right. Hence the restrictions on CC and not on OC. This is why I referenced our law. I wanted people to understand that they were exchanging a right for a privilege if this passes and gets signed into law.

 

[DrTodd]

1st offense is a civil infraction, 2nd and 3rd are misdemeanor and felony, respectively. You are correct, on the 1st offense, the prosecutor would have even less of a burden to get a successful roll of his dice.

I am not willing to accept even the first one and kept my comments to that point. Furthermore, imagine trying to argue to a jury that although a judge had previously found you "purposefully" exposed your firearm one time but this time it was an accident. lol