DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
This has been discussed ad nauseum. The argument could be made that driving a car is illegal without a DL, YET LEO's can't just stop you to see if you have one. A similar argument could be made here.
Remember the person could be the owner, have permission, be a LEO or have a CPL, all these people are allowed to have a firearm in this case. What is the RAS that the person in question doesn't fall under one of these exemption? Think driving a car....
The only argument we get to the contrary have been from CJ professors and LEOs.
But, as has been stated, a court case is needed to decide once and for all.
Venator, no court case is needed as this is pretty standard legal reasoning...
If the offense of "Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited" (MCL 750.234d) were worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on these premises unless that person has a CPL," then lack of a permit is part of the offense and until there is reason for the officer to suspect that one lacks a CPL, there is no RAS and detention would be illegal.
But since it is worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following..." and later provides an exception for people having permits, then possessing the firearm on the listed premises is the offense and sufficient suspicion of that (ie seeing the firearm) justifies a detention. Having the CPL is a defense, and the officer doesn't have to rule that out, any more than he or she has to rule out insanity, that the suspect is a police officer, agent of the owner, etc.
You bring up driving: A person has to wear a seatbelt in Michigan, it is presumptively against the law not to wear one. There is an exception to the seatbelt law for people with a physician's statement that the person suffers from some sort of condition which precludes having to wear one. Since driving without a seatbelt on is presumptively prohibited, an officer can stop someone for not wearing it. Does the officer need to rule out the exception before effecting the stop? Ah..., no.
But, the law concerning driver's licenses in general is different, and on your point above about just stopping drivers to ascertain whether they have a DL, you are correct:
MCL 257.301 Valid operator's or chauffeur's license required...;
Sec. 301.
(1) Except as provided in this act, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless that person has a valid operator's or chauffeur's license with the appropriate group designation and indorsements for the type or class of vehicle being driven or towed.
Notice that the law doesn't state that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle in Michigan and then provide a list of exceptions, one being a driver's license. Rather, it says that one shall not drive a motor vehicle unless you have a license. This wording requires the officer to raise the probability that you do not have a valid license to a sufficient level in order to conduct a stop. As the officer develops a list of reasons for his belief, one could say that he is "articulating" his "reasonable suspicion".
The law clearly establishes that by possessing a firearm on certain premises a person is violating the law AND then goes on to list exceptions to that law. To not show your ID/CPL and prove you are carrying under an exception would most likely subject the OCer to arrest and confiscation of the firearm until such time as the OCers "affirmative defense" is proven.