-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SB 59 pulled?
- Thread starter Big Gay Al
- Start date
DanM
Regular Member
Sorry, had some things to take care of this evening. I Googled "accidental gun exposure prosecution" about half an hour ago.
Norman v. State
"Norman v. State (FL) is the case of a law abiding concealed carry licensee who was arrested and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking."
http://floridacarry.org/litigation
http://www.allnineyards.com/2012/06...idental-exposure-of-lawfully-carried-handgun/
On 6/5/2012: "Second case in the last 6mos." (Thread "Arrested, prosecuted for accidental, 'brief' exposure.")
http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Fo...sted-prosecuted-for-accidental-brief-exposure
Florida Carry documents the relevant case of Hueris Mora, as well as:
--"Last year, when 2011 SB 234 was debated in the State Legislature, our elected leaders were told about law abiding gun owners being arrested and thrown in jail for even accidental or incidental exposure of lawfully carried firearms."
--"Every month we are contacted by other law-abiding people who have been confronted, detained, and threatened with arrest because they were lawfully carrying a firearm in Florida and it “printed” through clothing or became unconcealed."
http://floridacarry.org/flcinews/54...prosecution-for-innocent-exposure-of-handguns
Texas, 4/18/2011: "there was a story posted here a few weeks ago about one of the members who was arrested when his weapon printed against his shirt."
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44318#p536260
Also in Texas, they worry about such ridiculous things as:
"Accidental gun exposure due to sweat at youth football game"
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58972
Phil, I've been generally aware of such wrongful prosecutions or other abuses of authority, using anti-exposure or anti-OC laws as pretext, for a while. But I have not gone into in-depth searches of individual cases or the documentation of our brother gun-rights organizations in these other affected states, until you expressed an interest in citations.
This is eye-opening, for being just a half-hour's effort on the internet. Please note, I am one guy who spent a half hour gathering this for you. It is not a complete record of abuses, I'm sure. I would recommend to you to get into direct contact with, at least, Florida and Texas gun organizations for more documentation. I think we have much to be concerned about when it comes to acquiescing to OC, display, or exposure bans!
Wouldn't you agree?
Last edited:
DanM
Regular Member
Guess not?
Patience, Phil? See above.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
The forum owners. Is there a problem?:uhoh:
DanM
Regular Member
Phil, I get an adversarial sense from you posting "Guess not?" toward me. I hold you as my friend, not an adversary. Although I question the OC ban in SB59 and its highly possible consequences, and also the characterization of OC in PFZ's as a "gray area", I do not question your integrity or sincerity to advance OC.
I just want that to be clear, and that I am your friend.
I just want that to be clear, and that I am your friend.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Florida revised the language around 'printing' because of some abuse. You'll note that the language is similar to SB59's proposed language.
The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS
View Entire Chapter
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
TheQ
Regular Member
See blue
Florida Code for Reference:
790.053
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
I can't find the statute text for Texas, but here goes:
http://handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf
Q: What does "concealed" mean?
A: "Concealed" means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. It is a criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view, or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon.
The fact you would use Texas and Florida (states that clearly ban open carry and printing/"failure to conceal") to back up your argument about the current situation which says "intentionally display or openly carry" is a bit laughable.
TheQ
Regular Member
Likewise, I consider you mine.
That being said, using Florida and Texas law (which CLEARLY ban OC/printing) to back up your printing will be prosecuted argument is weak (nothing personal).
TheQ
Regular Member
Like Shadowbear mentioned...
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-537; s. 173, ch. 91-224; s. 3, ch. 97-72; s. 1205, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-298; s. 1, ch. 2011-145.
It appears that modification was made in 2011....?
http://laws.flrules.org/2011/145
TheQ
Regular Member
DanM,
It appears the cases you have cited may be a case of the cops/prosecutors haven't caught up with the 2011 law yet?
Let me pose a counter argument to the "you will be prosecuted in you print in a PFZ". Couldn't we say the same about OC right now? Won't you be prosecuted if you momentarily/accidentally conceal your gun in a 28.425o zone? For example, what happens if your shirt or your coat momentarily flops over the gun? Won't you then be busted for conceal carry in a prohibited zone? Wouldn't it be up to you to "prove it didn't happen"? Didn't this exact same thing happen to stainless1911 in a church parking lot a few years back?
It appears the cases you have cited may be a case of the cops/prosecutors haven't caught up with the 2011 law yet?
Let me pose a counter argument to the "you will be prosecuted in you print in a PFZ". Couldn't we say the same about OC right now? Won't you be prosecuted if you momentarily/accidentally conceal your gun in a 28.425o zone? For example, what happens if your shirt or your coat momentarily flops over the gun? Won't you then be busted for conceal carry in a prohibited zone? Wouldn't it be up to you to "prove it didn't happen"? Didn't this exact same thing happen to stainless1911 in a church parking lot a few years back?
DanM
Regular Member
Great! But the "printing" issue I found in my brief search was out of Texas.
Shadow Bear said:
Ummm . . . not really, and I'll point out, from your quote of Florida law, key differences that the Michigan bill doesn't have.
Shadow Bear said:
SB59 merely prohibits "DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL ON THE PREMISES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (1)(A) TO (H)" (Emphasis added.)
Thus, as a CPL holder in Michigan but not as a CC'er in Florida, you may openly carry a Taser device, but not a gun, in PFZ's.
Shadow Bear said:
Florida says "briefly and openly" display. Michigan says "DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL". There is a difference. You can "display" a pistol by printing, but it is arguably much harder to "briefly and openly" display a pistol by printing. Michigan's law is quite different from Florida's.
Shadow Bear said:
I would argue the bolded is the key difference, and is superior, in Florida's law as compared to Michigan's SB59. The proposed bill just says "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY" when, if as you argue they would be similar, it should say "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY AND IN AN ANGRY OR THREATENING MANNER"
No, there are several key differences from Florida law, and I'm sorry but I don't buy your argument that they are similar.
Last edited:
DanM
Regular Member
I am comforted, sincerely.
TheQ said:
Printing can be "display", if the printer intends to convey to others that he is carrying a firearm. I could see that as a viable argument that has legs, made by a prosecutor to a jury. In that way, the language of SB59 could be used to prosecute printing. And, actually, if I were on a jury and had to apply the law, and there was no doubt the defendant intended to display his firearm by way of printing, then I would convict him of "display".
Since SB59 or something like it is not currently law, of course we can't precisely tell how it could foreseeably be abused. The best we can do is look to how the police and prosecutors in other states have acted, with regard to the execution of their discretion in applying similar laws to law-abiding CC'ers. And how our brother gun-rights organizations in other states, through their variety of sources, perceive the application of those similar laws.
To me, the record of that is troubling and I have no reason to believe law enforcement or prosecutors in Michigan are any different when it comes to, shall we put it, "robustly applying" any discretion they are granted, if they are granted it.
The proof is in nothing as much as it is in the tasting of the pudding. Should SB59 pass, as written, we will see how the police and prosecutors handle reports from John Q. Public of "man with a firearm in a PFZ".
If police and prosecutors in Michigan do not arrest or charge any CC'er for printing or brief exposure in a PFZ, absent menacing or threat, then I will be first to admit that their behavior is better than the record of other states we had to look to at the time.
Last edited:
It's amazing to me how people act as if this is going to be the last gun law ever passed, and this is what we will have to deal with for the rest of eternity and this is the best we can ever get...
Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step. Don't like the way we have to "prove ourselves" as safe and what-not? Sorry, but that's REALITY. There's a AWFUL lot of soccer mom's out there that think you don't need a gun FOR ANY REASON.... so they're out there screaming in the law maker's ears too.. and they don't have anything else to do but bitch and take care of their precious snow flakes... we all have jobs... So take a reality check. This law is a GOOD thing and a step in the RIGHT direction for ALL of the firearms community. Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want. Stop thinking ONLY OF YOURSELF and realize that this is the one of the steps of many that have come and many to come in order to get us to Con Carry.
Please. All this infighting is RE-G.D.-DICULOUS.
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say. Stop acting as if MOC controls the michigan legislature and has so much pull what they say will instantaneously add or subtract from the bill. MOC is one of MANY players on this wagon and can either be on the wagon or off, alone, all by themselves.
Instead they elected to be ON THE SAME TEAM, even to their own detriment in order to TAKE ONE FOR THE -TEAM- and do something that was good for EVERYONE ELSE but maybe not the best for THEM. Part of being a big boy and acting like an ADULT. Making hard and sometimes self sacrificial decisions.
We need to be united on these fronts. Discussion is great... talking about things and even disagreeing is great... but people are taking it too far.
Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step. Don't like the way we have to "prove ourselves" as safe and what-not? Sorry, but that's REALITY. There's a AWFUL lot of soccer mom's out there that think you don't need a gun FOR ANY REASON.... so they're out there screaming in the law maker's ears too.. and they don't have anything else to do but bitch and take care of their precious snow flakes... we all have jobs... So take a reality check. This law is a GOOD thing and a step in the RIGHT direction for ALL of the firearms community. Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want. Stop thinking ONLY OF YOURSELF and realize that this is the one of the steps of many that have come and many to come in order to get us to Con Carry.
Please. All this infighting is RE-G.D.-DICULOUS.
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say. Stop acting as if MOC controls the michigan legislature and has so much pull what they say will instantaneously add or subtract from the bill. MOC is one of MANY players on this wagon and can either be on the wagon or off, alone, all by themselves.
Instead they elected to be ON THE SAME TEAM, even to their own detriment in order to TAKE ONE FOR THE -TEAM- and do something that was good for EVERYONE ELSE but maybe not the best for THEM. Part of being a big boy and acting like an ADULT. Making hard and sometimes self sacrificial decisions.
We need to be united on these fronts. Discussion is great... talking about things and even disagreeing is great... but people are taking it too far.
Last edited:
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected under Pistol Registration and the inability to get one due to the "May Issue" language of the Law, which is still there today and has stopped people from obtaining a pistol for self-protection (unless they have the extra $$$$ to mount a legal challenge). Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected with the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License due to the "May Issue" language of the Law until just a little over a decade ago and many still suffer with delays due to inequalities of the 83 county gun boards' responsiveness. Please consider the thousands of 18-20 year old persons living unprotected in PFZ's today (RE: College Campuses for example) due to the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License and the ability of Colleges to make their own ordinances/rules about carrying on campus.
While their is merit to your supposition that we will continue to move forward with reclaiming Firearm Rights, I believe that could change and we end up with Legal Language like this for some time to come (how many generations will then have to live with it). While the MI Legislature is willing to "tackle firearm laws", I believe we fight hard now to reclaim that which is already ours to begin with (READ: Rights Recognized Not Granted). IIRC, the current Concealed PFZ's did not exist prior to the new CPL Laws taking affect a little over a decade ago, which is the very "trade-off" for obtaining a "Shall Issue" CPL we are now debating being removed for extra training and a check mark on a permission slip.
For the record, I believe SB59 trades RIGHTS FOR PRIVILEGES whether or not people decide to exercise said Rights. I fully understand the trade-off and reasons it may be attractive, but cannot support the bill in it's current form as I sincerely believe it further erodes Rights not restores them.
B
Bikenut
Guest
B
Bikenut
Guest
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.
Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.
Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.
Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.
Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....
detroit_fan
Regular Member
what right do we currently have that will be turned into a privilege if 59 passes?
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
More like a privilege for a different privilege.
Raggs
Regular Member
I especially agree with the last two sentences.
TheQ
Regular Member
I think both sided have pushed this issue every way they can. It'd now be appropriate for each side to "do what they have to do/want to do" to either stop or support this bill.
Then we can all get back to pleasant conversation...
Then we can all get back to pleasant conversation...
Last edited: