| Author | Post |
|---|
Furner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
Can we add to the "methods" to have something to the effect of "Protect our personal protection rights through the prevention of infringing legislation"
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 02:06 pm |
|
Furner wrote: Can we add to the "methods" to have something to the effect of "Protect our personal protection rights through the prevention of infringing legislation"
You have a goal and method in one. How does this sound? Comments welcome
Objective: Protect our right to self-defense
Method: Staying informed of and acting against infringing legislation.
|
warlockmatized
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
Venator wrote: Furner wrote: Can we add to the "methods" to have something to the effect of "Protect our personal protection rights through the prevention of infringing legislation"
You have a goal and method in one. How does this sound? Comments welcome
Objective: Protect our right to self-defense
Method: Staying informed of and acting against infringing legislation.
I like it.
|
ilbob
Activist Member
| Joined: | Tue May 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 05:56 pm |
|
The non-resident issue was discussed at length somewhere else not too long ago.
IANAL, but IIRC, the consensus eventally was this.
1. You can't have a handgun in MI unless you have a carry permit from some other state. However, there is a bulletin at the MSP web site that says a NR cannot have a handgun in MI unless he has a carry permit from his home state. Based on what the law actually says, it appears the bulletin is not quite correct. Presumably, a NR with some kind of permit from some other state could OC, but there may be other issues like the idiotic school zone prohibitions.
2. You can't conceal carry unless you have a carry permit from your HOME state.
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
ilbob wrote: The non-resident issue was discussed at length somewhere else not too long ago.
IANAL, but IIRC, the consensus eventally was this.
1. You can't have a handgun in MI unless you have a carry permit from some other state. However, there is a bulletin at the MSP web site that says a NR cannot have a handgun in MI unless he has a carry permit from his home state. Based on what the law actually says, it appears the bulletin is not quite correct. Presumably, a NR with some kind of permit from some other state could OC, but there may be other issues like the idiotic school zone prohibitions.
2. You can't conceal carry unless you have a carry permit from your HOME state.
This is the reason you can't have a handgun in Michigan if you don't have a CPL. The safety requirement is now outlawed and it will be interesting to see what happens in this regard.
FROM MSP:
Michigan law requires that a person obtain a License to Purchase a pistol (MCL 28.422) before possessing a pistol in this state. Once a person buys a pistol with a License to Purchase, it must be safety inspected (MCL 28.429). Only residents of Michigan are eligible for licenses and safety inspections. Because a non-resident cannot satisfy those requirements they cannot lawfully possess a pistol here (for any purpose).
Exceptions to those requirements are found in MCL 28.432. One of those exceptions is for persons licensed by their state of residence to carry a concealed pistol.
As for the home state issue, issue. See this. This recent law trumps older laws.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931 750.231a Exceptions to ยง 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a. (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in non conformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
(b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.
(c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.
(d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.
(e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:
(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:
(i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
(iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed on the pistol as is required by section 9 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.429, or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
(v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
(vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
History: Add. 1964, Act 215, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 191, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 55, Imd. Eff. Apr. 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 280, Imd. Eff. July 6, 1978 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 82, Imd. Eff. Mar. 26, 2002
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 09:27 pm |
|
Posted this on the info thread:
Quotes:
In regards to the lawful open carry of a handgun:
Burton Police Chief John Benthall said "I have researched this every way I can and I cannot find any law against it." From the Flint Journal; 6/14/08
|
Bronson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 05:49 am |
|
I heard back from the Battle Creek police chief and he said that B.C. has no official position on it, they just follow state law. But he advised me that if a citizen calls to report a person with a gun the PD is required to investigate to determin the intent of that person.
Bronson
|
Furner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 02:17 pm |
|
Bronson wrote: I heard back from the Battle Creek police chief and he said that B.C. has no official position on it, they just follow state law. But he advised me that if a citizen calls to report a person with a gun the PD is required to investigate to determin the intent of that person.
Bronson
Thats bull@#$%. If someone calls the police and reports someone smoking on the sidewalk, are they required to investigate it to make sure it is a cigarette and not illegal drugs?
But at least it is good to hear that they dont have some belief that they can enforce illegal laws.
|
azebolsky
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
Have you had any issues with this as of yet though? I'm wondering if I can do my grocery shopping at Wal-mart and Meijers with OC, or if I should continue to buy oversized t-shirts to make use of my CCW. Curious as to your experiences with BCPD/EPD.
*S*
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
azebolsky wrote: Have you had any issues with this as of yet though? I'm wondering if I can do my grocery shopping at Wal-mart and Meijers with OC, or if I should continue to buy oversized t-shirts to make use of my CCW. Curious as to your experiences with BCPD/EPD.
*S*
Welcome. If you have read the Info page at the top of the forum you will realize how many people are now OCing everyday in Michigan. The info page addresses all of your concerns and questions. You can also see the LIST YOUR EXPERIENCES here thread which shows that our members have OCed in over 45 cities in Michigan.
Deciding to OC is a choice and with choice comes responsibility. OC is legal in Michigan of that fact there is no longer any question. But private property like stores can ban weapons, or green T-shirts, or monkeys, so if they ask you to leave you must do so or face trespassing charges.
Our members find that most of the time people don't notice you OCing and if they do they don't seem to care. Our members have OCed for thousands of hours over the last 3 years or so, and have had only a couple of encounters with LEO's, with no arrests known.
So start reading and welcome again.
PS If you plan on sticing around, please indicate Michigan under your screen name this adds to our members numbers. Thanks.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:02 pm by Venator
|
warlockmatized
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Venator wrote: azebolsky wrote: Have you had any issues with this as of yet though? I'm wondering if I can do my grocery shopping at Wal-mart and Meijers with OC, or if I should continue to buy oversized t-shirts to make use of my CCW. Curious as to your experiences with BCPD/EPD.
*S*
SNIP:
PS If you plan on sticing around, please indicate Michigan under your screen name this adds to our members numbers. Thanks.
In order to be able to select Michigan as your state you must FIRST choose USA as your country  Welcome to the forum.
|
azebolsky
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
Thanks both of ya's. Learning quite a bit today it seems.
<-----Venat, fixed it for ya.  
*S*
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 09:08 pm by azebolsky
|
Greggy_D
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29th, 2008 05:26 pm |
|
| . Last edited on Tue Jul 29th, 2008 05:37 pm by Greggy_D
|
PA-Carry
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 10:12 am |
|
One of the things that I just read on MSPs website is that if you are stopped by a LEO (if carrying concealed or an out-of-stater), you are required to show your CPL as well as your gov't ID :
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10941--,00.html
"Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a police officer:
His or her license to carry a concealed pistol - His or her driver license or personal identification card
Kinda makes it impossible to "sterile carry." 
Edit: Punctuation
Last edited on Thu Jul 31st, 2008 10:14 am by PA-Carry
|
dougwg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
Only if they are carrying concealed must they show ID
If open carried, you may do so "sterile".
For those that don't know "sterile carry" is carrying a sidearm without carrying personal ID or your CPL.
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 12:47 pm |
|
dougwg wrote: Only if they are carrying concealed must they show ID
If open carried, you may do so "sterile".
For those that don't know "sterile carry" is carrying a sidearm without carrying personal ID or your CPL.
Doug, do you know anyone that goes sterile?
|
dougwg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 01:15 pm |
|
Yes, as a matter of fact I do!
Last edited on Thu Jul 31st, 2008 01:16 pm by dougwg
|
asforme
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
That was my understanding. Yes it's illegal for an out-of-stater to carry without a CPL because it is illegal for them to possess without a CPL. But the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is a non-resident before they can request ID. And since there is no requirement to carry ID, you cannot be forced to prove your innocence (residency).
Am I correct in this line of thinking?
|
dougwg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
I'm not sure if you're right or not, but that sure is clever thinking on your part.
|
DanM
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31st, 2008 07:31 pm |
|
asforme wrote: That was my understanding. Yes it's illegal for an out-of-stater to carry without a CPL because it is illegal for them to possess without a CPL. But the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is a non-resident before they can request ID. And since there is no requirement to carry ID, you cannot be forced to prove your innocence (residency).
Am I correct in this line of thinking?
An officer doesn't have to have any suspicion or justification whatsoever to lawfully request any information or identification from you. The key word is "request". Police are absolutely lawfully entitled to approach you and start talking, ask questions, and ask you to do things. If you comply with the requests, it is a consensual stop and is lawful. Also, if you are driving or crossing an international border you must comply with requests for identification.
That being said, you understand otherwise you have the right to decline to verbally interact with the officer, ask if you are being detained, and ask if you are free to go, correct? Without RS or PC, they cannot lawfully detain or arrest you, or search you unless you give consent.
Remember, you may be arrested and searched anyway. But without RS or PC and without your consent to be searched, an arrest/search is unlawful, any charges would likely be dismissed, and you would probably have the basis for a lawsuit with a nice settlement.
|
Current time is 12:18 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
