Grand Haven Twp. Issue

[Tucker6900]

I did a search on MGO and couldnt find a relevant post. So here goes.

Grand Haven Twp., MI


A man was arrested for carrying a gun in the open in the moments leading up to the Coast Guard Festival's fireworks display Saturday night.

The man was carrying a Glock 40 handgun in a holster at his side in downtown Grand Haven, said Lt. Mark Reiss of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety. The man was disarmed by the officers, arrested on a misdemeanor, issued a 90-day appearance ticket and allowed to leave, Reiss said. His weapon was also confiscated by police.

While Michigan law allows carrying concealed weapons with a permit, Grand Haven has a local ordinance prohibiting openly possessing and carrying dangerous weapons in public, Reiss said. People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, Reiss said.

"It is very dangerous and very frightening to spectators down there," Reiss said. "It simply isn't a place to have a gun."

OpenCarry.org needs your help!

Grand Haven Twp. in Michigan has unenforceable laws prohibiting the Open Carry of a firearm. Michigans preemption law forbids any and all cities, villages, townships, etc, etc from enforcing laws more strict than that of the state. The victim of this unlawful arrest, ticketing, and seizure of property needs financial assistance to help pay his legal fees. If you are intersted in making a donation to help this cause, please go to the following link and contribute. Thank you in advance from everyone at OpenCarry.org!


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/14615.html

[skoltuniak]

"The man was carrying a Glock 40 handgun in a holster at his side in downtown Grand Haven, said Lt. Mark Reiss of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety."

Impossible! There is no such model of Glock (http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_models.htm)!:score: It will impossible to charge him.

All joking aside. Good luck. I still do not understand how people get arrested based on rules that don't exist. :shakeshead:

[Dr Deviance]

"The man was carrying a Glock 40 handgun in a holster at his side in downtown Grand Haven, said Lt. Mark Reiss of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety."

Impossible! There is no such model of Glock (http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_models.htm)!:score: It will impossible to charge him.

All joking aside. Good luck. I still do not understand how people get arrested based on rules that don't exist. :shakeshead:

I'm guessing they meant .40cal

[skoltuniak]

I'm guessing they meant .40cal
Well I know that but I'm thinking loophole.

[Done Deal]

The victim of this unlawful arrest, ticketing, and seizure of property needs financial assistance to help pay his legal fees.

Thank you in advance from everyone at OpenCarry.org!




This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?

My point is....if you can't cover their backside, quit encouraging them to be another test case.

There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?

[dougwg]

This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?

My point is....if you can't cover their backside, quit encouraging them to be another test case.

There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?

Could you post a few examples please?

[Done Deal]

Could you post a few examples please?


Ok....you gather up all your guns and go out and yourself arrested until you are out of guns and then tell us how well that battle plan worked for ya?

Geez....don't kick the dog if you are afraid of getting bit....

[dougwg]

This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?

My point is....if you can't cover their backside, quit encouraging them to be another test case.

There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?

Could you post a few examples please?

[dominus]

Talk to the chief of police before OCing? Find out if they have a law first, then challenge the law.. but not by breaking it. :D

[dougwg]

Point by point...

We don't really need to ask unless the city or township is not listed here http://www.municode.com

Do you really think anyone would be successful in challenging an unenforceable law and getting it removed without a "test case"?

If we have preemption and it states "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state." then it sounds to me like I would be "breaking" no law.

[RifleGuy]

Do you really think anyone would be successful in challenging an unenforceable law and getting it removed without a "test case"?
I think Done Deals point is that unless you have the funds already set aside to fight the legal battle, don't go about voulnteering to be the test case.

Open carry is legal in Michigan, but it is common knowledge that some cities, towns, etc., have taken a combative stance. If you choose to excercise your right to open carry in one of the hostile municipalities, you better be prepared to dig in and fight the long fight. Preparation for that fight means having an attorney on stand-by that is competent in this area of law, and having substantial finances available to wage the war.

[Roger Roney]

....Do you really think anyone would be successful in challenging an unenforceable law and getting it removed without a "test case"?....Yes. It has been done.

Roger

[Raspberrysurprise]

"The man was carrying a Glock 40 handgun in a holster at his side in downtown Grand Haven, said Lt. Mark Reiss of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety."

Impossible! There is no such model of Glock (http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_models.htm)!:score: It will impossible to charge him.

All joking aside. Good luck. I still do not understand how people get arrested based on rules that don't exist. :shakeshead:

I think the word your going for is Unpossible, in this case

[Done Deal]

I think Done Deals point is that unless you have the funds already set aside to fight the legal battle, don't go about voulnteering to be the test case.

Open carry is legal in Michigan, but it is common knowledge that some cities, towns, etc., have taken a combative stance. If you choose to excercise your right to open carry in one of the hostile municipalities, you better be prepared to dig in and fight the long fight. Preparation for that fight means having an attorney on stand-by that is competent in this area of law, and having substantial finances available to wage the war.

Exactly.....


I could say more about folks who encourage others and then push them to the front but....I will be nice too...

[Venator12]

This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?

My point is....if you can't cover their backside, quit encouraging them to be another test case.

There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?
Funny you should say this. The founders of opencarry are drafting a charter for just such a fund (tax details, non-profit stuff, etc.). More info will come as this is investigated. Update, in less than 12 hours the Michigan members have raised over $600 for Chris in the Grand Haven debacle. More is coming in as I write. We try and take care of our own.

[Venator12]

Talk to the chief of police before OCing? Find out if they have a law first, then challenge the law.. but not by breaking it. :D
On many of our picnic this is done. But we can't control anyone, they are free to do as they want. Open carry always encourages members to study the law and become comfortable before they OC.

What law was broken??? Oh yeah you mean when the local police broke state law and cited him with an unenforceable ordinance, you must mean that law. We don't break the law when we OC.

[Venator12]

I think Done Deals point is that unless you have the funds already set aside to fight the legal battle, don't go about voulnteering to be the test case.

Open carry is legal in Michigan, but it is common knowledge that some cities, towns, etc., have taken a combative stance. If you choose to exercise your right to open carry in one of the hostile municipalities, you better be prepared to dig in and fight the long fight. Preparation for that fight means having an attorney on stand-by that is competent in this area of law, and having substantial finances available to wage the war.

People are free to make a choice to OC or not. We don't stand over them with a gun and make them do it. We provide the best information we can gather and post it for all to see. We tell them there is always the possibility that they will be arrested. That is why it takes more courage to OC than CC. But many think standing up and exercising their right to self-defense is worth it.

We have two very well informed gun rights lawyers that are recommended on the website. One of which is on this site. The attorney that Chris has retained is Steven Dulan who is also a board member on another gun rights organization. I have communicated with both attorneys and both have said they would defend our members for OC. So we have anticipated this citation and are standing by our members. How about you?

[dougwg]

"No gun-rights person should sell out any others. Remember when military-style gun enthusiasts were sold out by many hunters who felt there was "no need for those ugly black guns" in the past? It's a good lesson to recall!"

Right is Right, Law is Law

If you expect others to stand with you and fight for your rights, you should stand with them and fight for theirs also. Not because you believe in that right but rather because it IS a right.

[Tucker6900]

This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?



Try to keep in mind that OpenCarry.org does not force anyone to OC. Im not so sure that they encourage it either. They put the information out there for the public, and anyone else interested, to view and make the decision on their own.
Now, as far as a "warchest", the idea has been mentioned since this incident happened, and the founders of OCDO will discuss it. There may be some tax liabilities and rules surrounding donations made for future legal assisitance due to OCDO being a "Non Profit" Organization.

[Leader]

I think Done Deals point is that unless you have the funds already set aside to fight the legal battle, don't go about voulnteering to be the test case.

Open carry is legal in Michigan, but it is common knowledge that some cities, towns, etc., have taken a combative stance. If you choose to excercise your right to open carry in one of the hostile municipalities, you better be prepared to dig in and fight the long fight. Preparation for that fight means having an attorney on stand-by that is competent in this area of law, and having substantial finances available to wage the war.

But I was naive enough to think that the police would be enforcing the state laws. We DO have a law that says cities can't prohibit open carry.
Why on earth would ANYONE expect to get arrested for doing something that is a RIGHT under our constitution? Who would think a city would pass a law in DIRECT VIOLATION of State law? Who would think the police would intentionally violate the laws of this state that they swore to uphold? And last but not least... Who would think they would have this many supporters?

[Done Deal]

People are free to make a choice to OC or not.

We don't stand over them with a gun and make them do it. We provide the best information we can gather and post it for all to see.

We tell them there is always the possibility that they will be arrested.
That is why it takes more courage to OC than CC.

But many think standing up and exercising their right to self-defense is worth it.



Courage????? Ok, if that is what you want to call it....

I can think of better ways to exercise my right to self defense than trying to become a martyr for the cause.

If folks are so all fired concerned about being able to carry...they have to realize that most courtrooms prohibit carry and guess where they are going to be spending some time. Great plan I tell ya....great plan. Personally, there are alot of other places that I would prefer to spend my time and money but...to each his own I guess...

[Tucker6900]

Courage????? Ok, if that is what you want to call it....

I can think of better ways to exercise my right to self defense than trying to become a martyr for the cause.



I wouldnt really say that anyone who OC's is a martyr. Im pretty sure that when Mr. Fetters was getting ready to go see the fireworks, he wasnt thinking, "Im gonna open carry, and hopefully get arrested and take one for the team" He wasnt a sacrifical lamb. He was just going about his own business, when some ill informed officers and a prosecuting attorney decided to arrest him.

[Done Deal]

I wouldnt really say that anyone who OC's is a martyr. Im pretty sure that when Mr. Fetters was getting ready to go see the fireworks, he wasnt thinking, "Im gonna open carry, and hopefully get arrested and take one for the team" He wasnt a sacrifical lamb. He was just going about his own business, when some ill informed officers and a prosecuting attorney decided to arrest him.

You may very well be 100% accurate regarding this particular incident.

But, I have also seen in real life and read on the internet of certain posturing type attitudes that do not lend themselves to a non-confrontational resolution.

Lets just say...when I pack...it is not to go looking for trouble...with anybody on either side of a tin.

[Tucker6900]

You may very well be 100% accurate regarding this particular incident.

But, I have also seen in real life and read on the internet of certain posturing type attitudes that do not lend themselves to a non-confrontational resolution.

As have I. Particularly this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI
While I think his acts are well intentioned, I feel that he is going about the whole thing the wrong way. There are numerous videos of him putting himself into situations that gets LEO attention. I will never do that. What I will do however, is, if approached, do my best to educate the officer and his department on the legallity of open carry, but I will not deny him the privelage of checking my ID and making sure Im not a criminal.

Lets just say...when I pack...it is not to go looking for trouble...with anybody on either side of a tin.
I think that is what most of us do. As I told another member on OCDO, if you look suspicious, then you will be treated that way.

[Jim Simmons]

Does this guy have a lawyer?

[Leader]

Does this guy have a lawyer?

The guy in Grand Haven? Yes he does.

[Raspberrysurprise]

But, I have also seen in real life and read on the internet of certain posturing type attitudes that do not lend themselves to a non-confrontational resolution.

Lets just say...when I pack...it is not to go looking for trouble...with anybody on either side of a tin.

Not to equate you to the Brady Bunch but this is very similar to the type of argument they will and have used to try and get CC banned. They believe that everyone carrying is some whacked out cowboy wannabe trying to police the world.

Do you really believe that a majority of people who OC do it just to make a statement or to try and force something upon others? Or even a large minority? I don't There are and will always be bad people of every color and creed. Assholes it seems are as plentiful as oxygen. Even if they aren't their impact far outweighs their numbers.

Every ban is worse than a slippery slope because the antis have stated that they want to ban everything. Rifle, pistol, rim fire, pellet gun, paint ball gun , heck if we let them our children won't even be able to have cap guns.

You don't have to like OC, and that's ok. But please help us protect it because when they come for your right to CC we'll be there to help you.

If I'm mistaken about your words and intents then I apologize.

"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately" -Ben Franklin

[Done Deal]

I don't believe that I have ever indicated that I believe that the majority of folks that OC are cowboys but....it stands to reason that the OC cowboys tend to draw more attention than the CC cowboys now doesn't it?

And as you stated "their impact far outweighs their numbers" so, it stands to reason that folks really oughtta have their ducks in a row financially before they go making those statements, wouldn't you agree?

While I may support your rights....and do so financially....I don't especially care to get told to support your right to get yourself arrested and have to pay an attorney to get you out of the jam you knowingly got yourself into.

Does that make any sort of sense?

[ghostrider]

I don't believe that I have ever indicated that I believe that the majority of folks that OC are cowboys but....it stands to reason that the OC cowboys tend to draw more attention than the CC cowboys now doesn't it?

And as you stated "their impact far outweighs their numbers" so, it stands to reason that folks really oughtta have their ducks in a row financially before they go making those statements, wouldn't you agree?

While I may support your rights....and do so financially....I don't especially care to get told to support your right to get yourself arrested and have to pay an attorney to get you out of the jam you knowingly got yourself into.

Does that make any sort of sense?About as much sense as someone who chooses OC over CC being told to support MCRGO.

People may not prefer OC, but decrying it because you don't like it, while at the same time CC'ing is quite similar to an outdoor/hunting writer stating on his blog that hunters should "divorce" ourselves from the black rifle crowd. It creates an "us v. them" attitude, and as such is counter productive.

Like it or not, we are all in this together, and if they can do this to an OC'er, they can do it to a CC'er. If you don't believe that, then that's your choice. However, understand that the same laws that protect CC, are the same laws that protect OC.

[Done Deal]

Like it or not, we are all in this together, and if they can do this to an OC'er, they can do it to a CC'er. If you don't believe that, then that's your choice.


Wait a minute...we may all be in the same boat but....if you decide to jump overboard into a school of sharks just to test the water...you mean to tell me that you expect me to jump in and try and save your silly ash? C'mon.....you gotta be kidding.

As far as the reason for this thread...fund raising...I still maintain that it is common sense to build a war chest before engaging in a battle.

[ghostrider]

Wait a minute...we may all be in the same boat but....if you decide to jump overboard into a school of sharks just to test the water...you mean to tell me that you expect me to jump in and try and save your silly ash? C'mon.....you gotta be kidding.

As far as the reason for this thread...fund raising...I still maintain that it is common sense to build a war chest before engaging in a battle.
That was not my desired implication. You’re free to make those decision, and I not judging you one way or the other.

This type of thing is similar to another civil rights issue of yesteryear. OC/CC is legal in MI. There is a law restricting local units of government from passing such laws that restrict it. That law has been upheld (and reinforced) in the courts. Nevertheless, this town decides they will ignore the law, and court rulings, and restrict certain people from sitting at the front of the bus, because there are a lot of residents of that society who would have such a problem with it that it would cause a danger to public safety. I digress.

The laws have already been passed. The courts have already ruled. So, there is nothing more to do on that front. If you chose not to support people who stand up, even after all that, then that’s your choice. What I don’t get is why people feel the need to defend their decisions. I certainly wasn’t questioning them.

[Leader]

Wait a minute...we may all be in the same boat but....if you decide to jump overboard into a school of sharks just to test the water...you mean to tell me that you expect me to jump in and try and save your silly ash? C'mon.....you gotta be kidding.

As far as the reason for this thread...fund raising...I still maintain that it is common sense to build a war chest before engaging in a battle.

Hummmm..... Being in this boat, If I get arrested for standing in the stern, will YOU come out of the cabin and defend me? Or do you stay hidden in the cabin and say it was MY fault because I chose to stand in the open?

[dougwg]

How about defending the LEGAL right of OC'ing just as I would defend the LEGAL privilege of CC'ing.

Some seem to be all gun-ho over preserving a privilege yet they couldn't careless about preserving a right.... sad.

[Done Deal]

Hummmm..... Being in this boat, If I get arrested for standing in the stern, will YOU come out of the cabin and defend me? Or do you stay hidden in the cabin and say it was MY fault because I chose to stand in the open?

Lets look at this another way if you want to envision everything taking place in the boat that we both have a right to ride in.

You go out and stand in the open in a thunderstorm....heck, climb up on top of the cabin and hold a metal rod in your hand if you want. But, don't blame me for deciding to remain in the cabin.

You can call that hidden, I call it prudent.

[dougwg]

Some would call it cowardly.

[Venator12]

Wait a minute...we may all be in the same boat but....if you decide to jump overboard into a school of sharks just to test the water...you mean to tell me that you expect me to jump in and try and save your silly ash? C'mon.....you gotta be kidding.

As far as the reason for this thread...fund raising...I still maintain that it is common sense to build a war chest before engaging in a battle.
Your examples are absurd. What this guy did was LEGAL, what the police did was ILLEGAL. Period. I don't have a war chest to protect myself from wearing a green T-shirt on Thursdays, because wearing a green T-shirt is not illegal. Why the hell should someone have a war chest for legal activity, do you have a war chest for engaging in legal activities? If you can't see this as an attack on your firearm rights, then there is no hope for you. You either support law abiding firearm owners or you don't, it's obvious you don't.

As for a war chest, those that do see the larger picture have donated over $1,200 so far. I thank them. It's not brain surgery.

Cheers,
Brian Jeffs

[Done Deal]

Some would call it cowardly.


And let those be the ones at the front of the line then....

You go for it Mister....

When I was younger, I relied on my balls.

I am older, a bit wiser, and now rely on my brains.

I just wish that when I was younger, I knew as much as I do now.

[Done Deal]

Your examples are absurd.

What this guy did was LEGAL, what the police did was ILLEGAL. Period.

You don't like my examples because they tend to point out that folks have the right to make foolish choices. Too friggin bad. It is legal to walk out into a cross walk knowing that vehicles must yield the right of way so....why don't ya all try that trick too....just to show that you have the right?

There are those that might say that because the law in that community prohibited that sort of conduct, that it was therefore illegal. What the police did was enforce the laws of the community. Period.

The police don't determine the legality of the laws. They are just supposed to enforce them. If you or anybody doesn't like that....get the laws fixed and smart money says doing it from the outside of a jail might be the wiser course of action.

Of course you can go right ahead and encourage people to strut their stuff and hope that everything goes just fine for them in the process. Creating a scene just doesn't seem the right way to go about it to me...but, again I say, to each their own. I just don't have a check book balance that enables me to take risks like that.

[PhotoTom]

I understanding the thinking behind "a right unexercised is a right lost"...and I agree to a great extent.

My primary concern with the OC movement is that it seems to be escalating too quickly (at least here in Michigan). Maybe that's just perception based on the exposure to all of the events, situations encountered, etc. documented on this and other boards...or maybe it is a true perception...not sure.

Most prohibitive laws are a result of people urging legislators to create such prohibitive laws. This is what I suspect may happen with a heavy OC "push"...too fast...too hard.

In Michigan, a very simple piece of legislative "update" would put a real crimp on the OC "freedom of choice" that we all currently have. That would be modifying the "This section does not apply to any of the following: <snip> A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon" part of MCL 750.234d along with adding something to the effect of a new subsection (1)(i) to the same statute that would allow local municipalities to create ordinances banning possession in certain places, thus giving a clause that effectively nullifies (to an extent) the preemption statute and gives local municipalities the authority to have their open carry prohibiting statutes. From there, if local communities see a problem with OC, they can promptly create an ordinance to prohibit "the problem".

With the legislative body we have in Michigan...and the timing...I could see a bill such as described (above) flying through congress next year...

Beyond that...the CPL statutes could possibly be reviewed and tightened-up as a result of a heavy OC movement push. The point is...we don't want to lose ground with more restrictive laws...but when the public "perceives" a problem...that is the start of such actions and "pressure" on the legislative body to "fix it".

Now...before I get selectively quoted and taken to task for having the audacity to suggest that the OC movement may backfire in Michigan...remember, I said, "I understanding the thinking behind "a right unexercised is a right lost"...and I agree to a great extent." All I'm saying is..."easy guys...easy...don't push too hard or too fast!"

[who dat]

Well said and spot on, PT.

[Done Deal]

Now...before I get selectively quoted and taken to task for having the audacity to suggest that the OC movement may backfire in Michigan...


Careful now....that may get you the yellow stripe down your back label and a free pass to the coward's club.

[dougwg]

" All I'm saying is..."easy guys...easy...don't push too hard or too fast!"

I believe this. I've been saying it for awhile now.

Baby steps, baby steps. I do not think we (the people who OC) should bite off more then we can chew. We are not THAT big of a movement yet. Given enough time I believe we can be a large entity with some power but we are not there yet. Being small, we need to pick our battles wisely, but still battle nonetheless.

I like get-to-gathers and picnics and if we get a little press so be it.
I don't really like the whole, in your face, multi-channel TV station coverage.

People hear about something on TV and always think the worst, because usually it is because thats really all that the TV news reports on, "bad things".

So when someone hears of "people carrying guns in the open" they will automatically equate it to a bad thing. We need to teach as many people as we can that its OK and LEGAL. We need to get to them first. Tell your family, tell your friends, have them tell others!

Done Deal, how many people have you informed of the legality of Open Carry?

[dougwg]

Careful now....that may get you the yellow stripe down your back label and a free pass to the coward's club.

Why are you even in this thread? All you do is bitch, instigate and infuriate yet you offer nothing.

You post this yet offer NOTHING!
snip...There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?

Post some examples or STFU.

If you don't then it will be clear that your ONLY reason for posting in this thread is to instigate.

Please allow me to remind you of one of the very few rules this message board has.

If it becomes obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars, you will lose your posting privileges.

[Done Deal]

Done Deal, how many people have you informed of the legality of Open Carry?

Admittedly about as many as I encourage to stroll leisurely across the crosswalk without regard for what might happen if they aren't careful.

When folks talk to me about carrying....I always encourage training, getting a CPL, and then more training.

In my neck of the woods....well, flatlands really, I have only seen one person (well two but the second shouldn't have been carrying period) OC and when he jumped out of the car and ran up to confront me....I am here to tell you that I was the one with the tactical advantage.

I believe that we will get more support from folks advocating concealed carry than we ever will open carry and as our numbers grow, so will our support base if we are able to avoid bad press in the process. Maybe I just read too much about OC on this forum because nowhere I go in central Michigan do I ever hear it discussed period.

As I have stated all along....getting arrested and incurring legal fees and who knows what all hassle is not the method of exercising my rights that I prefer to utilize and....in the big scheme of things....the negative publicity may hurt your cause more than you know. And that....adversely effects us all.

[who dat]

Once again DD brings the voice of reason to the forum.

[dougwg]

Admittedly about as many as I encourage to stroll leisurely across the crosswalk without regard for what might happen if they aren't careful.

snip,,,

All you had to say was ZERO!

But again you take the opportunity to cast aspersions and instigate.

This coming from a Moderator is very disturbing.

[Done Deal]

All you had to say was ZERO!

But again you take the opportunity to cast aspersions and instigate.


Zero would have been inaccurate. I prefer accuracy.

"aspersions" I dunno....while the OC cause certainly has merit, the reputation (and rights) of all gun owners is at stake. What I try and "instigate" is the thought processes of our readers. I call that urging them to think about more than just rights or photo ops or legal fees or whatever.

But...look at who is putting the negative spin on things what with your allegations. I have no agenda but...it doesn't appear to me that you can say the same thing. Ah yes, life on the internet....

[Done Deal]

This coming from a Moderator is very disturbing.

I missed your edit add on when I originally replied...I was on the phone.

Anyway, I am sorry to read that you may be disturbed. I think they say that recognition is the requisite first step toward recovery. Good luck in that endeavor.

But hey, where does it say that a Moderator is not free to express a personal opinion? I guess I musta missed that in the guide book. Please cite the page for me...

[dougwg]

This thread is about Chris Fetters, his LEGAL activity and the ILLEGAL activity of Grand Haven. This thread was posted to help a fellow citizen that has had his RIGHTS stepped on. This tread is about helping him in his legal battle that will benifet us all.

You sir, are here to stir the pot.

Why not just start another thread if what you want to do is instigate thought about all the bad myths surrounding OC.

[Done Deal]

This thread is about Chris Fetters, his LEGAL activity and the ILLEGAL activity of Grand Haven. This thread was posted to help a fellow citizen that has had his RIGHTS stepped on. This tread is about helping him in his legal battle that will benifet us all.

You sir, are here to stir the pot.

Why not just start another thread if what you want to do is instigate thought about all the bad myths surrounding OC.


I suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and read just who it was that got off the fund raising topic to begin with.

Your pot stirring comment is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

What a hoot....

[dougwg]

Listen in to the talk show today for a discussion on the Grand Haven issue and guns in general. You can even join in the chat session LIVE!

3:00pm today!

http://www.flinttalkradio.com/listen.html <~~~Clicky ! ! !

[Done Deal]

Why are you even in this thread? All you do is bitch, instigate and infuriate yet you offer nothing.

You post this yet offer NOTHING!


Post some examples or STFU.

If you don't then it will be clear that your ONLY reason for posting in this thread is to instigate.

Please allow me to remind you of one of the very few rules this message board has.


You know...you are becoming a master at editing your posts AFTER others have replied to them. You might want to consider putting a little thought into things first rather than repeatedly adding to or deleting what you said the first time.

My original point responded to the solicitation for money.

You and your attitude jumped in and things started getting off track from there.

Just because you are either unable to comprehend my message or, you excercise your right to disagree with it, it does not mean than I bring nothing to the table because you say so.

But, I have to agree with you....judging from your posts here and elsewhere...you are a very angry person. Constantly being infuriated may lead to health issues so....maybe you should avoid stressful situations.

Among those potentially stressful situations would be OC without bail money or retainer fees in a jurisdiction bent upon enforcing their laws the way they want to, even though it may not be right.


As far as the 3PM talk show....I might have time to tune in if I get back to my chores instead of constantly checking this board today....

May I suggest that if you comment on the air....try and keep your infuriation in check....so it doesn't create the wrong impression of gun owners.

[jmlefler]

Rather than be a test case, I proactively contacted two townships regarding their, what I considered to be, unenforceable ordinances against the transport and possession of firearms on township property in reference to MCL 123.011.

Both instances went smoothly and resulted in acknowldgement that the ordinances were uneforceable. The townships contacted are Kalamazoo and Texas.

Perhaps Chris and his attorney can use this info to his advantage. I predict that the case will be dropped and Chris will struggle to get his weapon back.

Just MHO.

[ghostrider]

Rather than be a test case, I proactively contacted two townships regarding their, what I considered to be, unenforceable ordinances against the transport and possession of firearms on township property in reference to MCL 123.011.

Both instances went smoothly and resulted in acknowldgement that the ordinances were uneforceable. The townships contacted are Kalamazoo and Texas.

Perhaps Chris and his attorney can use this info to his advantage. I predict that the case will be dropped and Chris will struggle to get his weapon back.

Just MHO.I have emailed the Mayor, the City Council, and the head of the Department Of Public Safety. Other's have also reported doing so. I'm fairly sure that they are aware of the legality of OC.

[Tucker6900]

As far as the reason for this thread...fund raising...I still maintain that it is common sense to build a war chest before engaging in a battle.

Im not sure if it had come up before this happened, but I know they are throwing the idea around and seeing what they can do. They said there may some tax liability involved, but I know its on there mind.

[DanM]

This may be an unpopular question but....why doesn't OpenCarry .org get a warchest together to defend folks that it encourages to go looking for publicity?

My point is....if you can't cover their backside, quit encouraging them to be another test case.

There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?

DD,
I've been following along and reading the posts in this thread. You mentioned, above, there being "other ways". It is legitimate to ask you what those "other ways" are, and it was asked of you. I haven't seen you post a followup response specific about these "other ways". If I missed it, please point me to the response that contains your specifics.

Kind Regards,
Dan

[DanM]

DoneDeal,

"Quote:
Originally Posted by dougwg
Done Deal, how many people have you informed of the legality of Open Carry?

Admittedly about as many as I encourage to stroll leisurely across the crosswalk without regard for what might happen if they aren't careful."

It seems with this comment that you are implying that open carry is a careless act. Is this sense of your implication true?

"When folks talk to me about carrying....I always encourage training, getting a CPL, and then more training."

If any folk ask, out of curiousity about their options, if there are other legitimate ways to carry other than concealed, how would you respond?

"In my neck of the woods....well, flatlands really, I have only seen one person (well two but the second shouldn't have been carrying period) OC and when he jumped out of the car and ran up to confront me....I am here to tell you that I was the one with the tactical advantage."

Are you implying that concealed carry is tactically superior in all situations?

"As I have stated all along....getting arrested and incurring legal fees and who knows what all hassle is not the method of exercising my rights that I prefer to utilize"

It is certainly your prerogative not to open carry.

"and....in the big scheme of things....the negative publicity may hurt your cause more than you know."

What examples of negative publicity have you observed so far? The media coverage of open carry events and incidents I've observed so far have been pretty objective (i.e., sticking to the facts) on the whole.

[Done Deal]

Rather than be a test case, I proactively contacted two townships regarding their, what I considered to be, unenforceable ordinances against the transport and possession of firearms on township property in reference to MCL 123.011.

Both instances went smoothly and resulted in acknowldgement that the ordinances were uneforceable. The townships contacted are Kalamazoo and Texas.

Perhaps Chris and his attorney can use this info to his advantage. I predict that the case will be dropped and Chris will struggle to get his weapon back.

Just MHO.


Thank you for posting two examples of working within the law to make sure that our rights are not trampled upon. You have proven that you don't need to get arrested to promote change.

Did ya read that naysayers?????

[Done Deal]

DoneDeal,

"Quote:
Originally Posted by dougwg
Done Deal, how many people have you informed of the legality of Open Carry?

Admittedly about as many as I encourage to stroll leisurely across the crosswalk without regard for what might happen if they aren't careful."

It seems with this comment that you are implying that open carry is a careless act. Is this sense of your implication true?

No, that would not be an accurate assessment of my implication. Simply stated, people have the right to do things that may be hazardous to their health and well being. OC where you know that you are going to attract negative attention is anything but careless, it is a blatant attempt at grandstanding. Now, I am not saying that the guy that is the subject of this thread did that (in fact one poster states exactly the opposite) but the fact remains....some folk get off on showing off.

"When folks talk to me about carrying....I always encourage training, getting a CPL, and then more training."

If any folk ask, out of curiousity about their options, if there are other legitimate ways to carry other than concealed, how would you respond?

It would depend of course upon the circumstances....and we could hypothocize all day, do you have a specific instance upon which you would like my opinion or are you just fishing?

"In my neck of the woods....well, flatlands really, I have only seen one person (well two but the second shouldn't have been carrying period) OC and when he jumped out of the car and ran up to confront me....I am here to tell you that I was the one with the tactical advantage."

Are you implying that concealed carry is tactically superior in all situations?

All is a mighty big word so....I guess I cannot agree with that. But, for civilian carry I would have to believe that it certainly is most of the time.
"As I have stated all along....getting arrested and incurring legal fees and who knows what all hassle is not the method of exercising my rights that I prefer to utilize"

It is certainly your prerogative not to open carry.

Certainly

"and....in the big scheme of things....the negative publicity may hurt your cause more than you know."

What examples of negative publicity have you observed so far? The media coverage of open carry events and incidents I've observed so far have been pretty objective (i.e., sticking to the facts) on the whole.

Personally....not many....like I said, most folks don't OC around here. But, I have read about people getting arrested and that certainly isn't positive publicity in my book, how about yours?

Ah, lemme see....folks see man with gun. Folks see LE show up....folks see LE prone dude out....folks see LE seize gun.....folks talk about another gunman getting arrested....wow....the positive vibes keep on rolling.....

All you OC fans just remember....all gun owners are getting lumped together and lets just hope that the impression that you create for all of us is a good one.

[dougwg]

You know...you are becoming a master at editing your posts AFTER others have replied to them. You might want to consider putting a little thought into things first rather than repeatedly adding to or deleting what you said the first time.
I was editing while you were posting (only 1 min apart) Sounds like you just couldn't wait to stir the pot even more.
If it becomes obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars, you will lose your posting privileges.

My original point responded to the solicitation for money.
Possibly. In a negative way? Defiantly!

You and your attitude jumped in and things started getting off track from there.
I said this and only this. "Could you post a few examples please?"
If thats an example of your idea of jumping in and "attitude" I suggest that you are mentally unstable and deranged, as such, you shouldn't even be allowed to own firearms.

Just because you are either unable to comprehend my message or, you excercise your right to disagree with it, it does not mean than I bring nothing to the table because you say so.
Correct, it's self evident.

But, I have to agree with you....judging from your posts here and elsewhere...you are a very angry person. Constantly being infuriated may lead to health issues so....maybe you should avoid stressful situations.
That is your deranged point of view.

Among those potentially stressful situations would be OC without bail money or retainer fees in a jurisdiction bent upon enforcing their laws the way they want to, even though it may not be right.
So, people of color should still be weary of drinking from the white only fountain and should not try to sit at the front of the bus? Do you also suggest that woman not try to be so uppity as to try to vote?

As far as the 3PM talk show....I might have time to tune in if I get back to my chores instead of constantly checking this board today....
A recording of the show will be up in a couple days. Make sure you take your meds before watching the show.

May I suggest that if you comment on the air....try and keep your infuriation in check....so it doesn't create the wrong impression of gun owners.
I was unable to participate in the show yesterday as I was attending my brother-in-laws surprise birthday party.

[Done Deal]

dougwg:


Oh my, where do I start....you don't even appear to know how to read a clock either. The last I knew, 8:48 to 9:03 was a tad more than 1 minute apart as you maintain. How about 15 minutes?????

And where did you find that Tallbear quote in this thread? Or, was it another one of those out of context quotes that some folks like to throw in to mislead folks about what was previously stated in the thread?

Sure, I positively questioned trying to raise money after the fact....and have steadfastly maintained that position. What is the problem with that?

As far as posting examples, somebody else did that for you. Did you miss them or what?

And somewhere in your rant...you appear to have lost the ability to discuss a situation with any semblance of reason. So, with that....I just don't see much of a point in responding to your feeble attempt to ruffle my feathers. I guess you are just going to have to be infuriated all by your pitiful self.

[dougwg]

Last edited by dougwg : Yesterday at 09:03 AM. (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=263977&postcount=43)

Yesterday, 09:02 AM #44
Done Deal (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=263981&postcount=44)

One minute! Do you need glasses or does the concept of mathematics escape you? Maybe you just never learned how to tell time.

As far as the quote from Tallbear it's from the frickin forum RULES! Have you even bothered to read them or are you just going to make things up as you go?

I refuse to comment on your last BS statements.

[EddieM]

I have been following this and had to respond. From what I understand some of you only support the laws if they pertain to you personally. If you don't support all the preemptive law it will be a short jump to lose more rights. I no longer live in MI I have moved to the free state of KY where we have a ccdw which means I can carry almost any deadly weapon and we can open carry without so much as a second glance. KY motto "UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL"

[Done Deal]

One minute! Do you need glasses or does the concept of mathematics escape you? Maybe you just never learned how to tell time.






Looks to me that you are the one who needs the glasses Mister.....

As I said, 15 minutes. It is looking like your continued infuriation has you so over heated that your brain is fried.








Yesterday, 08:48 AM #43
dougwg
Hard Core Activist
Contributing Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westland, MI
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Done Deal
Careful now....that may get you the yellow stripe down your back label and a free pass to the coward's club.


Why are you even in this thread? All you do is bitch, instigate and infuriate yet you offer nothing.

You post this yet offer NOTHING!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Done Deal
snip...There are other ways that don't create the stir....why not try them instead?


Post some examples or STFU.

If you don't then it will be clear that your ONLY reason for posting in this thread is to instigate.

Please allow me to remind you of one of the very few rules this message board has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallbear
If it becomes obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars, you will lose your posting privileges.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by dougwg : Yesterday at 09:03 AM.








Like I said.....15 minutes

[Two Cold Soakers]

Shut up.

Both of you.

Pathetic.:bs:

[Done Deal]

Pathetic.:bs:


You're right....I should just ignore those personal attacks. After all, when considering the source...they really aren't significant at all.

Look at the view count on this thread though....some folks must find all this nonsense interesting.:crazy:

[dougwg]

I wish I could ignore you but here's another rule you don't know about.

"Sorry Done Deal is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=2224)."

[mkls0]

I wish I could ignore you but here's another rule you don't know about.

"Sorry Done Deal is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=2224)."


Who are you quoting ????

[dougwg]

Click the link.

VB doesn't allow someone to "ignore" an admin or moderator. This is the main reason why on most message boards the moderators do not get into discussions such as these. They remain professional and remain at a distance unlike Done Deal.

Done Deal was in some way, in law enforcement but from what I gather is no longer. I think he misses the POWER and must use his position as a moderator here on MGO to try to get back some of that lost power he was so addicted to in the past.

When wrong and backed into a corner he tries to use force as he was trained to. One problem here.... I'm not a perp and he has no real power.

[mkls0]

Click the link.

VB doesn't allow someone to "ignore" an admin or moderator. This is the main reason why on most message boards the moderators do not get into discussions such as these. They remain professional and remain at a distance unlike Done Deal.

Done Deal was in some way, in law enforcement but from what I gather is no longer. I think he misses the POWER and must use his position as a moderator here on MGO to try to get back some of that lost power he was so addicted to in the past.

When wrong and backed into a corner he tries to use force as he was trained to. One problem here.... I'm not a perp and he has no real power.

O ok

[Garbo]

Well to get this somewhat back in track it definatly appears that the debate regarding OC vs CC is as strong among gun owners as the antis vs the pros for guns altogether.

FWIW I'm convinced that the day will never come that you can walk around town OC and not draw attention and it has always been that way. Heck in the old west you'd better believe that when someone walked into a room packing everyone in that room took note whether they were themselves or not. Just the way it is. I personally believe there is a time and place for everything and that holds strong to OC. We as gun owners no matter how much we would like it to be there are always going to be antis and not just the Brady bunch types either. Guns are just not for some people and so be it.

We all get the OC vs CC message by opencarry.org and nobody debates that its a right. But as I said there is a time and place for everything and pushing our guns in peoples faces by carrying openly at parades, fairs etc etc is simply not going to get the right message across. I personally respect others wishes not to be around guns although I laugh at the thought that if the SHTF and you pulled out your piece you would be the only person besides god himself that they would want there to save them. I know it, you all know it but untill they are in a situation like that they will never admit it.

Anyway back on point, DD or someone was asked for examples of "other methods" of getting the message out. Now I cant give you the specifics because I wasnt there but I do know that there is one member (Tallbear) along with others out here that has a ton of achievements credited to their humble efforts and to my knowledge none of them have ever been arrested in getting their messages across. And some of the things they have addressed are every bit as important as the right to OC so this can be done.

See the "inspection rules violators" threads and see the efforts put forth there. All done through legal channels and many getting results. And yes I understand OC is legal bbut its also legal for a 20 year old model to dress up in a mini skirt and walk down Michigan Ave. But then come home and complain that she was harrased. She knew what she was doing although legl, would attract attention.

And for what its worth I open carry in certain circumstances myself so I am not against it. But its because its one of the few instances that gives me the best tacticle advantage I can hve givin my situation.

Just my .02

[Raspberrysurprise]

We all get the OC vs CC message by opencarry.org and nobody debates that its a right. But as I said there is a time and place for everything and pushing our guns in peoples faces by carrying openly at parades, fairs etc etc is simply not going to get the right message across. I personally respect others wishes not to be around guns although I laugh at the thought that if the SHTF and you pulled out your piece you would be the only person besides god himself that they would want there to save them. I know it, you all know it but untill they are in a situation like that they will never admit it.

So I should only exercise my legal rights when they won't scare the people? Most of the places you mentioned were public property to boot. You're welcome to your opinion but when you're sitting next to me in the back of the bus don't ask me as to how you got there.

See the "inspection rules violators" threads and see the efforts put forth there. All done through legal channels and many getting results. And yes I understand OC is legal bbut its also legal for a 20 year old model to dress up in a mini skirt and walk down Michigan Ave. But then come home and complain that she was harrased. She knew what she was doing although legl, would attract attention.

Please don't tell me you compared a woman being verbally harassed over her clothing to a man being slammed into a wall and forcibly arrested for exercising his rights.

[Garbo]

No matter what you do there are going to be those who will object and no I'm not saying that is a good reson not to OC. And you're 100% right all the places I mentioned are puplic places but I think the point is eing mssed. Just because you can do something doesnt necesssirly mean you should.

The the comparison regarding a woman in a mini skirt,, while humor was intended it really sets a fairly good example. A woman should be able to walk down the street wearing anyhting she wants but is it a good idea? Does this mean they should? They have the right to. Would you let your daughter do it? Why would you tell her not to? Is not a good idea right?

Why not take it one PD at a time? Look how many have had good results by communicating with their PD's in regards to inspection hours by bringing AG opinions to their attention. The ones that havent they are taking to the next step. But a guy getting thrown up against the wall doing absolutly nothing wrong sends the wrong message. 90% of the people that seen that only seen some guy with a gun getting arrested and know nothing more of the situation. Just doesnt look good.

Again I'm just trying to throw my .02 on the subject.

[Raspberrysurprise]

Perhaps we could look at a way of publicizing these incidents to show them for what they really are. Someone being falsely arrested under an illegal law.

While the news will only show him getting cuffed and tossed in a cruiser we could show him being released hours later or him taking the city to court for violating his rights.

Sadly the public has a guilty until proven mindset when they see someone being put in cuffs, after all if he was innocent they wouldn't have arrested him right? There's just a part of me that burns every time I hear of someone getting tossed in the jug for no good reason while John and Jane Q Public are thinking "another scumbag off the streets."

[Garbo]

You hit it straight on the head. I believe that this is counter productive and you know how the media is. They are not interested in reporting that it was no big deal.

[Done Deal]

Perhaps we could look at a way of publicizing these incidents to show them for what they really are.

Someone being falsely arrested under an illegal law.




Wait a minute....

I can understand false arrest.

I can understand an illegal law.

But how can one be falsely arrested under an illegal law?

Preemption supercedes local law but, it is still a law. So, until that law is no longer a law, do any of you really expect a cop to tell his boss...."naw, I am going to risk my job and refuse your order to arrest somebody under that law"? Maybe you can bank on that happening and then....maybe not.

[Done Deal]

Click the link.

VB doesn't allow someone to "ignore" an admin or moderator. This is the main reason why on most message boards the moderators do not get into discussions such as these. They remain professional and remain at a distance unlike Done Deal.

Done Deal was in some way, in law enforcement but from what I gather is no longer. I think he misses the POWER and must use his position as a moderator here on MGO to try to get back some of that lost power he was so addicted to in the past.

When wrong and backed into a corner he tries to use force as he was trained to. One problem here.... I'm not a perp and he has no real power.


Wow...I didn't realize that vBulletin was oh so powerful that it could get in your head like this. Yes, the ignore feature makes it easy for those without any self control to avoid reading things that might infuriate them. Apparently you are among that group of webbies that needs that additional external restraint.

But you are right....I have no real power so, why the hell do you keep whining about what I have to say? Like I said way early in this thread about OC.... don't kick the dog if you are afraid of getting bitten. It is quite clear that you are a habitual agitator and apparent that you are trying to push the issue here on this board too. Guess what though...I have a thick skin-- but at some point, maybe somebody will have to intervene if you keep trying to take this tread off topic with all your rantings about me.

[Knimrod]

Click the link.

VB doesn't allow someone to "ignore" an admin or moderator. This is the main reason why on most message boards the moderators do not get into discussions such as these. They remain professional and remain at a distance unlike Done Deal.

Done Deal was in some way, in law enforcement but from what I gather is no longer. I think he misses the POWER and must use his position as a moderator here on MGO to try to get back some of that lost power he was so addicted to in the past.

When wrong and backed into a corner he tries to use force as he was trained to. One problem here.... I'm not a perp and he has no real power.

Enough.

Done Deal is indeed a moderator here but he still has the right to post his opinions if he follows the same rules everyone else has to follow. So please dispense with the abuse of power insinuations.

[Venator12]

Thank you for posting two examples of working within the law to make sure that our rights are not trampled upon. You have proven that you don't need to get arrested to promote change.

Did ya read that naysayers?????

How is OCing working outside the law??? You must have hated the civil rights movement, THEY were working outside the law, as many towns had laws that segregated the whites and blacks. Those protesters should have worked inside the law and never have sat in the front of the bus or drank from the forbidden water fountains, or marched down the streets. THEY were breaking the law. BAD PEOPLE!

But OC is different, it's legal. So how again is OCing outside the law??

[Done Deal]

But OC is different, it's legal. So how again is OCing outside the law??

OC is legal...ok, as it should be.

But, where certain places still have laws on the books making it illegal, police often have to arrest those people for not conforming to that law.

So again I say....getting the law off the books sounds preferable to getting arrested, wouldn't you agree?

[dougwg]

OC is legal...ok, as it should be.

But, where certain places still have laws on the books making it illegal, police often have to arrest those people for not conforming to that law.

So again I say....getting the law off the books sounds preferable to getting arrested, wouldn't you agree?

Yes! Although it is believed and rightfully so, that it's impossible to get the law removed with out winning a legal battle.

Do you believe that if made aware of the law these local municipalities are just going to say "Oops, our bad, we'll just remove that for you."

[Tallbear]

Do you believe that if made aware of the law these local municipalities are just going to say "Oops, our bad, we'll just remove that for you."

As has been stated here already.......Yes.

[Done Deal]

Yes! Although it is believed and rightfully so, that it's impossible to get the law removed with out winning a legal battle.

Do you believe that if made aware of the law these local municipalities are just going to say "Oops, our bad, we'll just remove that for you."

What "legal battle" are you referring to?

Do you believe that once a PD is forced to make an arrest that they are going to say "oops, our bad, we'll just tear up that appearance ticket for you"? Meanwhile, everybody got to watch the man with a gun get arrested....

[dougwg]

As has been stated here already.......Yes.
Where has it been stated that a law was removed? Some municipalities have accepted that their local ordnances are unenforceable, maybe, but I know of no laws (ordnances) that have been removed.

[dougwg]

What "legal battle" are you referring to?

Do you believe that once a PD is forced to make an arrest that they are going to say "oops, our bad, we'll just tear up that appearance ticket for you"? Meanwhile, everybody got to watch the man with a gun get arrested....

Legal battle as in this one. The one that this tread is about. You have read the thread haven't you?

Most likely it will boil down to a civil trial and as such it may be demanded that the local ordinance be removed as part of the settlement. This is the only way they'll be removed.

[Garbo]

Where has it been stated that a law was removed? Some municipalities have accepted that their local ordnances are unenforceable, maybe, but I know of no laws (ordnances) that have been removed.

Laws wernt removed, some PD's literally wernt aware that their policies were not working within the law. In fact I've seen you on the "inspection hour violators" thread,, have you read the whole thing? A few were able to get their local PD's in compliance. I even seen you question appliancebrad as to what he has done for gun rights. I've never met him but from what little I know and have seen out here there isnt many individuals that can honestly say they do much more. Instead of arguing maybe listen and talk with him and others which will likely benefit the OC movement as well.

here is the thread I'm referring to
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23983
and many other individuals have posted success in individual threads. Maybe Mr Linkage could find a few.

[dougwg]

OT:Westland is still not in full compliance.



Back to this thread: Tallbear said "yes" so I would like for him or others to post some evidence to confirm that some law was removed.

[Garbo]

Again its not necessirly about getting a law removed but getting the current laws honored. Maybe in the case of a small municipality that has an ordinance but in general. The police can be educated as well and it doesnt have to be in a negative manner.

As far as laws being changed,, well look at the back of your CPL I bet it still says that you cannot enter any establishment licensed to sell liquor right? There is a law that was changed right there and you didnt hear about a bunch of guys walking into a local party store and getting arrested in order to get teir message across.

Edit to add,, Sorry it says bar or taven licensed to sell liquour, now the rule states where the promary source of revenue is the sale of booze by the glass. That didnt just change itself .

[dougwg]

Back to this thread: Tallbear said "yes" so I would like for him or others to post some evidence to confirm that some local ordinance restricting firearms and/or possession of, was removed.


Again, these local ordinances restricting firearms and local police ignoring preemption are what this thread is about, not alcohol, not hours, not may issue/shall issue.

[who dat]

I have emailed the Mayor, the City Council, and the head of the Department Of Public Safety. Other's have also reported doing so. I'm fairly sure that they are aware of the legality of OC.
What town, city, township? There has been reference to GHT as well as GH city. I think this needs to be clarified or Mr. Cargo will be inundated with unnecessary information.

As reported, the incident occurred in the City. Is this correct?

[Tallbear]

OT:Westland is still not in full compliance.



Back to this thread: Tallbear said "yes" so I would like for him or others to post some evidence to confirm that some law was removed.

Post# 53

Rather than be a test case, I proactively contacted two townships regarding their, what I considered to be, unenforceable ordinances against the transport and possession of firearms on township property in reference to MCL 123.011.

Both instances went smoothly and resulted in acknowldgement that the ordinances were uneforceable. The townships contacted are Kalamazoo and Texas.

Perhaps Chris and his attorney can use this info to his advantage. I predict that the case will be dropped and Chris will struggle to get his weapon back.

Just MHO.

[Garbo]

Again, these local ordinances restricting firearms and local police ignoring preemption are what this thread is about, not alcohol, not hours, not may issue/shall issue.

I'm referring to laws being changed/revised with that example.

[dougwg]

Post# 53

No law was removed. Small detail but true nonetheless.

[dougwg]

I'm referring to laws being changed/revised with that example.
I agree that SOME laws can be changed willingly. My point is that some laws will not change without a legal battle.

I believe that these restrictive local ordnances as they pertain to firearms possession will only be removed/changed by way of civil lawsuit.

As such, someone will need to be arrested for this to happen. I don't want anyone to get arrested but I think it's inevitable.

[greenjg]

Many things are legal but are they wise? I can carry a pitch fork down main street but is it wise? During a walk am I going to cause public disdress, fear, or disrupt others? If so I could be charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. OC is something of the past before right to carry was broadly allowed. OC now is a look at me instead of being licenced and blendilng in. Look at me attitudes will always get you in trouble even when they are legal.

As we all would like to see restrictions removed on where we can or can not carry, OC used without discression can hurt all of us. If you wish to OC then do it away from public forums and expect to be stopped.

I even dislike police officers that OC off duty. Or flash their weapon. We are now being excepted when we CC, don't harm the movement that has developed in the last seven to eight years!

If you can not get a licence to CC then you should not be OC. So apply and do us all a favor and play nice.

[Garbo]

I guess thats one way to get publicity but I'm not sure its true that someone needs to be arrested to get it.

[Garbo]

One reason i definatly would not like to see any restrictions at all on OC is because it will hurt CC. For example if it becomes illegal to OC on a store and I need to reach up to get something and it exposes my gun, am I now commiting a crime? And as stated earlier I have a very specific use for OC and its somewhat in public too while on the job so everything has its place. I sure dont want to loose that option either.

[ghostrider]

...

The the comparison regarding a woman in a mini skirt,, while humor was intended it really sets a fairly good example. A woman should be able to walk down the street wearing anyhting she wants but is it a good idea? Does this mean they should? They have the right to. Would you let your daughter do it? Why would you tell her not to? Is not a good idea right?

...It would be a fairly good example only if the harassment she received were the police throwing here up against the wall, and arresting here for indecent exposure.

An OC'er should expect to encounter hostilities from anti's, as well as questions from others.

...
Preemption supercedes local law but, it is still a law. So it’s okay for Grand Haven to ban Concealed handguns from their public library, and arrest anyone they discover doing so, even though it’s already been ruled on by the Court of Appeals in MCRGO v. Ferndale? I just did a search, and it appears that Ferndale still has the ban in place that was already struck down by the Court of Appeals (I’ve also read on this board that they still have the signs up). Are you suggesting that the officers there should enforce that law as well? Or, how about if Grand Haven passes a law banning black people from sitting at the front of the bus, or drinking from certain water fountains, based solely on the color of their skin. Should the officers even then just follow orders and go along for the sake of not risking their job?

Sure, I know that GH has that law on the books, but the prosecutor should be aware of MCRGO v. Ferndale. I also understand that some officers may not be aware of the ruling, or preemption, but I think they should be allowed as much latitude for ignorance of the law as citizens are. Actually, I think they should have even less latitude than citizens, since they have the power to take people’s freedom (although in this case it may not apply since I don’t know if they contacted the prosecutor before issuing the citation). So, until that law is no longer a law, do any of you really expect a cop to tell his boss...."naw, I am going to risk my job and refuse your order to arrest somebody under that law"? Maybe you can bank on that happening and then....maybe not. You’ve now entered the muddy waters of ethics. If your boss orders you to do something that you not only know is wrong, but you also know that it could ruin someone else financially (or in other ways), do you do it? That’s a line that each individual has to draw form him/herself. Just don’t expect to get any sympathy or support if you decide to follow that order. Sure, we understand that you’ve got a family to feed, but so does the other guy, and he didn’t do anything wrong (no matter how you try to color it).

Everyone has to decide where that line is. That line went pretty far for some Germans in WWII. Then, there were some who rationalized it by convincing themselves that “we didn’t know”. OTH, there were some Germans who risked everything to help and protect their neighbors from a tyrannical government. I sometimes contemplate where that line may be for the majority of Americans, and I can’t say it’s a comforting thought.

For you, that line may lie between OC and CC. Others may disagree. One can be fairly certain that if they succeed in this proceeding that it leaves the door open for CC as well as OC being banned in the city of GH as it is the same law that protects both.

In all honesty, I would have thought it prudent to send an OC packet to the necessary authorities in a town that one was planning to OC in, but that doesn’t mean he should have to when it’s legal. I can even understand an undereducated officer or two citing the man and confiscating his gun as evidence (not everybody has gotten the word yet). Most of the people on OCDO actually are aware that it could happen, but it should be dropped as soon as a prosecutor is made aware of it, and the man’s gun returned.

Like it or not, the actions of Grand Haven (mainly the prosecutor’s office who are following through with this) in this incident are an affront to gun owners (OC and CC alike), and it is a direct challenge to the MCRGO v Ferndale decision. If they can succeed in banning OC in their town, then they can just as easily ban CC from municipal buildings.

[dougwg]

Many things are legal but are they wise? I can carry a pitch fork down main street but is it wise? During a walk am I going to cause public disdress, fear, or disrupt others? If so I could be charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. OC is something of the past before right to carry was broadly allowed. OC now is a look at me instead of being licenced and blendilng in. Look at me attitudes will always get you in trouble even when they are legal.

As we all would like to see restrictions removed on where we can or can not carry, OC used without discression can hurt all of us. If you wish to OC then do it away from public forums and expect to be stopped.

I even dislike police officers that OC off duty. Or flash their weapon. We are now being excepted when we CC, don't harm the movement that has developed in the last seven to eight years!

If you can not get a licence to CC then you should not be OC. So apply and do us all a favor and play nice.

What if I were out for a walk and saw a garage sale, bought an "evil black assault pitch fork" then walked home with it. Should I expect to get arrested?

Critical in depth thinking trumps whimsical opinion every time.

You must be 21 to have a CPL. Do you believe that an 18, 19 or 20 year old should have the right to defend themselves?

Play nice? Wow! Now there is a roll over and take it attitude. I guess our founding fathers should have just "played nice" and paid the taxes to the British Crown too.

[ghostrider]

Many things are legal but are they wise? I can carry a pitch fork down main street but is it wise? During a walk am I going to cause public disdress, fear, or disrupt others? Doubtful, and it legally doesn’t matter If so I could be charged with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. Wrong, go find the statute for DC/DTP. Its always a good to educate oneself before demonstrating that you lack knowledge in the area of which you speak. OC is something of the past before right to carry was broadly allowed. Again with the lack of knowledge. OC is “right to carry”. CC is not. OC now is a look at me instead of being licenced and blendilng in. Look at me attitudes will always get you in trouble even when they are legal. That is an inflammatory and bigoted statement. The reason I say this is because the tone is “critical”, as opposed to “matter of fact”.

So what if it’s done in a “look at me” manner. Sometimes that is what activism is all about. The civil rights marches of the ‘60’s were most definitely “look at me”. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes, it’s even necessary.

As we all would like to see restrictions removed on where we can or can not carry, OC used without discression can hurt all of us. As can CC used without discression. If you wish to OC then do it away from public forums and expect to be stopped. The anti’s use the same argument for CC. Shall you follow your own advice?

I even dislike police officers that OC off duty. Or flash their weapon. We are now being excepted when we CC, don't harm the movement that has developed in the last seven to eight years! You’ve gone from prudence, to fear.

If you can not get a licence to CC then you should not be OC. So apply and do us all a favor and play nice. I’ve rarely seen OC’ers critizing CC’ers for their choice for method of carry. Maybe you should “play nice”.

[Garbo]

"""So, until that law is no longer a law, do any of you really expect a cop to tell his boss...."naw, I am going to risk my job and refuse your order to arrest somebody under that law"? Maybe you can bank on that happening and then....maybe not."""


I believe what DD is saying here is that the cop on the street doesnt get to make that choice. They are required to enforce the laws which is why people will end up getting arrested. As has been established here there are LEO's that arnt 100% familiar with the law as it is. The guy in Grand Haven will likly get off IMO but at what cost? If you plan on OC'ing in a community regularly you should take some time and know the law. Talk to the PD and if you get resistance then move along. Suggestions I've seen out here are to start with the city council then move along from there. Ask Appliancebrad, Tallbear and others who haev had success on what avenues to follow. Both from my experiences with them is that they go out of their way to be of assistance.

[ghostrider]

"""So, until that law is no longer a law, do any of you really expect a cop to tell his boss...."naw, I am going to risk my job and refuse your order to arrest somebody under that law"? Maybe you can bank on that happening and then....maybe not."""


I believe what DD is saying here is that the cop on the street doesnt get to make that choice. Actually, I think that both you and DD just don’t get it. A cop does get to make that choice. It isn’t always an easy one, but chances are someone is going to judge them based on how they make that choice. Don’t get me wrong. I also understand that some people find it easier to insist others stand up for what’s right, while they reside comfortably on their couch. However, when one makes a choice, the consequences are often how other people view that choice. They are required to enforce the laws which is why people will end up getting arrested. Does that requirement include laws that the individual officer knows for certain have been ruled invalid by the Court of Appeals? How about if it’s a law that the officer knows has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC? Are they still compelled to enforce such laws? As has been established here there are LEO's that arnt 100% familiar with the law as it is. The guy in Grand Haven will likly get off IMO but at what cost? If you plan on OC'ing in a community regularly you should take some time and know the law. Talk to the PD and if you get resistance then move along. Suggestions I've seen out here are to start with the city council then move along from there. Ask Appliancebrad, Tallbear and others who haev had success on what avenues to follow. Both from my experiences with them is that they go out of their way to be of assistance. I think it's safe to say that this isn't about an individual officer (unless your talking about the MSP officer who allegedly stated that OC is illegal in MI), as it's now at the prosecutor level. Therefore, unless someone has knowledge that the officer was aware of Act 319, and the MCGRO v Ferndale decision, then discussing the officer is a moot point.

As I've stated in this thread. I've contacted everyone in that town from the Mayor, on through the City Council, to the Head of the Department of Public Safety. My opinion is that GH thinks they can outspend Fetters in the court system, and if that happens, then it will be bad for gun owners in general (both CC and OC alike) as they will have gotten away with violating Act 319, and the ruling of MCRGO v. Ferndale.

[adawg]

I just want to take a quick second to say it is good to see that Dougwg's hostilities are not limited to just the AR15 forums!!

[who dat]

I just wantto take a quick second to say it is good to see that Dougwg's hostilities are not limited to just the AR15 forums!!
:popcorn:

[Garbo]

""As I've stated in this thread. I've contacted everyone in that town from the Mayor, on through the City Council, to the Head of the Department of Public Safety. My opinion is that GH thinks they can outspend Fetters in the court system, and if that happens, then it will be bad for gun owners in general (both CC and OC alike) as they will have gotten away with violating Act 319, and the ruling of MCRGO v. Ferndale.""

I agree this coarse it set now and it has to be seen through.


"Does that requirement include laws that the individual officer knows for certain have been ruled invalid by the Court of Appeals? How about if it’s a law that the officer knows has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC? Are they still compelled to enforce such laws? "

Again how can anyone be certain that all the LEO's of a certain town are up to date. It only takes one top officer to have it wrong and the cancer spreds. Lets say the chief was very anti and he heard about an incident such as what is being discussed here and inquires as to what came of it (as a chief should in a potentially high profile issue) and the rookie LEO has to explain to the chief that he didnt believe that the law was legal or enforceable so he let the guy on his way. Do you think that will help his position in the department. I bet 99% of all LEO's will take the path of least resistance. I mean why not, its a no loose situation to the arresting officer right? He enforced a local ordinance which is is out and heck he gets paid to sit in court to testify an if the suspect gets off oh well to that as well, again it wasnt his money.

[dougwg]

I just want to take a quick second to say it is good to see that Dougwg's hostilities are not limited to just the AR15 forums!!

If it becomes obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars, you will lose your posting privileges. This is a privately run board and most things will be tolerated. Exceptions would be, but not limited to, illegal acts, etc which will result in suspension or termination.

:rolleyes:

[adawg]

Do you need glasses or does the concept of mathematics escape you? Maybe you just never learned how to tell time.

I wish I could ignore you but here's another rule you don't know about.

If thats an example of your idea of jumping in and "attitude" I suggest that you are mentally unstable and deranged, as such, you shouldn't even be allowed to own firearms.

Why are you even in this thread? All you do is bitch, instigate and infuriate yet you offer nothing. You post this yet offer NOTHING!


Roll your eyes if you will. Those comments came from two random pages in this thread. I don't see how there is any disputing my comments as they are based on fact as is validated by the quoted text.

[dougwg]

Roll your eyes if you will. Those comments came from two random pages in this thread. I don't see how there is any disputing my comments as they are based on fact as is validated by the quoted text.

It is obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars.

Or do you have something to contribute to the original post?

[adawg]

It is obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble and/or instigate flaming wars.

Or do you have something to contribute to the original post?

Sure. I think as others have appropriately stated, the most prudent route is to begin with education. Perhaps the shirts I saw posted somewhere are a wise (albeit unfashionable) first step. While OC may be legal, you have to keep in mind public perception and its ability to persuade change. You shock, offend, whatever too many liberal letter writers and you might find yourself in a fight to preserve the right that is much more uphill than your current efforts to educate people on their "unexercised" rights.

[ghostrider]

"Does that requirement include laws that the individual officer knows for certain have been ruled invalid by the Court of Appeals? How about if it’s a law that the officer knows has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC? Are they still compelled to enforce such laws? "

Again how can anyone be certain that all the LEO's of a certain town are up to date. It only takes one top officer to have it wrong and the cancer spreds. Lets say the chief was very anti and he heard about an incident such as what is being discussed here and inquires as to what came of it (as a chief should in a potentially high profile issue) and the rookie LEO has to explain to the chief that he didnt believe that the law was legal or enforceable so he let the guy on his way. Do you think that will help his position in the department. I bet 99% of all LEO's will take the path of least resistance. I mean why not, its a no loose situation to the arresting officer right? He enforced a local ordinance which is is out and heck he gets paid to sit in court to testify an if the suspect gets off oh well to that as well, again it wasnt his money. " Lets say the chief was a racist, and wants enforcement of a local law restricting “those people” from sitting at the front of the bus, or drinking from certain public fountains, and the rookie LEO has to explain to the chief that he didn’t believe that the law was legal or enforceable, so he let “that person” do so, and then let the guy on his way. "
I don’t think the “path of least resistance” is exclusive to LEO, but as I’ve mentioned, that’s an ethical conundrum. I’ve also seen self-proclaimed Christians claim that they can’t practice Christian principals or ethics (not sure if that’s the correct word) on their job. I guess it’s a matter of “what level of moral cowardice we want to operate under”. It’s a matter of “where we draw our line”. If your going to take someone’s freedom for something (that you know for certain) the courts have already said is unjust and unwarranted, or for violation for an ordinance that you know has been ruled illegal, then I just won’t have much sympathy when you tell me your only doing it because, “even though you know the statute has been ruled in violation of the law, your going to enforce it because your afraid of making waves at work.” However, if you stand up in the court and state that you knowingly went against the court ruling because you were, “under orders”, then I’ll consider you an honorable man.

[dougwg]

Sure. I think as others have appropriately stated, the most prudent route is to begin with education. Perhaps the shirts I saw posted somewhere are a wise (albeit unfashionable) first step. While OC may be legal, you have to keep in mind public perception and its ability to persuade change. You shock, offend, whatever too many liberal letter writers and you might find yourself in a fight to preserve the right that is much more uphill than your current efforts to educate people on their "unexercised" rights.


I do agree to a point. I have said many times that I believe in baby steps, slow positive movement toward education and understanding.

But please realize that Chris Fetters was doing nothing illegal. And as far as we know he was not holding up a picket sign or getting in a cops face daring him to arrest him.

He was doing nothing illegal! It baffles me that every member of this pro-2A, pro legal activity message board are not appalled by the action of Grand Haven and are not wholeheartedly standing beside a fellow LEGAL gun owner.

I would hope and trust that we are all on the same side here. The side of the law! I'm sorry if sometimes I get a little hostile when I see someone betray that trust.

[Tucker6900]

However, if you stand up in the court and state that you knowingly went against the court ruling because you were, “under orders”, then I’ll consider you an honorable man.

Which I believe may be the case. Someone on OCDO posted a reply from the Director of Public Safety stating the that officers "Were operating on the advice of the Prosecuting Attorney". So, if thats true, the officers did what they were told to do. The question I have however is, Did the officers know of preemption before the arrest? We'll never know. Unless there is some training bulliten that was posted to their Dept. stating the preemption. They can play dumb, or just not want the hassle of getting hassled at work for not taking orders.
I think what we are going to see out of this is charges getting dropped, and a settlement. I dont think were going to see a few officers get in trouble, only because they were following orders.

[Garbo]

Hey I'm not saying any of this is right but I'm not nieve enough to believe that it doesnt go on.

I think what were all dancing around here is how to go about reclaiming our rights correct? We can go back and forth on spin offs of the primary issue as we have been. I believe that the movement would have more success spreading the word avoiding conflicts with law enforcement whever possible. And as I stated before this specific incident will be all for not if this wave isnt ridden out to the end.



" Lets say the chief was a racist, and wants enforcement of a local law restricting “those people” from sitting at the front of the bus, or drinking from certain public fountains, and the rookie LEO has to explain to the chief that he didn’t believe that the law was legal or enforceable, so he let “that person” do so, and then let the guy on his way. "
I don’t think the “path of least resistance” is exclusive to LEO, but as I’ve mentioned, that’s an ethical conundrum. I’ve also seen self-proclaimed Christians claim that they can’t practice Christian principals or ethics (not sure if that’s the correct word) on their job. I guess it’s a matter of “what level of moral cowardice we want to operate under”. It’s a matter of “where we draw our line”. If your going to take someone’s freedom for something (that you know for certain) the courts have already said is unjust and unwarranted, or for violation for an ordinance that you know has been ruled illegal, then I just won’t have much sympathy when you tell me your only doing it because, “even though you know the statute has been ruled in violation of the law, your going to enforce it because your afraid of making waves at work.” However, if you stand up in the court and state that you knowingly went against the court ruling because you were, “under orders”, then I’ll consider you an honorable man.

[adawg]

But please realize that Chris Fetters was doing nothing illegal. And as far as we know he was not holding up a picket sign or getting in a cops face daring him to arrest him...I would hope and trust that we are all on the same side here. The side of the law! I'm sorry if sometimes I get a little hostile when I see someone betray that trust.

I agree with you on the above. Although, I do think that the two are related. When you move too quickly, without building that foundation, things like this can, and will, happen.

[dougwg]

What 2 things exactly?

[dougwg]

I agree with you on the above. Although, I do think that the two are related. When you move too quickly, without building that foundation, things like this can, and will, happen.

This is the main reason I decided not to carry at the Westland Fireworks. I don't think the time is right just yet. Again, baby steps.

[adawg]

What 2 things exactly?

The issues that have been beaten to a bloody pulp in this thread: the arrest and the need for a better foundation of understanding of the OC law at the local level.

[dougwg]

Ah ok, it's just that I thought that point is so apparent and obvious that it didn't need to be stated.

A no-brainer if you will. If we had, in your words, better foundation of understanding of the OC law at the local level, arrests would not happen. This is what I and others are striving for.

[Leader]

Since everyone is so ready to say the COP not knowing the law made it ok for him to VIOLATE several state & local laws....
How about the fact that Mr. Fetters didn't know & had no reason to suspect that Grand Haven even had a law saying that doing something that we all KNOW is legal will get you arrested???
Shouldn't the cop just have let him go once Mr, Fetters told him he didn't know about that law?
I don't know if the cities & villages around me have such a law. I REALLY don't think I should have to spend hours trying to find out before I go out of the house either. It was beyond my comprehension that city attorneys didn't look at the local laws when preemption was passed & strike down any laws that were in conflict. I would have thought thats what they get paid for.

Now we are looking at a case where the city is KNOWINGLY violating his rights and knows they are not going to get punished for it so.... TOO BAD..
The prosecutor isn't going to get fined or go to jail, nor is the city counsel or cop. Why should they comply?
And it seems that the majority of people here think it's perfectly OK for police to arrest people just because they don't like what they are doing. All they need to say is "I thought there was a law." or "There should be a law." That makes it ok .

[Garbo]

And it seems that the majority of people here think it's perfectly OK for police to arrest people just because they don't like what they are doing. All they need to say is "I thought there was a law." or "There should be a law." That makes it ok .

I definatly am not saying that and what is a dam shame is your last point thre is 100% accurate. A cop or a PO cn throw charges all over the place and short of professional misconduct there is no recorse for doing so. In fact they get paid to do just this and how much does a court case cost to defend yourself? Dont ever be fooled,, the city, government etc with their PO's have a huge advantage.

Now knowing the above shouldnt a strategy be plotted accordingly?

[ghostrider]

Since everyone is so ready to say the COP not knowing the law made it ok for him to VIOLATE several state & local laws....
How about the fact that Mr. Fetters didn't know & had no reason to suspect that Grand Haven even had a law saying that doing something that we all KNOW is legal will get you arrested???
Shouldn't the cop just have let him go once Mr, Fetters told him he didn't know about that law?
I don't know if the cities & villages around me have such a law. I REALLY don't think I should have to spend hours trying to find out before I go out of the house either. It was beyond my comprehension that city attorneys didn't look at the local laws when preemption was passed & strike down any laws that were in conflict. I would have thought thats what they get paid for.

Now we are looking at a case where the city is KNOWINGLY violating his rights and knows they are not going to get punished for it so.... TOO BAD..
The prosecutor isn't going to get fined or go to jail, nor is the city counsel or cop. Why should they comply?
And it seems that the majority of people here think it's perfectly OK for police to arrest people just because they don't like what they are doing. All they need to say is "I thought there was a law." or "There should be a law." That makes it ok .
I only wish it were so Leader. That's why I stated:

...I also understand that some officers may not be aware of the ruling, or preemption, but I think they should be allowed as much latitude for ignorance of the law as citizens are. Actually, I think they should have even less latitude than citizens, since they have the power to take people’s freedom (although in this case it may not apply since I don’t know if they contacted the prosecutor before issuing the citation)....In this case however, it sounds like the officers did seek other's advice during the encounter. An MSP officer was reported to not only have been there, but to have also stated that OC is illegal in MI (no excuse for him if true). Basically MHO is this: IF there were officers who knew that the Ferndale decision applied here, then they shouldn't get any slack in my book. I've little compassion for those who knowingly trample peoples rights, just to save their own financial skin, and IIRC the US Code agrees with me. Personally, I think such action is cowardly, but then again, I also understand that when I point my finger at someone, there is usually four fingers pointing right back at me. IF, OTOH, the arresting officer consulted with a higher authority, then that higher authority should be held responsible for the rights violation. I believe that if we start holding our authorities to higher standards, then the creme will rise, and that other stuff will not.

Like I said before, if we as citizens cannot use ignorance of the law as an excuse, then officers who have the authority to take our freedom should have even less latitude.

[Venator12]

OC is legal...ok, as it should be.

But, where certain places still have laws on the books making it illegal, police often have to arrest those people for not conforming to that law.

So again I say....getting the law off the books sounds preferable to getting arrested, wouldn't you agree?

If a local government had a law that allows segregation, say it was okay in this town to make Asians use a separate restroom. But the State had a law that states segregation is not legal and no municipality can have segregation laws (PREEMPTION in regards to segregation). And an Asian man used a non-Asian restroom and was arrested for it, would you still be looking at it the same?

Why do you have to get an unlawful law "off the books" when by definition and by law it's illegal. A municipality could have all kinds of laws "on the books", doesn't make them legal and enforceable. It's not an individuals responsibility to get unlawful ordinances off the books, it's the municipalities responsibility, or face legal action. Pretty simple.

[Venator12]

Now we are looking at a case where the city is KNOWINGLY violating his rights and knows they are not going to get punished for it so.... TOO BAD..
The prosecutor isn't going to get fined or go to jail, nor is the city counsel or cop. Why should they comply?
And it seems that the majority of people here think it's perfectly OK for police to arrest people just because they don't like what they are doing. All they need to say is "I thought there was a law." or "There should be a law." That makes it ok .

That's what civil laws suits are for. Federal civil rights violations can and have been brought against individual officers and have been successful (Pennsylvania for example). Get two or three of those going in the state and the word will get around.

[Tucker6900]

Get two or three of those going in the state and the word will get around.

Lets hope that this is the only one needed to make it happen. I have heard of the PA problem, and read up on some of it. But I was unaware that the officers were punished. What happened to them? Any links or articles?

[ghostrider]

Lets hope that this is the only one needed to make it happen. I have heard of the PA problem, and read up on some of it. But I was unaware that the officers were punished. What happened to them? Any links or articles?
If Venator is referring to the Dickson 12, then it's still going through the system.

[Venator12]

If Venator is referring to the Dickson 12, then it's still going through the system.

That's the second one, a previous one was won for an undisclosed amount. As for the particulars of what happened to the individual officers I don't know. I do know they were named in the suit.

[Tallbear]

Not being there and not knowing the guy, I will not presume to know he wasn't doing "something" wrong. And I'll never stand by what is reported in news or television. Not saying he did anything wrong. But, I've been burnt doing exactly what you propose pro2A people to do on this.

I do agree to a point. I have said many times that I believe in baby steps, slow positive movement toward education and understanding.

But please realize that Chris Fetters was doing nothing illegal. And as far as we know he was not holding up a picket sign or getting in a cops face daring him to arrest him.

He was doing nothing illegal! It baffles me that every member of this pro-2A, pro legal activity message board are not appalled by the action of Grand Haven and are not wholeheartedly standing beside a fellow LEGAL gun owner.

I would hope and trust that we are all on the same side here. The side of the law! I'm sorry if sometimes I get a little hostile when I see someone betray that trust.

[dougwg]

Not being there and not knowing the guy, I will not presume to know he wasn't doing "something" wrong. And I'll never stand by what is reported in news or television. Not saying he did anything wrong. But, I've been burnt doing exactly what you propose pro2A people to do on this.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and afford him the presumption of innocents.

Lets remember that he was charged with violating the local ordinance and nothing more.

[Done Deal]

Lets remember that he was charged with violating the local ordinance and nothing more.

I am a bit confused in some of the reports posted here.

How is it that the Prosecutor was involved in this if it were merely a local ordinance violation? Typically, that sort of thing would be left to the City or Township Attorney to handle...NOT the county prosecutor.

[ghostrider]

I am a bit confused in some of the reports posted here.

How is it that the Prosecutor was involved in this if it were merely a local ordinance violation? Typically, that sort of thing would be left to the City or Township Attorney to handle...NOT the county prosecutor.
One of the members of OCDO sent an email to the Head of The Department Of Public Safety for GH. In the response, the Head of the DPS stated that, "Our officers were acting under the advise of our County Prosecutor's Office..."Again, that is if you believe what you read on the internet. Right now, all we have to go on are individual reports that are trickling in, which leaves little substantiated. If it weren't for the GH Tribune printing up a story, the whole incident may still be considered internet rumor.

[Done Deal]

One of the members of OCDO sent an email to the Head of The Department Of Public Safety for GH. In the response, the Head of the DPS stated that, Again, that is if you believe what you read on the internet.

Right now, all we have to go on are individual reports that are trickling in, which leaves little substantiated. If it weren't for the GH Tribune printing up a story, the whole incident may still be considered internet rumor.

Ok...makes sense in that good ol' internet unconfirmed sort of way. So, after 1800 views on this thread....it appears that we really don't have much of substance to comment on then....

Any chance of the appearance ticket appearing on the net?

[dougwg]

snip...Any chance of the appearance ticket appearing on the net?

If you plan on donating I will personally supply you with proof. If not, then it would be a waste of my time.

[Done Deal]

If you plan on donating I will personally supply you with proof. If not, then it would be a waste of my time.

So, you are saying that you have the original or a copy accessible and available for review?

Why not really contribute to the cause and show everybody just what a miscarriage of justice is taking place?

Heck, I could tell you that I would donate and then you probably would go and create additional contingencies and I really don't want to waste my time.

Either post it up or.....

[dougwg]

So, you are saying that you have the original or a copy accessible and available for review?

Why not really contribute to the cause and show everybody just what a miscarriage of justice is taking place?

Heck, I could tell you that I would donate and then you probably would go and create additional contingencies and I really don't want to waste my time.

Either post it up or.....

I just got off the phone with Skip Coryell and he said he has a copy of the issued citation. He is at a meeting right now but he said that he will e-mail me a copy later tonight when he gets home.

If I get the citation and edit out sensitive information (D.O.B., address, SSN etc) but leave all pertinent info as proof, will you donate to Chris Fetters legal defense fund?

I am a man of my word. As stated, I will post proof if you will agree to donate.

The real question is are you a man of principles?

[Tallbear]

Sounds to me like you're only interested in proving your point with Done Deal, so send that to him "off line". I don't care to see it posted here.


I just got off the phone with Skip Coryell and he said he has a copy of the issued citation. He is at a meeting right now but he said that he will e-mail me a copy later tonight when he gets home.

If I get the citation and edit out sensitive information (D.O.B., address, SSN etc) but leave all pertinent info as proof, will you donate to Chris Fetters legal defense fund?

I am a man of my word. As stated, I will post proof if you will agree to donate.

The real question is are you a man of principles?

[dougwg]

Sounds to me like you're only interested in proving your point with Done Deal, so send that to him "off line". I don't care to see it posted here.

I'm not sure but I think he is the only one that has directly questioned the validity of the situation.

You however did elude to the same.

[Done Deal]

I'm not sure but I think he is the only one that has directly questioned the validity of the situation.

You however did elude to the same.

You misinterpret the reason that I asked about the appearance ticket.

You don't seem to get it....so, just forget it.

[dougwg]

You misinterpret the reason that I asked about the appearance ticket.

You don't seem to get it....so, just forget it.

Then maybe you need to state your reasoning more clearly.

Or have I just called your bluff?

[Tallbear]

I don't care to see "ANY" legal documents on this website.

I'm not sure but I think he is the only one that has directly questioned the validity of the situation.

You however did elude to the same.

[PhotoTom]

I don't care to see "ANY" legal documents on this website.

Got it...from now on, only illegal documents on this website ;) :lol:

[Tallbear]

For "you" that would be "link". :computer:


Got it...from now on, only illegal documents on this website ;) :lol:

[Venator12]

I just got off the phone with Skip Coryell and he said he has a copy of the issued citation. He is at a meeting right now but he said that he will e-mail me a copy later tonight when he gets home.

If I get the citation and edit out sensitive information (D.O.B., address, SSN etc) but leave all pertinent info as proof, will you donate to Chris Fetters legal defense fund?

I am a man of my word. As stated, I will post proof if you will agree to donate.

The real question is are you a man of principles?
Doug, post it at opencarry. Then put a link here and anyone that wants to see it can.

[dougwg]

It's to big to post on opencarry and I have been asked not to post it here and I will honor that request.

I will say this:
I have seen the ticket. 1 of 1 Ticket number G 82685

The only charge is a violation of the local ordinance 24-55 (3) (http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10034&sid=22) which is covered by preemption.

The hearing date is 8-27-2008 @ 9:30AM

If it goes that far, I'll be there in person supporting this active military, fellow Michigan gun owner.

[Roger Roney]

....Please don't tell me you compared a woman being verbally harassed over her clothing to a man being slammed into a wall and forcibly arrested for exercising his rights.Where do you see "verbally" used in his post? Here in SE MI, certain parts of Michigan Ave, (along with sections of Woodward, Grand River, Gratiot, 8 Mile, and others, :lol:) are well known as areas to find hookers. The comparison is valid, as the harassment could have been by cops "slamming her into the wall" while investigating prostitution.Got it...from now on, only illegal documents on this website :wink: :lol::rofl:

There are a couple questions raised from the postings here. They may already have been answered, so I'll re-read this tomorrow before asking.

Roger

[Raspberrysurprise]

Wait a minute....

I can understand false arrest.

I can understand an illegal law.

But how can one be falsely arrested under an illegal law?

Preemption supercedes local law but, it is still a law. So, until that law is no longer a law, do any of you really expect a cop to tell his boss...."naw, I am going to risk my job and refuse your order to arrest somebody under that law"? Maybe you can bank on that happening and then....maybe not.

The same way you can be falsely arrested if the officer doesn't like the color of your shoes.

If an officer arrests you using the power of a law that is illegal than that would be a false arrest as he never really had the power to arrest you in the first place. A law that is illegal because of preemption is not legal from the day it is passed not until a judge says it is.

Yes I would expect an officer to tell his boss to shove it if he was given an unlawful order just as I would expect a soldier to do the same because it's the right thing to do. The "I was just doing my job/following orders" defense has been tried before, and it usually doesn't hold up too well in court. I do on the other hand understand that not everyone is willing to do this for their own reasons.

Where do you see "verbally" used in his post? Here in SE MI, certain parts of Michigan Ave, (along with sections of Woodward, Grand River, Gratiot, 8 Mile, and others, ) are well known as areas to find hookers. The comparison is valid, as the harassment could have been by cops "slamming her into the wall" while investigating prostitution.

What you're describing is known as assault not harassment. When he said harassment I assumed catcalls and the like.

[adam40cal]

If you wanna get right down to it the founding fathers viewed cc'ing as cowardly and didn't like it one bit. Open carry was the preferred method of having a firearm on your person.

I conceal carry most of the time, but I do on occasion open carry. I think what a lot of people are forgetting is concealed carry is a privilege in Michigan, but open carry is a right.

[Done Deal]

The same way you can be falsely arrested if the officer doesn't like the color of your shoes.

If an officer arrests you using the power of a law that is illegal than that would be a false arrest as he never really had the power to arrest you in the first place. A law that is illegal because of preemption is not legal from the day it is passed not until a judge says it is.

Yes I would expect an officer to tell his boss to shove it if he was given an unlawful order just as I would expect a soldier to do the same because it's the right thing to do. The "I was just doing my job/following orders" defense has been tried before, and it usually doesn't hold up too well in court. I do on the other hand understand that not everyone is willing to do this for their own reasons.




I guess that I just never knew of any blue shoe laws....thanks for the education because absent any laws prohibiting certain colors....you are correct, it would probably be false arrest.

But...in this particular case, since there is a law in place, I am not so sure that officer discretion applies. It is not the job of the cop on the street to make or interpret the laws or even determine their validity. If there was an ordinance on the books and he had probable cause to believe that the person was in violation of that law....then, it really might be difficult to substantiate any claims of false arrest.

The right thing to do....again....the cops job or the soldiers job is to obey orders within the letter of the law. There was a law so....don't automatically blame the officer for doing his/her job.

[dougwg]

I guess that I just never knew of any blue shoe laws....thanks for the education because absent any laws prohibiting certain colors....you are correct, it would probably be false arrest.

But...in this particular case, since there is a law in place, I am not so sure that officer discretion applies. It is not the job of the cop on the street to make or interpret the laws or even determine their validity. If there was an ordinance on the books and he had probable cause to believe that the person was in violation of that law....then, it really might be difficult to substantiate any claims of false arrest.

The right thing to do....again....the cops job or the soldiers job is to obey orders within the letter of the law. There was a law so....don't automatically blame the officer for doing his/her job.

Nobody is blaming the officers. It was taken out of their hands the minute they call the prosecutor.

It IS the fault of the prosecutor. It's his job to know the law and determine it's validity.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters.

[Done Deal]

Nobody is blaming the officers.


Please stop trying to muddy the waters.


I realize that this thread has gotten long but....to say that "nobody is blaming the officers" is laughable.

Check out post #16,20,22,36.......and then I decided to skip all the way to post #145 which isn't far enough back to have easily been forgotten.

Yes, people are blaming the police.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters.

[ghostrider]

I realize that this thread has gotten long but....to say that "nobody is blaming the officers" is laughable.

Check out post #16,20,22,36.......and then I decided to skip all the way to post #145 which isn't far enough back to have easily been forgotten.

Yes, people are blaming the police.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters.

Sorry, I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt up until now, and I still do respect and appreciate your past service, but you’ve gone completely off the reservation on this one. I went back and looked at those posts after reading the above post, and the only thing the officers are being blamed with is violating state law. Maybe I'm mistaken, but the references to individual officers I saw in those posts were mainly remarks that those officers broke the law.

Act 319 of 1990 states
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state. Seems to me the police officers most certainly were “enforcing an ordinance …pertaining to…the ownership, … transportation, or possession of pistols…”. That’s law, and they violated it. Now, if they were aware of both this statute, and the Ferndale decision, then they most certainly are culpable. That would fall under “knowingly violating a persons rights under color of law”. If they were aware of these facts, then they most certainly should have declined to enforce such a law, as by US Code they are liable if they don’t.

However, if the officers were unaware of said law or court ruling, then it does fall on the prosecutor who allegedly gave the order (especially since GH appears to be going through with this sham), and the city who “enacted” it.

[Done Deal]

I went back and looked at those posts after reading the above post, and the only thing the officers are being blamed with is violating state law.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but the references to individual officers I saw in those posts were mainly remarks that those officers broke the law.



Wait a minute....somebody said, nobody is blaming the officers and I disagreed. Then...you say that I have headed off the reservation but then say the only thing the officers are being blamed for is....

WTF???? Either they are being blamed or they aren't.

You and I are both saying that they have been. So...I gotta agree with you...you and your "mainly" appear to be mistaken.

[ghostrider]

Wait a minute....somebody said, nobody is blaming the officers and I disagreed. Then...you say that I have headed off the reservation but then say the only thing the officers are being blamed for is....

WTF???? Either they are being blamed or they aren't.

You and I are both saying that they have been. So...I gotta agree with you...you and your "mainly" appear to be mistaken. Nice out of context quote. I clearly stated how and if the officers would be culpable (in the part of that post that you left out).

Oh wait, your just taking exception to the fact that the officers violated state law, and that they are being blamed for that violation of state law. Uhh, okay.

[Done Deal]

Nice out of context quote.


Out of context?

Either the officers have been blamed or they haven't....that was the only subject of my post.

Now if you are addressing my comments out of context....don't blame me.

[ghostrider]

Out of context?

Either the officers have been blamed or they haven't....that was the only subject of my post.

Now if you are addressing my comments out of context....don't blame me.
Actually, looking back at the posts, I don't think your view is that much different than those of who you referred to.

Yes, the officers violated state law yet, although I don't think that necessarily puts them at the blame for doing so. That would depend upon their knowledge of said law and court hearing. Maybe I just consider it common knowledge that the LEO's aren't responsible if they do so unknowingly. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. I do see where one of the posts you mentioned could be taken to imply that the officers violated the law "intentionally", but as I'm willing to give the officers the benefit of the doubt, so will I that poster. Other than that, I thought it was understood that the knowledge of the officers was more pertinent.

[Done Deal]

Actually, looking back at the posts, I don't think your view is that much different than those of who you referred to.







:confused: Ya lost me on that one...:confused:

[Tucker6900]

Other than that, I thought it was understood that the knowledge of the officers was more pertinent.

As it should be....down the line. I dont think the first item of business should be the officers however, but the city or township in question. That should be the first thing on the agenda. Then, if neccessary, go after the officers. If they had some sort of training certificate stating that they were up to date on the current laws of michigan, and it dates before said incident, then I feel they would also be held liable.

[Venator12]

YOU ALL may be happy to learn that the charges have been dropped and Chris Fetter will be getting his gun back soon. He states he will be filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.

[kdogg]

Opencarry.org should have an OC picnic get together in Grand Haven while the weather is still nice. I'd be in.

[Garbo]

Regardless of anyones views on OC I'm sure we are all glad to hear that it worked out. Keep us informed.

[dougwg]

Since who dat is in Grand Haven, it would be cool if he went over and video'd Chris getting his gun back from the police station...... hint hint hint!

[dougwg]

Regardless of anyones views on OC I'm sure we are all glad to hear that it worked out. Keep us informed.

It's not all worked out just yet....there is still a civil case to get through.

[Done Deal]

It's not all worked out just yet....there is still a civil case to get through.


You make it sound like somebody went fishing with him as the bait and Grand Haven bit. With the criminal charges dropped, the hook was set big time.

Now....it just takes reeling them in.....

Where is the next place that you folks are gonna go trolling for suckers?


Oh...one more thing....since the legal defense fund was established for legal defense....is the surplus going to be refunded or will it simply be utilized as the war chest for the civil action?

[dougwg]

You make it sound like somebody went fishing with him as the bait and Grand Haven bit. With the criminal charges dropped, the hook was set big time.

Now....it just takes reeling them in.....

Where is the next place that you folks are gonna go trolling for suckers?


Oh...one more thing....since the legal defense fund was established for legal defense....is the surplus going to be refunded or will it simply be utilized as the war chest for the civil action?

It's obvious that your primary purpose here is to cause trouble. Why do you even bother to post?

BTW: Nice bashing of the GH police by calling them suckers.

[Roger Roney]

You make it sound like....Put that way, I thought it was kinda funny. I've been thinking the same thing after reading some of the attitudes and discussions on OC....is the surplus going to be refunded or will it simply be utilized as the war chest for the civil action?I guess procrastination sometimes pays off. :lol: Although it doesn't concern me, it would be nice to see an answer.

Roger

[Venator12]

Put that way, I thought it was kinda funny. I've been thinking the same thing after reading some of the attitudes and discussions on OC.I guess procrastination sometimes pays off. :lol: Although it doesn't concern me, it would be nice to see an answer.

Roger
It will be up to those that contributed if they want a refund. My share will go for the civil suit. My understanding is that Chris will use some of any award to establishing a legal defense fund. But we shall see.

[Done Deal]

BTW: Nice bashing of the GH police by calling them suckers.

Lemme guess, you don't know what a metaphor is either....

This thread could prove to be a real opportunity for you to expand your vocabulary.

[ghostrider]

You make it sound like somebody went fishing with him as the bait and Grand Haven bit. With the criminal charges dropped, the hook was set big time.

Now....it just takes reeling them in.....

Where is the next place that you folks are gonna go trolling for suckers?


Oh...one more thing....since the legal defense fund was established for legal defense....is the surplus going to be refunded or will it simply be utilized as the war chest for the civil action?Funny, it seems it's you who is making it sound like somebody went fishing.

This guy didn't even post on OCDO until after his arrest. I realize it's possible that there is some big conspiracy, and he just signed up under a different name for this event. Everyone over there must have been PM'ing each other with secrete strategy sessions about how to get several officers to violate state law, while coercing the PA to go along with it. They must have sent some hypnotic brain waves over GH that only affected police officers, and other public officials. That's how those evil doers over at OCDO were able to get the innocent public officials to violate state law.

In all seriousness, If the officers were unaware of the law, then they'll probably be found not to be liable for what happened. My guess is that the city will be held liable.

[Done Deal]

Funny, it seems it's you who is making it sound like somebody went fishing.




Maybe this guy didn't...and I have read where he was not aware of what he might be getting himself into.

But, I have also read a helluva lot from folks with questionable motives. And it seems that some of those folks would rather lead somebody to the water and hand them the bait rather than actually do the fishing themselves.

Imagine that....hint, hint, hint...

[ghostrider]

Maybe this guy didn't...and I have read where he was not aware of what he might be getting himself into.

But, I have also read a helluva lot from folks with questionable motives. And it seems that some of those folks would rather lead somebody to the water and hand them the bait rather than actually do the fishing themselves.

Imagine that....hint, hint, hint...
I know that I myself keep telling people over at OCDO that they should learn not only the law, but also how to interact with LEO's in case they are stopped. If that "hint" is directed at me, then it's just plain nonsense. Personally, I think your just speculating, and that isn't a "hint". While I have seen people encourage others to OC, I've also seen many comments that before doing so, people should educate themselves first. Truth is, it seems some people are not researching the subject, and doing it without understanding what it can involve. The members of the Michigan section are continuously telling newbies to research the subject before even asking any questions, let alone OC. I have even told one newer member that he shouldn't OC if he didn't have a good grasp of not only the laws and his rights, but also how to deal appropriately with any potential officer encounter.

If this person would have joined and become active on the forum before his arrest, he would have probably been advised to send the information to the necessary parties of GH before OC'ing there.

That didn't happen, and it really doesn't change that GH tried to enforce an illegal ordinance. Of course, it's much easier to talk about conspiracy theories.

And BTW, what exactly are those "questionable motives"? Your implying something, just come out and say it.

[ghostrider]

One more thing.

I'm not even sure I'd have a problem with this if it actually was a planned event.

After all, what difference does it make? Some people say the same thing about Rosa Parks. I've heard that they turned down two young women just a couple weeks prior to Ms. Parks experience, and that Ms. Parks incident was planned. I don't think it makes it any less noble. Contrived maybe, but the fact still remains that, "if the authorities weren't violating the law, then this would have been a non-issue".

[dougwg]

It's all those mean ole citizens making the poor police officer and prosecutors break the law.....

Shame on them.:roll:


:boohoo:

Don't click on this link Done Deal!

http://www.boofrickinhoo.com

Editted to remove link by Tallbear.

[Done Deal]

I know that I myself keep telling people over at OCDO that they should learn not only the law, but also how to interact with LEO's in case they are stopped.

If that "hint" is directed at me, then it's just plain nonsense. Personally, I think your just speculating, and that isn't a "hint".


Nope, the "hint" wasn't directed at you....and to tell you the truth, your discussion on these matters hasn't struck a chord in front of my computer.

Now lets move to the "planned event" language you mentioned. Ok, there are pro's and con's to planning and carrying out such an event. But, lets not forget what one of the issues of this thread was....raising legal defense funds after an arrest.

I guess I am speculating but...I really gotta believe that some of the same folks than might contribute to that legal defense fund would not necessarily approve of their money paying the legal bill of an attorney retained for a civil action against the municipality involved. Like you say....just speculating.

[ghostrider]

...
Now lets move to the "planned event" language you mentioned. Ok, there are pro's and con's to planning and carrying out such an event. But, lets not forget what one of the issues of this thread was....raising legal defense funds after an arrest.

I guess I am speculating but...I really gotta believe that some of the same folks than might contribute to that legal defense fund would not necessarily approve of their money paying the legal bill of an attorney retained for a civil action against the municipality involved. Like you say....just speculating. Good point. That may well be so, but then again, there may be even more who would support such a thing if they knew it was well planned enough to be a great success. Lots of people out there were happy to see someone finally take a 2nd Amendment case to the USSC, but there were also those who feared the possible outcome of the Heller case.

One might speculate that there would be even more support if it was well planned. But then that's just speculation.:razz:

[Done Deal]

Damned speculators anyway...

[who dat]

Since who dat is in Grand Haven, it would be cool if he went over and video'd Chris getting his gun back from the police station...... hint hint hint!
Pass.

Chris can bring someone if he likes. I'm sure there are a lot of folks in his circle who would like to be well known to the police and the general public.

(Open carry offers no tactical advantage-Who Dat) Fixed it.

[ghostrider]

Damned speculators anyway...
lol

[Samurai Jack]

I know that I myself keep telling people over at OCDO that they should learn not only the law, but also how to interact with LEO's in case they are stopped. ...While I have seen people encourage others to OC, I've also seen many comments that before doing so, people should educate themselves first. Truth is, it seems some people are not researching the subject, and doing it without understanding what it can involve. The members of the Michigan section are continuously telling newbies to research the subject before even asking any questions, let alone OC. I have even told one newer member that he shouldn't OC if he didn't have a good grasp of not only the laws and his rights, but also how to deal appropriately with any potential officer encounter.
This actually brings up a good point IMHO. I see you OC people holding the events and gathering and such. BUT why do you not have formal class sessions like the CPL people are required too. I think this is one of the things that would probably go a long way to helping your cause by getting everyone on the same page with a STANDARDIZED dissemination of information to people who want to OC. I realize that you have the OC website but a formalized setting would probably go along way instead of someone cruising through a website and "finding" all the information that they need. Just my thoughts.....

[Venator12]

The Nuge has changed his mind on this and has been contacted (by Skip Coryell) and is planing to coordinate an OC event. The Nuge feels OC is the next logical fight for our gun rights. Even the Nuge can change his mind.

[KayL]

Skip is a recent convert, too.

[Venator12]

This actually brings up a good point IMHO. I see you OC people holding the events and gathering and such. BUT why do you not have formal class sessions like the CPL people are required too. I think this is one of the things that would probably go a long way to helping your cause by getting everyone on the same page with a STANDARDIZED dissemination of information to people who want to OC. I realize that you have the OC website but a formalized setting would probably go along way instead of someone cruising through a website and "finding" all the information that they need. Just my thoughts.....

Really all the information they need is on one thread...the start here thread at opencaryy.org Michigan section. One only has to read it to know more about OC than most attorneys and LEO's combined. All the hard work has been done for them, and it's free, no having to attend a "class", no fees, nothing but free info. But you may be right, if someone is incapable of comprehending the information then perhaps they shouldn't carry a gun.

[Leader]

This actually brings up a good point IMHO. I see you OC people holding the events and gathering and such. BUT why do you not have formal class sessions like the CPL people are required too. I think this is one of the things that would probably go a long way to helping your cause by getting everyone on the same page with a STANDARDIZED dissemination of information to people who want to OC. I realize that you have the OC website but a formalized setting would probably go along way instead of someone cruising through a website and "finding" all the information that they need. Just my thoughts.....

Why should anyone have to? There is actually nothing to know. Openly carrying a handgun is legal here in MI.
Quite often when a question comes up about the law, one of the first suggestions will be to call your local police. We *EXPECT* the people who will be arresting us to *KNOW* the law. Now, I don't expect them to advertise that it's ok to own a gun let alone carry one. But I *DO* expect them to know. And I certainly expect a city attorney to know the laws he is paid to advise the city on.
How something like this happens is just beyond my comprehension. It was a deliberate attempt to intimidate & deny a citizen of his rights.
The city, PA, police chief, and the officers involved should be punished enough so that other units of government will NOT try this in the future.
If these people get let off, then this city attorney should NEVER charge anyone that says he didn't know the law he is being charged with violating. I certainly don't know all the laws & yet I have to abide by them, they should too.

[Samurai Jack]

Why should anyone have to? There is actually nothing to know. Openly carrying a handgun is legal here in MI.
Quite often when a question comes up about the law, one of the first suggestions will be to call your local police. We *EXPECT* the people who will be arresting us to *KNOW* the law. Now, I don't expect them to advertise that it's ok to own a gun let alone carry one. But I *DO* expect them to know. And I certainly expect a city attorney to know the laws he is paid to advise the city on.
How something like this happens is just beyond my comprehension. It was a deliberate attempt to intimidate & deny a citizen of his rights.
The city, PA, police chief, and the officers involved should be punished enough so that other units of government will NOT try this in the future.
If these people get let off, then this city attorney should NEVER charge anyone that says he didn't know the law he is being charged with violating. I certainly don't know all the laws & yet I have to abide by them, they should too.
Really all the information they need is on one thread...the start here thread at opencaryy.org Michigan section. One only has to read it to know more about OC than most attorneys and LEO's combined. All the hard work has been done for them, and it's free, no having to attend a "class", no fees, nothing but free info. But you may be right, if someone is incapable of comprehending the information then perhaps they shouldn't carry a gun.
Ok look, I've seen in previous posts OC guys jump down peoples throats for not offering constructive suggestions to OC and changing Laws and perceptions of OC etc. I made a simple/positive statement that to further your cause and help people get more informed about OC that formal classes could be done instead of informal learn as you go, get arrested for maybe not knowing the laws by some accidental concealment,ie getting into your car, etc..., or be an asshat to LEO's who don't know the law and get arrested for being beligerant or some other charge. What I'm hearing here is you don't want suggestions of any kind and you want to jump up and down,misinterpret a postive suggestion to be something else and get all defensive. I made no reference to the case in this thread, I just pointed out that formal class type learning maybe of value based on something Ghostrider stated.

If you put in into the context of my original post.

"Originally Posted by ghostrider
I know that I myself keep telling people over at OCDO that they should learn not only the law, but also how to interact with LEO's in case they are stopped. ...While I have seen people encourage others to OC, I've also seen many comments that before doing so, people should educate themselves first. Truth is, it seems some people are not researching the subject, and doing it without understanding what it can involve. The members of the Michigan section are continuously telling newbies to research the subject before even asking any questions, let alone OC. I have even told one newer member that he shouldn't OC if he didn't have a good grasp of not only the laws and his rights, but also how to deal appropriately with any potential officer encounter"

[dougwg]

I see both points as valid.

Thank you for your suggestion Samurai Jack.

I think it could be very beneficial to actually have a sort of class room instruction but I'm not sure as to the viability of that option at this time.

[who dat]

I see both points as valid.

Thank you for your suggestion Samurai Jack.

I think it could be very beneficial to actually have a sort of class room instruction but I'm not sure as to the viability of that option at this time.
I think we already have that....it's called a CPL class.

Tell me why you guys just don't get a CPL. Or don't you qualify?

[Leader]

I think we already have that....it's called a CPL class.

Tell me why you guys just don't get a CPL. Or don't you qualify?

Tell me why you think I should have to spend $400+ to do something that is legal without spending a dime???

Is it because some police departments want to deny me my rights?
Do you also advocate expensive classes to instruct us how to act when the police come busting into our houses at 3AM without a warrant?

Oh... I already have a CPL not that that should matter.

[dougwg]

I think we already have that....it's called a CPL class.

Tell me why you guys just don't get a CPL. Or don't you qualify?

I do have my CPL, as do MOST of the OC'ers

We also suggest others get their CPL too as it makes the transportaion issues void.

[Venator12]

Ok look, I've seen in previous posts OC guys jump down peoples throats for not offering constructive suggestions to OC and changing Laws and perceptions of OC etc. I made a simple/positive statement that to further your cause and help people get more informed about OC that formal classes could be done instead of informal learn as you go, get arrested for maybe not knowing the laws by some accidental concealment,ie getting into your car, etc..., or be an asshat to LEO's who don't know the law and get arrested for being beligerant or some other charge. What I'm hearing here is you don't want suggestions of any kind and you want to jump up and down,misinterpret a postive suggestion to be something else and get all defensive. I made no reference to the case in this thread, I just pointed out that formal class type learning maybe of value based on something Ghostrider stated.

If you put in into the context of my original post.

"Originally Posted by ghostrider
I know that I myself keep telling people over at OCDO that they should learn not only the law, but also how to interact with LEO's in case they are stopped. ...While I have seen people encourage others to OC, I've also seen many comments that before doing so, people should educate themselves first. Truth is, it seems some people are not researching the subject, and doing it without understanding what it can involve. The members of the Michigan section are continuously telling newbies to research the subject before even asking any questions, let alone OC. I have even told one newer member that he shouldn't OC if he didn't have a good grasp of not only the laws and his rights, but also how to deal appropriately with any potential officer encounter"

WHOA, I appreciated the comment, I just stated that all the information that they need to know is in one handy thread. If something isn't understood, they ask questions. I think formal classes really are not needed, but you are free to start them up and use any of the information gathered on OCDO. People are free to do as they like.

Also keep in mind that the increase in OC started in December of 2007 with the first get together, here we are just nine months later and the OC thing has grown exponentially. So we are all new and learning as we go and it takes time to organize, etc. We are making some progress, but need help. Also remember the website is open to the public, there are no dues, no officers, no leaders, just individual people doing what they can. I'm trying to get better organized but could use some help. If you or someone else would like to be a Reginal team member, then by all means get involved. Read this thread on OCDO to find out more: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/15442.html

[Venator12]

I think we already have that....it's called a CPL class.

Tell me why you guys just don't get a CPL. Or don't you qualify?
Answer the question do you OC?

Most of us have CPL, but thanks for the attempt at a dig.

[dougwg]

I remember everyone bitching about the requirements for a CPL and the BS disqualifier's.

Now it seems as though some embrace them.

I think this is rather an elitist and bigoted attitude. (disclaimer: I am not calling you a bigot or an elitist)

I thought we all believed in a persons RIGHT to self defense (as long as they aren't a felon or mental).

Why should someone under 21 or still waiting for a gun board to issue a CPL, or the poor or any others not be afforded to RIGHT to protect oneself and family?

[who dat]

Answer the question do you OC?

Most of us have CPL, but thanks for the attempt at a dig.
All good answers, but if I tell you I CC, I lose tactical advantage. If I tell you I OC, I become a target and lose tactical advantage. If I tell you nothing, you know what you have a right to know and I lose nothing. That is my answer, Venator.

Tell me, would you answer any different?

[dougwg]

There is no tactical advantage to Concealed Carry.

Open Carry makes you less of a target and you gain tactical advantage.

[Venator12]

All good answers, but if I tell you I CC, I lose tactical advantage. If I tell you I OC, I become a target and lose tactical advantage. If I tell you nothing, you know what you have a right to know and I lose nothing. That is my answer, Venator.

Tell me, would you answer any different?

When I OC I don't have to tell you.

I was just curious because I have found that those opposed to something often have never tried it. I also have read about people that are at first were against OC, but have since seen the light and have now embraced it. Some of which frequent this site.

I just thought that the experience of OCing might bring about some growth. So I respect your right to remain mute.

[fotophocus]

I honestly would try OC, but I don't have a decent OC holster... and I'm perfectly happy to CC, and don't feel like spending the money on another holster.

[dougwg]

I honestly would try OC, but I don't have a decent OC holster... and I'm perfectly happy to CC, and don't feel like spending the money on another holster.

Do you still have that .40 ammo?

Here's a deal for you. We meet at Firing Line, you give me the ammo and in exchange I will by you a new Serpa holster. 8)

[fotophocus]

Do you still have that .40 ammo?

Here's a deal for you. We meet at Firing Line, you give me the ammo and in exchange I will by you a new Serpa holster. 8)

Sure do, it's still rattling around in my trunk too. Only about 20 rounds though. Certainly not enough to be even close to an even exchange for a holster.

[Venator12]

I honestly would try OC, but I don't have a decent OC holster... and I'm perfectly happy to CC, and don't feel like spending the money on another holster.
Baby steps....you'll get there.

[dougwg]

Sure do, it's still rattling around in my trunk too. Only about 20 rounds though. Certainly not enough to be even close to an even exchange for a holster.

It's even enough for me. The offer is on the table.

20 rounds of .40 S&W for a brand spanking new Serpa Holster....

[fotophocus]

It's even enough for me. The offer is on the table.

20 rounds of .40 S&W for a brand spanking new Serpa Holster....

I may take you up on your generous offer... I do need to get up to the Firing Line and exercise my XD again soon anyway.

[who dat]

Charges to be dropped in Coast Guard Fest gun case

Wed, Aug 27, 2008 [Printer Friendly] to del.icio.us
BY BRIAN KEILEN
bkeilen@grandhaventribune.com

Grand Haven is dismissing charges against a man accused of carrying a gun downtown during this summer's Coast Guard Festival.

The 21-year-old Freeport man was arrested under a city ordinance that prohibits possessing and carrying firearms and dangerous weapons in public — but it appears that ordinance is unenforceable under Michigan law, said Capt. Rick Yonker of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety.

"In most cases, a city ordinance can be more restrictive than state law," Yonker said. "But in this case, that does not apply."

It appears state statute regarding openly carrying firearms pre-empts local ordinances, he said. The charges will be dismissed without prejudice and arrangements are being made for the man to get his gun back, Yonker said.

The decision to drop the charge came after research of case law by the city's attorney suggested the ordinance would not hold up in court, Yonker said.

The officers acted in good faith and were enforcing the ordinance, Yonker said, but the city decided not to continue with the case.

"We found it was in the best interest of the city to dismiss this case," he said.

[who dat]

There is no tactical advantage to Concealed Carry.

Open Carry makes you less of a target and you gain tactical advantage.
In your mind.

[who dat]

When I OC I don't have to tell you.

I was just curious because I have found that those opposed to something often have never tried it. I also have read about people that are at first were against OC, but have since seen the light and have now embraced it. Some of which frequent this site.

I just thought that the experience of OCing might bring about some growth. So I respect your right to remain mute.
Assumptions.

Growth is a very subjective word.

[Venator12]

Assumptions.

Growth is a very subjective word.
And that's why I used it.;)

[Venator12]

In your mind.
Just like CC is in your mind.

[ghostrider]

It's even enough for me. The offer is on the table.

20 rounds of .40 S&W for a brand spanking new Serpa Holster....

Heck, If I thought you'd buy me a Serpa for 20 rounds of .40, I might have been convinced to part with some of mine (that is if you like mine). Except for the fact of course that I'm hoarding them.:razz:

Seriously though, if your interested in some .40, I may have a line on something that may interest you. I think you know how to contact me.

[dougwg]

Heck, If I thought you'd buy me a Serpa for 20 rounds of .40, I might have been convinced to part with some of mine (that is if you like mine). Except for the fact of course that I'm hoarding them.:razz:

Seriously though, if your interested in some .40, I may have a line on something that may interest you. I think you know how to contact me.

:upto: :brow:

[who dat]

City had no choice on gun issue

Thu, Aug 28, 2008



It's understandable as to why the city of Grand Haven backed down and dismissed charges against a man accused of carrying a weapon during this summer's Coast Guard Festival.

City officials discovered that Grand Haven's ordinance that prohibits possessing and carrying firearms in public is unenforceable.

A 21-year-old Freeport man was accused of carrying a gun during the Coast Guard Festival.

The charges will be dismissed without prejudice and arrangements are being made for the man to get his gun back, according to Grand Haven Department of Public Safety Capt. Rich Yonker.

Grand Haven officials were made aware that the state statute regarding openly carrying firearms pre-empts local ordinances.

A group that monitors conflicts between local and the state law alerted Grand Haven officials of the possible violation.

Yonker told the Tribune that the decision to drop the charges came after research of case law by the city's attorney.

That brings up the question as to how the local ordinance got passed in the first place, or stayed on the books, if there were questions about its legality. Will the ordinance now be repealed?

As far as the man being within his rights to carry a weapon downtown during the Coast Guard Festival, it raises questions as to why anyone would need to carry a weapon during a family orientated festival.

The law states that a man or woman can't carry a concealed weapon in a school zone, be under the influence or be drinking while carrying a firearm.

We see why the city had no recourse but to drop the charges. Still, it is worrisome that a person can walk on our downtown streets with a gun.

Those who advocate carrying guns can complain all they want, but that doesn't defuse the potential for a tragedy.

[PhotoTom]

but that doesn't defuse the potential for a tragedy.

Neither does driving a car...but odds are, you're just gonna get from point A to point B safely...in either case (carrying a gun or driving a car).

[Roger Roney]

Neither does driving a car...but odds are, you're just gonna get from point A to point B safely...in either case (carrying a gun or driving a car).Excellent! +1

Roger

[Raspberrysurprise]

Because we all know that those who legally carry are just a bunch of psychos waiting to snap. Sigh.

[Garbo]

""The charges will be dismissed without prejudice ""

Someone tell me exactly what this means? I'm told it means they can still bring back charges anytime. Neither party is admitting guilt or defeat. Is that close? And does that effect the statute of limitations?

[skoltuniak]

Neither does driving a car...but odds are, you're just gonna get from point A to point B safely...in either case (carrying a gun or driving a car).
Main difference:

Driving a car is a privilege, 2A is a RIGHT! There should be no question about it! This article was clearly written by an undereducated, uninformed, misguided, media-brainwashed journalist.

Perhaps Constitutional Rights and World History should be added to the required core curriculum for Liberal Arts and Journalism Degrees! :cuss:

[Venator12]

""The charges will be dismissed without prejudice ""

Someone tell me exactly what this means? I'm told it means they can still bring back charges anytime. Neither party is admitting guilt or defeat. Is that close? And does that effect the statute of limitations?

That is my understanding. I would think that Chris' attorney would have demanded with prejudice. But maybe it's a typo.

[Jim Simmons]

""The charges will be dismissed without prejudice ""

Someone tell me exactly what this means? I'm told it means they can still bring back charges anytime. Neither party is admitting guilt or defeat. Is that close? And does that effect the statute of limitations?

"Prejudice" in this context is more a civil case concept. A settlement agreement indicates that the settlement is "with prejudice;" meaning that any claims raised by the parties (or claims that could have been raised) are resolved permanently. Or a settlement may be "without prejudice to re-introduce claims" usually in the event that the other party defaults on what he or she agrees to do as part of the settlement (typically, pay money.)

You're right that neither party is admtting guilt or defeat.

If, for example, the Michigan Supreme Court were to overturn the preemption statute, then the prosecution could be reauthorized.

In criminal cases, it's called "jeopardy," and it doesn't attach until a jury is sworn (jury case) or the first witness begins to testify (bench trial). After that, if a case is dismissed "with prejudce;" it cannot usually be tried again; that's called double jeopardy.

The statute of limitations (6 years) continues to tick away.

[Venator12]

Just for those that doubt a lawsuit can't be won for OCing. More and more of these cases are happing all over the country. Here is one recent one.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/15712.html