MSP has been at the fore-front on Open Carry

[Venator12]

Just added to the MSP FAQ's. It's a start.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html

FIREARMS FAQS
1. Is it legal to carry a visible pistol in public?

Although MCL 750.227 restricts carrying a pistol concealed on your person or in a vehicle, there is no statute that specifically prohibits carrying a visible pistol. MCL 750.234d states that you cannot possess any firearm in a depository financial institution, a church or other house of religious worship, court, theatre, sports arena, day care center, hospital or an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, unless that possession is with the permission of the owner or his/her agent of the entity.

[AMSProcessing]

Just added to the MSP FAQ's. It's a start.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html

FIREARMS FAQS
1. Is it legal to carry a visible pistol in public?

Although MCL 750.227 restricts carrying a pistol concealed on your person or in a vehicle, there is no statute that specifically prohibits carrying a visible pistol. MCL 750.234d states that you cannot possess any firearm in a depository financial institution, a church or other house of religious worship, court, theatre, sports arena, day care center, hospital or an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, unless that possession is with the permission of the owner or his/her agent of the entity.

EXCEPT That they forgot the exemption for a CPL holder. Selective information at it's best.

[Joeywhat]

I'm sure if they had written all the exceptions and such that existed they'd have to release a volume of books for one genre of the law.

[ghostrider]

I'm sure if they had written all the exceptions and such that existed they'd have to release a volume of books for one genre of the law.
I don't think it's quite that difficult.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=302769&postcount=20

[Kimberguy1371]

I shot the MSP a quick e-mail.

[dougwg]

and?

[Kimberguy1371]

still waiting for a reply...

[dougwg]

Would you mind posting your e-mail to them?

[chewy]

EXCEPT That they forgot the exemption for a CPL holder. Selective information at it's best.


I think you'll probably find that 750.234 was written long before concealed carry permits were enacted... that's probably why they don't mention the CPL exemptions.

[PhotoTom]

I think you'll probably find that 750.234 was written long before concealed carry permits were enacted... that's probably why they don't mention the CPL exemptions.

Actually, the statute referenced (750.234d) DOES exempt CPL holders...I think their point was/is...MSP forgot to include mention of that exemption when they referenced it on their website...

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

[Hcidem]

I have found the MSP Legal Updates particularly insightful. I believe these are issued to all police departments and sheriff offices in the state as well as MSP posts.

The articles they have written on open carry has been clear, and to the point. They leave very little to the LEO's imagination. LEOs who read these updates, but refuse to follow the guidance offered should realize these published interpretations are available to the general public as well.

[who dat]

I have found the MSP Legal Updates particularly insightful. I believe these are issued to all police departments and sheriff offices in the state as well as MSP posts.

The articles they have written on open carry has been clear, and to the point. They leave very little to the LEO's imagination. LEOs who read these updates, but refuse to follow the guidance offered should realize these published interpretations are available to the general public as well.
These are issued by request/subscription only. All departments do not get them but should. Even if they get them, they have to read them.

Not going any farther with this rant.

[Hcidem]

I don't blame you. It sounds as though you've been down that road before.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't exactly certain what distribution channels were used.

+1 on "Even if they get them, they have to read them." This is a problem in most any field of work. Unfortunately, it affects a great many people when it applies to LEO work.

[K12144]

Wait. WAIT. Am I dumb, or does that look like it's saying a person with a CPL is exempt to the rule about not carrying in a church, court, etc. (or, a person who has the permission of whoever's in charge)? Or is that an old law that has been changed? Because everything else I've read says "pistol free" means "pistol free," and the only exemptions are LEOs and retired LEOs (and that the "permission" part only applies to churches). Maybe I'm not reading correctly, or my brain has gone on vacation here? Cuz I'm confused as hell.

[who dat]

Wait. WAIT. Am I dumb, or does that look like it's saying a person with a CPL is exempt to the rule about not carrying in a church, court, etc. (or, a person who has the permission of whoever's in charge)? Or is that an old law that has been changed? Because everything else I've read says "pistol free" means "pistol free," and the only exemptions are LEOs and retired LEOs (and that the "permission" part only applies to churches). Maybe I'm not reading correctly, or my brain has gone on vacation here? Cuz I'm confused as hell.
There are two "pistol free zone" lists.

MCL 28.425o says licensed CPL holders may not carry concealed in these areas.

MCL 750.234d is a "pistol free zone" for all people UNLESS you have a CPL.

From this you may infer that licensed CPL holders may carry open under 28.425o. You would be correct.



I think!:scratch:

[PhotoTom]

Wait. WAIT. Am I dumb, or does that look like it's saying a person with a CPL is exempt to the rule about not carrying in a church, court, etc. (or, a person who has the permission of whoever's in charge)? Or is that an old law that has been changed? Because everything else I've read says "pistol free" means "pistol free," and the only exemptions are LEOs and retired LEOs (and that the "permission" part only applies to churches). Maybe I'm not reading correctly, or my brain has gone on vacation here? Cuz I'm confused as hell.

The list of CPL "no carry" zones is separate from the general firearms list of "no carry" zones (open carry, long gun, pistol, etc.).

The list of CPL "no carry" zones is found in MCL 28.425o:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425o

[Hcidem]

Just remember that the CPL no carry zones only restrict CPL holders from carrying [I]concealed[I] pistols in those locations. Openly carried pistols carried by CPL holders are not prohibited from these locations by statute.

That being said, I'm still waiting to hear if anyone with a CPL has tried OC in a school. The law does not restrict it, but I believe school officials and LEOs would be adamant about doing what they could concoct to keep citizens from guns out of the schools. By the way, you will not see me being the guinea pig in such an experiment either.

[Jim Simmons]

I'm sorry, but even the suggestion makes me shudder.

I recognize and respect the principle that you are trying to support, but the idea, in today's day and age, of openly carrying a gun into a school is just not worth it. The staff will panic, the school will be locked down, the teachers will be warned that there is a "man with a gun" in the school -- which means that the children will be frightened out of their wits. A school full of traumatized children just isn't worth it.

Then there's the LEO reaction. Pop quiz: how many LEOs can point their various firearms at you, and still let you live? Answer carefully, fans: get it wrong and it will ruin your whole day.

And I wouldn't presume that you'd get away without intimate interaction with the law enforcement system. I rather suspect that a creative prosecutor could come up with something innovative. And remember: if a felony charge comes out of it, then tack on Michigan's felony firearm charge: a mandatory 2 years. And now, that can survive, even if you're acquitted of the underlying felony. (Didn't used to be that way, but that's one gem that a Republican judiciary gave us.)

Finally, even if you survive the attempt, and if you succeed in walking away uncharged, the press coverage surrounding such folly will 1) cause the concealed pistol board to immediate suspend your CPL pending revocation; 2) mark you as a danger to kids, by your neighbors, LEOs, etc. and 3) will probably guarantee that the next bill rammed through the legislature and presented to he Governor for her eager signature is a law closing that "loophole" and probably hurting gun owners in other ways.

Just because a thing is legal doesn't me you should do it. There's no law against swallowing a gallon of gasoline. But we don't all go around doing that, do we?

[Venator12]

I'm sorry, but even the suggestion makes me shudder.

I recognize and respect the principle that you are trying to support, but the idea, in today's day and age, of openly carrying a gun into a school is just not worth it. The staff will panic, the school will be locked down, the teachers will be warned that there is a "man with a gun" in the school -- which means that the children will be frightened out of their wits. A school full of traumatized children just isn't worth it.

Then there's the LEO reaction. Pop quiz: how many LEOs can point their various firearms at you, and still let you live? Answer carefully, fans: get it wrong and it will ruin your whole day.

And I wouldn't presume that you'd get away without intimate interaction with the law enforcement system. I rather suspect that a creative prosecutor could come up with something innovative. And remember: if a felony charge comes out of it, then tack on Michigan's felony firearm charge: a mandatory 2 years. And now, that can survive, even if you're acquitted of the underlying felony. (Didn't used to be that way, but that's one gem that a Republican judiciary gave us.)

Finally, even if you survive the attempt, and if you succeed in walking away uncharged, the press coverage surrounding such folly will 1) cause the concealed pistol board to immediate suspend your CPL pending revocation; 2) mark you as a danger to kids, by your neighbors, LEOs, etc. and 3) will probably guarantee that the next bill rammed through the legislature and presented to he Governor for her eager signature is a law closing that "loophole" and probably hurting gun owners in other ways.

Just because a thing is legal doesn't me you should do it. There's no law against swallowing a gallon of gasoline. But we don't all go around doing that, do we?

Keep in mind this is all speculation on one persons part. While all those things could happen it's also possible that nothing like that would happen.

[Scoop]

Keep in mind this is all speculation on one persons part. While all those things could happen it's also possible that nothing like that would happen.While it is possible that you may be right and the things Jim suggested were possible may not happen, odds are, it's probable that they will.

The question is: How lucky do you feel? :wink:

[Scoop]

These are issued by request/subscription only.Not true. You don't have to subscribe - email delivery is nothing more than an optional delivery method.

Actually, anybody (general public) can access/download/read them, right from the MSP web site.

No. 66 reminded everybody (officers) that OC in public is legal:

Open carry of firearms
Subject to MCL 750.234d, it is legal to carry a visible pistol in public.

The most recent Jan '09 (No. 71) issue was all about the new CPL changes (among other things).

[Knimrod]

Keep in mind this is all speculation on one persons part. While all those things could happen it's also possible that nothing like that would happen.


It's speculation on one lawyer's part.. It makes a difference, no?

[Hcidem]

Well, first of all I did not (and would not) suggest entering a school with a loaded firearm for the reasons I stated above. Secondly, I am very glad this forum has attorney participating in the threads. A trained legal mind can always think of a few more angles from which open carriers might be harassed.

That being said, I still like to avoid supporting blanket statements regarding what might occur. There are always better opportunities to address the tender sensitivities of public sentiment than one would have by directly approaching the most volatile areas of public policy. In other words, any sane person having the slightest inclination to serve as a test subject would most likely choose a less controversial time than midday while school is in session. Although I still would not recommend it.

[Scoop]

That being said, I'm still waiting to hear if anyone with a CPL has tried OC in a school.I have. All the time. Does that count? :D

[Tallbear]

Not true. You don't have to subscribe - email delivery is nothing more than an optional delivery method.

Actually, anybody (general public) can access/download/read them, right from the MSP web site.

No. 66 reminded everybody (officers) that OC in public is legal:

Open carry of firearms
Subject to MCL 750.234d, it is legal to carry a visible pistol in public.

The most recent Jan '09 (No. 71) issue was all about the new CPL changes (among other things).

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._71_263341_7.pdf

[Scoop]

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._71_263341_7.pdfThe keyboard-friendly URL to the MSP Legal Resource area is: www.michigan.gov/msp-legal

If you go there, click on the "MSP Legal Updates (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Legal_Updates_185809_7.pdf)" link.

This will open up a PDF with a list of all the MSP Legal Updates going back to 2000.

Details about what is convered in each update are in the right column.

Clicking on any issue number in the left column will display that specific Legal Update document (in PDF format as well).

[who dat]

You can get to them without being a LEO, but to get them sent to you on a timely basis, you must subscribe. To subscribe, you must have a rank and a department.

[Hcidem]

I have. All the time. Does that count? :D

Should I suspect that you might be involved in law enforcement? :cop:

[Jim Simmons]

I have. All the time. Does that count? :D

Yeah, well, you da fuzz. Da cops. Copper. The Heat.

[MLG]

I'm sorry, but even the suggestion makes me shudder.

I recognize and respect the principle that you are trying to support, but the idea, in today's day and age, of openly carrying a gun into a school is just not worth it. The staff will panic, the school will be locked down, the teachers will be warned that there is a "man with a gun" in the school -- which means that the children will be frightened out of their wits. A school full of traumatized children just isn't worth it.

Then there's the LEO reaction. Pop quiz: how many LEOs can point their various firearms at you, and still let you live? Answer carefully, fans: get it wrong and it will ruin your whole day.

And I wouldn't presume that you'd get away without intimate interaction with the law enforcement system. I rather suspect that a creative prosecutor could come up with something innovative. And remember: if a felony charge comes out of it, then tack on Michigan's felony firearm charge: a mandatory 2 years. And now, that can survive, even if you're acquitted of the underlying felony. (Didn't used to be that way, but that's one gem that a Republican judiciary gave us.)

Finally, even if you survive the attempt, and if you succeed in walking away uncharged, the press coverage surrounding such folly will 1) cause the concealed pistol board to immediate suspend your CPL pending revocation; 2) mark you as a danger to kids, by your neighbors, LEOs, etc. and 3) will probably guarantee that the next bill rammed through the legislature and presented to he Governor for her eager signature is a law closing that "loophole" and probably hurting gun owners in other ways.

Just because a thing is legal doesn't me you should do it. There's no law against swallowing a gallon of gasoline. But we don't all go around doing that, do we?


+1 on Jim's position - alot of downside and no upside IMHO

[Hcidem]

+1 on Jim's position - alot of downside and no upside IMHO

Unfortunately, the idea behind restricting our actions for the sake of avoiding controversy has lead us to where we stand today. Our civil liberties have largely corraled, and have been prepared for the ensuing slaughter.

It might take 20 or 50 years, but the slaughter is being prepared. It has been prepared unknowingly. It will come as a great surprise to those who have prepared it, as they have only meant to do us well by their actions.

We don't have to choose to walk into schools carrying firearms to assert our rights. At the same time, we must assert our civil liberties or they will vanish. We have to determine how and where we will express such rights.

Open carry proves the point that society assumes that a right is not needed if it is not exercised. In fact, society assumes that it is not even a right, but is rather a queer practice of fanatics, malcontents, and the mentally deranged. Please understand the pressing issues which are behind our online discussion of legally carrying firearms in our despicable, gun-free zones (a.k.a. the kiling fields).

[Done Deal]

Open carry proves the point that society assumes that a right is not needed if it is not exercised.

And exactly how is that point proven????

I think I told somebody else that they have the right to take a long walk off a short bridge. And, while that person continually appears to be all wet, he probably have exercised that right to go for the stroll...do you think they might feel a sense of loss if they didn't?

[Scoop]

You can get to them without being a LEO, but to get them sent to you on a timely basis, you must subscribe. To subscribe, you must have a rank and a department.They are providing the DELIVERY SERVICE as a benefit to LEOs, but the Legal Update is available to anybody.

If you really want to read it, I guess it might be worth getting up off your duff and going to get it, right?

The reason I posted that is that your original post might lead some to believe that you have to be a LEO to get them, and I wanted everybody to know that they can, in fact, get them.

Yea, you have to be a LEO to get auto-delivery, but that's because they don't want to have to manage delivery for a million Tom, Dick, and Harry's who's email addresses probably change constantly.

[Done Deal]

If you really want to read it, I guess it might be worth getting up off your duff and going to get it, right?



There has been talk of creating a sub forum for them for the benefit of all readers.

I think that it may be in the works but....I am not the one doing it.

Stay tuned is the appropriate wording I think...

[Venator12]

I don't know what drinking gasoline and walking off of docks has to do with exercising a right. Both of the aforementioned activities can cause harm to the individual and in fatal could be considered suicide (or an attempt) which is against the law. The OC of a handgun harms no one. Really not a good comparison.

[Hcidem]

And exactly how is that point proven????

I think I told somebody else that they have the right to take a long walk off a short bridge. And, while that person continually appears to be all wet, he probably have exercised that right to go for the stroll...do you think they might feel a sense of loss if they didn't?

I believe I made my point very well. However, let me elaborate for your benefit.

When I wrote "Open carry proves the point that society assumes that a right is not needed if it is not exercised," I was referring to our present situation where typical citizens seem to believe that open carry is not need just because they are not accustomed to seeing it. As a result, they are very unlikely to help protect the rights which underlie the practice.

I would liken the previous post you had mentioned to someone saying that a 1950's black man might choose to drink from a "white" drinking fountain knowing that it could very likely result in a public beating. Why would he choose to do such a thing knowing full well that a sanitary fountain for his use was also provided?

The difference between the color of one's skin and the choice of bearing a firearm for defense is not lost on me. The skin is not a choice, but the bearing of a firearm is. I get the point so don't worry yourselves with a reply to make it. We are not discussing skin color or firearms here, however. We are addressing our natural rights. This is the point in common.

I am so tired of hearing so-called 2A supporters who wouldn't blink an eye at losing their rights...just as long as they could still __________.
a. Hunt with a firearm.
b. Have "guaranteed" protection from criminals.
c. Have any other rubbish they think is exchangeable for a human right.

These people are not being good Americans by their lack of involvement. When they finally do become involved, but choose to support the repression of 2A protections, they only turn from bad to treacherous. When will the nonsense about our 2A protections ever stop?!

[DLK]

I don't know what drinking gasoline and walking off of docks has to do with exercising a right. Both of the aforementioned activities can cause harm to the individual and in fatal could be considered suicide (or an attempt) which is against the law. The OC of a handgun harms no one. Really not a good comparison.

I believe those analogies to be perfectly valid, as the lawful open carry of a handgun into a school by a CPL-holder (the full extent of what was being compared) is extremely likely (I would think certain) to cause harm.

That harm may come in various forms, but it would still be harm.

Beyond what's already been pointed out, from being shot to the media attention...I'm no legal expert, but I would think that behaviour would verge on brandishing, even if your pistol was merely holstered. In today's societal context, walking into a school with a lawfully carried holstered pistol is going to be threatening to most people.

Were I a student or faculty member at that school, I could very clearly articulate a quite reasonable fear at the sight of a man, clearly not a police officer, walking the halls with a Colt at his side. Would I feel threatened or intimidated? Definitely - I'd lock the doors, shut the lights off, and call 911 in that postition. That's simply a reflection of the times we live in.

If the brandishing charge is inappropriate, I should think sending the school into lockdown and bringing out the SWAT team (and the media frenzy that would probably go with all this) could reasonably be labelled "disturbing the peace."

On my list of places to excercise my right to open carry, a school wouldn't ever enter my mind. It may be legally "right," but it's quite simply a stupid thing to do.

With that said, this thread has veered quite a bit off the original topic.

I wouldn't hold the lack of exemptions against the MSP - they didn't included exemptions for peace officers or contracted security officers in that text either. I don't think it was a specific oversight or a significant failing - the most important part of the message got through quite clearly.

I read this sort of communication to be a "heads-up" - an advisory that something may have changed or to draw attention to a law or policy that isn't well known. The appropriate sections of the penal code are referenced and the reader is intended to look through them if they're not familiar with the subject.

This memo isn't intended to be the end-all authority on the subject, so I think the criticism of "selective information" is overly harsh. It's a good memo and I think it's great that the MSP addressed the topic in a broad-reaching manner.

[Hcidem]

...oh bother!

How many documented incidents do we have where a determined killer has entered a facility with his only weapon holstered and in plain view? Answer - none.

How many innocent open carriers have been successfully charged for brandishing in Michigan? Answer - none (please correct me if you have other information on this as there is reportedly a cash award being offered for such information).

Locking-down a school, calling a SWAT team, and alerting the media because a legal right is being exercised would certainly disturb the peace. Any school official who might do such a thing should be advised that they might be charged for calling in a false alarm (suitable sarcasm for going overboard on your "What if...").

Our local school, as many others, requests visitors to check in at the main office. My high school had the same requirement some 25 years ago. This had been initiated to avoid disrupting classes. It now has the added benefit of providing some level of security control.

Of course, some urban schools now have metal detectors and security checkpoints. Many other types of facilities (such as court houses, airport gates, and arenas) also have security checkpoints. None of these installations infringe upon the rights of citizens who bear a firearm for their defense (until they pass through the checkpoint). There is no reason a school should do otherwise.

IT DOESN'T STOP CRIMINALS FROM DOING WHAT THEY DO BEST...COMMITTING CRIMES.

[Done Deal]

I am so tired of hearing so-called 2A supporters who wouldn't blink an eye at losing their rights...just as long as they could still __________.
a. Hunt with a firearm.
b. Have "guaranteed" protection from criminals.
c. Have any other rubbish they think is exchangeable for a human right.

These people are not being good Americans by their lack of involvement. When they finally do become involved, but choose to support the repression of 2A protections, they only turn from bad to treacherous. When will the nonsense about our 2A protections ever stop?!


Well, you have to know that there are plenty of folks that are so tired of continually hearing from OC fans that they are spineless, no good Americans.

Wild azz assertions from a group which contains members which often encourage others to seek their fifteen minutes of fame. Wow....if that is what you have to do to become a good American in your eyes....well sir....you can take your definition and stick it where........well, you get the picture I am sure...

[MLG]

:salute: Unfortunately, the idea behind restricting our actions for the sake of avoiding controversy has lead us to where we stand today. Our civil liberties have largely corraled, and have been prepared for the ensuing slaughter.

It might take 20 or 50 years, but the slaughter is being prepared. It has been prepared unknowingly. It will come as a great surprise to those who have prepared it, as they have only meant to do us well by their actions.

We don't have to choose to walk into schools carrying firearms to assert our rights. At the same time, we must assert our civil liberties or they will vanish. We have to determine how and where we will express such rights.

Open carry proves the point that society assumes that a right is not needed if it is not exercised. In fact, society assumes that it is not even a right, but is rather a queer practice of fanatics, malcontents, and the mentally deranged. Please understand the pressing issues which are behind our online discussion of legally carrying firearms in our despicable, gun-free zones (a.k.a. the kiling fields).

Rest assured, I will fight very strongly for anything and everything that I believe in. For me, I see no purpose whatsover in Open Carry in suburban/urban environments. I believe that Open Carry is dangerous and unwise. I believe that the greater the crime risk the wiser it is to conceal carry. In Detroit kids kill each other for tennis shoes and coats. They see the gun as an item of value, a right of passage into ganghood. If they know you have something of value, they want it and will try to take it. All the situational awareness in the world is thrown out the window when these guys ambush you. Action beats reaction... everytime. Open Carry, you've already told them you have a gun and where it is. I know you guys have heard this before.

Since I don't believe Open Carry is right, it's difficult for me to spend time fighting the fight that the Open Carry supporters are fighting. I've gotten to the age that I choose my battles and this is a battle that I choose not to fight.

Just as a point of interest, I would be interested in seeing the demographics for the open carry crowd. I get the feeling that the majority are under 40 with a fairly high percentage of those in the 30 or less age group. Also, it seems that there are a lot that are located in more rural areas.

I suppose that my parting comment will draw the most fire but here goes, I have raised 3 children to adulthood, through the teen years. I honestly don't care if any of my kids couldn't carry a handgun openly because they couldn't get their CPL until they turned 21. IMHO, the 18 year old and everybody around them are safer.

BTW, now that I think of it, I carried openly when I was 18. But that was a long time ago and it was for Uncle Sam. :salute:

[dougwg]

side note:

"Action beats reaction... everytime"

So you hiding your gun and "surpising" the bad guy still hold true?

Just saying....

[Done Deal]

side note:

"Action beats reaction... everytime"

So you hiding your gun and "surpising" the bad guy still hold true?

Just saying....


It can....and you know it....:slap:

[MLG]

side note:

"Action beats reaction... everytime"

So you hiding your gun and "surpising" the bad guy still hold true?

Just saying....

No, Action still beats reaction. When things go bad, the one with the gun out first is at an advantage.

My position is if the BGs don't know that I'm carrying. Even if the gun is hidden by something as thin as a t-shirt, it may not trigger the incident.

[Done Deal]

No, Action still beats reaction. When things go bad, the one with the gun out first is at an advantage.

My position is if the BGs don't know that I'm carrying. Even if the gun is hidden by something as thin as a t-shirt, it may not trigger the incident.


While I agree with your second point....I gotta disagree on the first.

When things go bad....first guy sending rounds downrange is the one with an advantage...

[MLG]

While I agree with your second point....I gotta disagree on the first.

When things go bad....first guy sending rounds downrange is the one with an advantage...

Yeah, we are on the same page here.

Advantage can be a temporary thing because stuff happens. kind of like chess, Check is an advantage but Checkmate is the goal. Right?

[Done Deal]

Yeah, we are on the same page here.

Advantage can be a temporary thing because stuff happens. kind of like chess, Check is an advantage but Checkmate is the goal. Right?


I just don't wanna be late for dinner....

[Venator12]

I believe those analogies to be perfectly valid, as the lawful open carry of a handgun into a school by a CPL-holder (the full extent of what was being compared) is extremely likely (I would think certain) to cause harm.

That harm may come in various forms, but it would still be harm.

Beyond what's already been pointed out, from being shot to the media attention...I'm no legal expert, but I would think that behaviour would verge on brandishing, even if your pistol was merely holstered. In today's societal context, walking into a school with a lawfully carried holstered pistol is going to be threatening to most people.

Were I a student or faculty member at that school, I could very clearly articulate a quite reasonable fear at the sight of a man, clearly not a police officer, walking the halls with a Colt at his side. Would I feel threatened or intimidated? Definitely - I'd lock the doors, shut the lights off, and call 911 in that postition. That's simply a reflection of the times we live in.

If the brandishing charge is inappropriate, I should think sending the school into lockdown and bringing out the SWAT team (and the media frenzy that would probably go with all this) could reasonably be labelled "disturbing the peace."

On my list of places to excercise my right to open carry, a school wouldn't ever enter my mind. It may be legally "right," but it's quite simply a stupid thing to do.

With that said, this thread has veered quite a bit off the original topic.

I wouldn't hold the lack of exemptions against the MSP - they didn't included exemptions for peace officers or contracted security officers in that text either. I don't think it was a specific oversight or a significant failing - the most important part of the message got through quite clearly.

I read this sort of communication to be a "heads-up" - an advisory that something may have changed or to draw attention to a law or policy that isn't well known. The appropriate sections of the penal code are referenced and the reader is intended to look through them if they're not familiar with the subject.

This memo isn't intended to be the end-all authority on the subject, so I think the criticism of "selective information" is overly harsh. It's a good memo and I think it's great that the MSP addressed the topic in a broad-reaching manner.
POPYCOCK

[Venator12]

:salute:

Rest assured, I will fight very strongly for anything and everything that I believe in. For me, I see no purpose whatsover in Open Carry in suburban/urban environments. I believe that Open Carry is dangerous and unwise. I believe that the greater the crime risk the wiser it is to conceal carry. In Detroit kids kill each other for tennis shoes and coats. They see the gun as an item of value, a right of passage into ganghood. If they know you have something of value, they want it and will try to take it. All the situational awareness in the world is thrown out the window when these guys ambush you. Action beats reaction... everytime. Open Carry, you've already told them you have a gun and where it is. I know you guys have heard this before.

Since I don't believe Open Carry is right, it's difficult for me to spend time fighting the fight that the Open Carry supporters are fighting. I've gotten to the age that I choose my battles and this is a battle that I choose not to fight.

Just as a point of interest, I would be interested in seeing the demographics for the open carry crowd. I get the feeling that the majority are under 40 with a fairly high percentage of those in the 30 or less age group. Also, it seems that there are a lot that are located in more rural areas.

I suppose that my parting comment will draw the most fire but here goes, I have raised 3 children to adulthood, through the teen years. I honestly don't care if any of my kids couldn't carry a handgun openly because they couldn't get their CPL until they turned 21. IMHO, the 18 year old and everybody around them are safer.

BTW, now that I think of it, I carried openly when I was 18. But that was a long time ago and it was for Uncle Sam. :salute:
All POPYCOCK

[Venator12]

:salute:

Just as a point of interest, I would be interested in seeing the demographics for the open carry crowd. I get the feeling that the majority are under 40 with a fairly high percentage of those in the 30 or less age group. Also, it seems that there are a lot that are located in more rural areas. :

Here is a break down of a poll taken on the national website opencarry.org

60% of the respondents are 31 years and older. 40% under 30. Certainly not scientific, but it's all I could find. In Michigan most of our members are in the SE portion of the state. Most are in very urban areas. We have few members in rural or northern portions of the state.

[dougwg]

Here is a break down of a poll taken on the national website opencarry.org

60% of the respondents are 31 years and older. 40% under 30. Certainly not scientific, but it's all I could find. In Michigan most of our members are in the SE portion of the state. Most are in very urban areas. We have few members in rural or northern portions of the state.

It just goes to show that people shouldn't assume.

[MLG]

Here is a break down of a poll taken on the national website opencarry.org

60% of the respondents are 31 years and older. 40% under 30. Certainly not scientific, but it's all I could find. In Michigan most of our members are in the SE portion of the state. Most are in very urban areas. We have few members in rural or northern portions of the state.

Thanks for the info but totally unscientific. 169 respondants nationwide ??? That is a very small sample size. Also, your figures put ALL the age group 36-44 in the over 40 calculation.... Split the age group in half and the numbers are 57% are under 40. Put the entire 36-44 figure of 32 into the under 40 crowd and the % goes to 66%.

Also as a side note, the registered member list on the Open Carry website includes people like myself that registered but are quite inactive and don't open carry. It would not surprise me to see SE Michigan having a lot registered users. Outside of the 1 meeting that I attended, I have not seen anyone open carrying anywhere in Michigan.

Don't get me wrong, I have learned alot from your writtings and many others on the MGO and the Open Carry website. I have made my decisions based on information from the postings on these websites and other sources that I have researched. I believe that the Open Carry movement has some very intelligent people and do not question their dedication or motives. I have my own opinions, even though they tend to differ from yours, I think we need to agree to disagree on this point.

I don't want to create the image that I am trying to start a conflict, I am not. I encourage the Open Carry people to keep up their efforts but I am not on board with it at this stage.

[dougwg]

"totally unscientific"

But where did you get your numbers?

[MLG]

"totally unscientific"

But where did you get your numbers?

My Original Post:
...Just as a point of interest, I would be interested in seeing the demographics for the open carry crowd. I get the feeling that the majority are under 40 with a fairly high percentage of those in the 30 or less age group. Also, it seems that there are a lot that are located in more rural areas.

My original comment was from a point of curiosity and speculation... Not an assumption, not confrontational... Just curiosity.

Venator12's Followup Post:

....60% of the respondents are 31 years and older. 40% under 30. Certainly not scientific, but it's all I could find. In Michigan most of our members are in the SE portion of the state. Most are in very urban areas. We have few members in rural or northern portions of the state.

My most recent point was regarding the math he used to get to the percentages that he quoted.

Polls based upon 169 respondents NATIONWIDE pretty much makes the quoted poll unscientific - as Venator12 stated...

[dougwg]

I realize this but it's all we have to go on right now.

We are always open to suggestions.

[MLG]

"totally unscientific"

But where did you get your numbers?

Have another look at the under 30 Number on the graph in relationship to the other columns... Kind of looks like a spike but that just my observation. :)

[dougwg]

Yes, but that can also be attributed to the fact that more people under 30 utilize the internet....as you said, it's unscientific.