OPEN CARRY COURT CASE, IWB concealed?

[dougwg]

I was there for this on Friday. The judge did state that he was not certain (not that he wasn't qualified) of the open carry vs concealed carry in regards to an in the pants holster. He felt that the officer was a trained observer (so he would discern a weapon before a regular person.) so the idea of a weapon being seen by a regular person determining if it was concealed or open wasn't clear in this case. I suspect if a "regular" person had seen the gun and called the LEO's, then that may have been a different case as the judge may have been satisfied that it was OC. But that didn't happen in this case so he approved that count.

BACKGROUND: (The defendant was in a gas station buying pop OCing with an officer already in the store. The officer saw the gun questioned the defendant and then called his Lt. He showed up and he wasn't sure on the law so he called a prosecutor. The Lt. and Prosecutor talked it over and decided to release the defendant and returned his weapon to him and allowed him to put it in his case and behind his seat (pick-up truck) and let him drive off. It was only after a few weeks that they decided to charge him.)

In regards to the transporting, the judge did say that his understanding of the statute was that any lawful purpose was allowed, i.e., the list in the statute was a partial list and that it doesn't state it has to be a direct route to and from. But, he thinks there was some confusion in the defendants statements during the interaction on that night that concerned him and he felt that should be explored at trial. So he approved the second charge

This case is very important to all firearm rights proponents. The defendant is not a criminal and has a clean record. He was transporting the weapon and carrying it in good faith that he was complying with the law. There was NO unlawful intent in his carrying a firearm. He had contacted the MSP and had researched the law in regards to OC.

My opinion is that the county wants to make an example of him in an attempt to squelch open carry in Wayne County. A conviction in this case would set a precedent in what is considered concealed and what is considered lawful transport.

What's sad is that the defendant's attorney stated that the transport law issue was discussed recently with some members of the legislature as being vague. One of the major lawmakers told the attorney that the statute was very clear in regards to all lawful purposes and that a prosecution over it would never happen, guess what!

MCRGO has given a grant of money to the defense fund in this case and feels it is important to all Michigan gun owners. If need be MOC will be setting up a pay pal account for contributions in addition to the MCRGO's grant.

I'm sure Doug will have the transcripts of the judges comments when they are available...

[dougwg]

Just got some great news.

It looks as though a very large pro-2A orginazaion is looking at supporting this case(jumping on the band wagon if you will)

Would MGO.org want to join the fight?

[Done Deal]

Just got some great news.

It looks as though a very large pro-2A orginazaion is looking at supporting this case(jumping on the band wagon if you will)

Would MGO.org want to join the fight?


I believe that you are fully aware of how to contact the EC and you have to know....MGO support would require an EC endorsement. Perhaps you would be better served to go that route rather than through the forums.

[dougwg]

Hello

I'm sure you all have seen the thread on MGO about the gentleman in Canton that has been charged with CCW. If not you can see the thread here http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35014 and the New thread here http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35603

This man is being railroaded by Wayne county. This is evident in the facts of the case as well as the support he has received by MOC, GOA and also MCRGO. There is also a very large national Pro-2A organization looking at supporting the defendant against the trumped up charges brought by the district attorney. We'll know more about them tomorrow evening.

I believe this will be getting a lot of national attention and it would benefit Michigan Gun Owners to also show their support in the fight for 2A rights in this case. MGO should get lots of exposure both nationally and locally.

I would like to hear your thoughts and look forward to hearing from you.

:!:

[halik008]

do i understand this right: i take it the defendant did not have CPL and the prosecutor is arguing that since the defendant used IWB holster he in effect was trying to conceal the weapon? Or are they charging him for unlawful transport?

[ghostrider]

do i understand this right: i take it the defendant did not have CPL and the prosecutor is arguing that since the defendant used IWB holster he in effect was trying to conceal the weapon? Or are they charging him for unlawful transport?
Two counts of MCL 750.227.

One for the IWB being construed as a concealed handgun.

The other count is for transporting it in a vehicle. My understanding is that they are saying that transport in a vehicle is a violation of 750.227 because it is effectively a concealed handgun. So yes, "transport". Understand that the "transport" that people refer to are exceptions to MCL 750.227, which is the CCW. :popcorn:

[_DK_]

If they gave him is gun back and sent him on his way I dont see why they'd charge him later. Especially since they went through the trouble of calling in a superior officer and a prosecuter before letting him go.

There has to be more to the story.

[khicks]

come on we are talking about waco here.

[Rootsy]

Interesting case and thread... From time to time I'll tuck my button down shirt in and stick my holster IWB. With a light jacket on the weapon is concealed... But, a couple of times I've taken my jacket off in public and essentially unconcealed my weapon in my mind.... Knowing that OC is legal I never really thought anything about it. Guess some in the .Gov don't see it that way... I'll be itchin to see how this turns out....

[Hcidem]

I believe that you are fully aware of how to contact the EC and you have to know....MGO support would require an EC endorsement. Perhaps you would be better served to go that route rather than through the forums.

I apologize for interjecting another of my greenhorn questions, but I am still trying to figure out how MGO operates as a grass roots organization. I certainly understand that any financial support would be considered and approved at an executive committee (if I'm reading "EC" rightly) level. However, I wonder how such a committee could make a decision without the input of the general membership. I would think the MGO forum would serve as a conduit for any such input.

I am fully aware that grass roots advocacy groups have to be somewhat guarded against folks "stirring the pot" about issues which have little to do with the group's focus. However, MGO seems to pride itself on the free exchange of ideas it encourages on the forum.

It also seems unusual that discussions regarding MGO's grass roots activities are a bit hard to find. This very important issue would provide a tremendous opportunity for any non-financial, grass roots, activist support throughout Wayne County.

I have no idea what financial resources MGO would be able or willing to provide. Although, I am sure that any support would be of great value to the accused man in the case, I would like MGO members to consider what else they could provide.

I have learned to keep an eye on geographic locations when I participate in forums. It is my impression that MGO has the largest representation in Metro Detroit than any other state group (I might be wrong about this, but I don't think so). MGO members could petition the attorney, hold demonstrations outside the courts, contact their county commissioners, contact the WaCo exec, or descend upon the local media with a letter writing campaign.

I am accustomed to these types of activities being conducted by "grass roots" organizations. Perhaps MGO has never conducted such efforts. Again...pardon my greenhorn question here.

On this particular issue..does any MGO member here have an interest in lending support?

[_DK_]

This is one of the areas that concerned me about open carry in the 1st place.
How does one lawfully get from the vehicle to the place where they are open carrying... especially when they have a vehicle with no trunk.

At some point a person must have a loaded firearm inside a vehicle and thats where the possiblity of a transport issue may be coming from. But IANAL so I'll be following this case the best I can.

After reading about this case though I decided to take a CPL class and apply for my permit. I can't afford to take any chances with the grey areas of the law.

[Garbo]

Well thats not completly true. In order to be legal that gun must be unloaded and cased when paced in the vehicle. Which means you have to have the case accesable so you can remove it from the vehicle without entering it. Then unload the gun and store the ammo and firearm and then store it in the vehicle for transport. Now I dont know about this part but if the it works as the DNR / Hunting laws work you cant even place that gun loaded on the vehicle or in the truck bed while loaded s its another issue to be concerned about. But it is possible to avoid entering your vehicle while OC. Unless opening the door and reaching into it is considered entering the vehicle.

[nisjer05]

This is one of the areas that concerned me about open carry in the 1st place.
How does one lawfully get from the vehicle to the place where they are open carrying... especially when they have a vehicle with no trunk.

At some point a person must have a loaded firearm inside a vehicle and thats where the possiblity of a transport issue may be coming from. But IANAL so I'll be following this case the best I can.

After reading about this case though I decided to take a CPL class and apply for my permit. I can't afford to take any chances with the grey areas of the law.


All of these questions are answered here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/). Take time to read through the Michigan Open Carry thread, and the Wash, Rinse, Repeat thread if you haven't already.

Exit vehicle, go to area where gun is stored, open door, and with both feet on the ground, remove pistol from case, load magazine, rack in a round, holster quickly. Do not enter vehicle, or place loaded gun in vehicle. Upon returning to vehicle, keeping both feet on the ground, remove gun from holster, remove mag, remove round, return pistol to case, then get in and drive away.

I also am working towards my CPL. Have you taken your class yet? If so Where?

[Hcidem]

This is one of the areas that concerned me about open carry in the 1st place.
How does one lawfully get from the vehicle to the place where they are open carrying... especially when they have a vehicle with no trunk.

At some point a person must have a loaded firearm inside a vehicle and thats where the possiblity of a transport issue may be coming from. But IANAL so I'll be following this case the best I can.

After reading about this case though I decided to take a CPL class and apply for my permit. I can't afford to take any chances with the grey areas of the law.

Many people who open carry, do indeed, have their CPL. I will be pursuing mine in the near future as well.

Your post, however, touches on a point which is the underlying issue of this man's charges. He is being prosecuted for a victimless "crime!"

He is not being prosecuted for carrying a pistol; he is being prosecuted for how he is carrying it WHEN THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT IMPORTANT. He is not being prosecuted for transporting a pistol; he is being prosecuted for how he transported it WHEN THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT IMPORTANT.

Our cities, counties, and state are not owned by our municipal, county and state employees. This is not some sort of legal playground designed to challenge the wits of mental bullies. This is OUR society. These are OUR laws.

Concealed weapon prohibitions were designed to allow LEOs to corner more criminals. They were not designed to enlargen the definition of criminals. The actions taken against this man are a perversion of law and logic.

This is one of the main reasons open carry is important to me. This is where the battle for 2A rights is being fought. Those against OC are merely siding with the enemies of 2A rights without knowing it. Often enough, the enemies of 2A rights don't even realize what they have become.


OC is supposedly constitutionally protected, but the abuse of rights, impedence of free movement, and general harassment by the public is considered fully acceptable. The battle for our first amendment will not be far behind, folks. You don't have to OC to support it. Your support, however, requires some level of your involvement.

[ghostrider]

All of these questions are answered here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/). Take time to read through the Michigan Open Carry thread, and the Wash, Rinse, Repeat thread if you haven't already.

Exit vehicle, go to area where gun is stored, open door, and with both feet on the ground, remove pistol from case, load magazine, rack in a round, holster quickly. Do not enter vehicle, or place loaded gun in vehicle. Upon returning to vehicle, keeping both feet on the ground, remove gun from holster, remove mag, remove round, return pistol to case, then get in and drive away.

I also am working towards my CPL. Have you taken your class yet? If so Where?
Not trying to be offensive, or stir the pot here but, it would be more helpful to link something more specific than just another forum. Something along the lines of a specific thread or even a specific post, detailing the mentioned information is more likely to get the information out. It's like when they taught us about citing sources in research papers. You don't just cite the book, or article, but also the page and paragraph. They basically said that whoever is reading your citation should be able to directly find the quotes from which you gather your information.

For example, you could link a thread that's 30 pages long, and it's doubtful that one would go through all that trouble to find a sliver of info in it. Combine that with the aspect that OCDO does not have the most efficient search engine...

Just my $.02.

[Tallbear]

Michigan Gun Owners is a 501 ( c ) 3 non-profit organization and is limited by law where we can financially send support.

The forums indeed are a place for recruiting support for gun rights, not only in Wayne County, but anywhere in the state.

[nisjer05]

Not trying to be offensive, or stir the pot here but, it would be more helpful to link something more specific than just another forum. Something along the lines of a specific thread or even a specific post, detailing the mentioned information is more likely to get the information out. It's like when they taught us about citing sources in research papers. You don't just cite the book, or article, but also the page and paragraph. They basically said that whoever is reading your citation should be able to directly find the quotes from which you gather your information.

For example, you could link a thread that's 30 pages long, and it's doubtful that one would go through all that trouble to find a sliver of info in it. Combine that with the aspect that OCDO does not have the most efficient search engine...

Just my $.02.

Thanks for the smack across the head that brought me back to the good 'ol school days.:slap: And look, I am still smiling!!

Sorry, I agree that the search engine is not so good. I did reference "reading the Michigan Open Carry thread and the Wash, Rinse, Repeat thread". I was merely trying to guide him to a place where these questions plus, more could be answered.

For a specific thread concerning this question, see here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/18199.html) or here (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/17762.html).

[dougwg]

Michigan Gun Owners is a 501 ( c ) 3 non-profit organization and is limited by law where we can financially send support.

The forums indeed are a place for recruiting support for gun rights, not only in Wayne County, but anywhere in the state.


After reviewing the law about 501 c 3 NPO I see no reason MGO can't join this fight for 2A rights.

If you know of something, please spell it out.

[Tallbear]

It was spelled out when we applied to the IRS. Financial support must go to another non-profit org. or educational purpose.

[dougwg]

It was spelled out when we applied to the IRS. Financial support must go to another non-profit org. or educational purpose.

Ok, what about making a donation to a "charity" in his name? Or donate a small amount to pay for printing of some "educational" material.

I asked if MGO was willing to "show their support". Nowhere did I ask for MGO to pay for this legal costs. :wink:

[Tallbear]

Ok, what about making a donation to a "charity" in his name? Or donate a small amount to pay for printing of some "educational" material.

I asked if MGO was willing to "show their support". Nowhere did I ask for MGO to pay for this legal costs. :wink:

Those questions should be addressed by the Executive Board.

[dougwg]

I emailed them yesterday. As of now I have not heard from any of them.

[Hcidem]

It was spelled out when we applied to the IRS. Financial support must go to another non-profit org. or educational purpose.

I posted a reply to this in the General section to avoid hijacking the thread. Thanks for the information, Tallbear.

I see how MGO cannot commit funds to something it is restricted from supporting. I can see how the MGO EC might decide to financially support certain efforts but not others. I wonder how personal financial contributions from individual members would, in any possible way, jeopardize MGO's tax status.

Aside from any financial considerations, there are so many other opportunities provided by the event of this man's prosecution. I've mentioned several opportunities before. I am sure the membership could think of many others.

[_DK_]

Has someone setup a "Legal defense fund account" for this guy?

[dougwg]

Not yet but I'm hoping to have more info about this tomorrow.

[dougwg]

No word from any memeber of the EC as of yet.

edit-typo

[Maranatha]

call the ACLU

[dougwg]

I'm sorry, are you serious?

[Maranatha]

yes Doug, they fight for first amendment rights all the time , why not give it a try.


Heck that could be the better story for the press, The ACLU being selective to which one of the bill of rights they will fight for

[adawg]

Just trying to make heads or tails of this. So the guy was OCing with an IWB holster? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Also, the guy took the time to get his gun out, holster it, strap it on (potentially IWB) to go in to a gas station to get a pop? Was he really after the pop, or the attention of OCing within eyesight of the police? Reading the forums on that other site, seeking attention seems to be the MO of some (NOT all) of them.

[dougwg]

I'm not so sure about the ACLU though.

[halik008]

Just trying to make heads or tails of this. So the guy was OCing with an IWB holster? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Also, the guy took the time to get his gun out, holster it, strap it on (potentially IWB) to go in to a gas station to get a pop? Was he really after the pop, or the attention of OCing within eyesight of the police? Reading the forums on that other site, seeking attention seems to be the MO of some (NOT all) of them.


yeah i agree going thru the trouble of CPL-less OCing into a gas station for a pop is bit over the top and ridiculous.....

[dougwg]

But still Legal!

Do you feel he should be charged with a felony and striped of his rights for this?

Don't you think THAT is a "bit over the top and ridiculous"?

[Hcidem]

yeah i agree going thru the trouble of CPL-less OCing into a gas station for a pop is bit over the top and ridiculous.....

Unfortunately, we have been trained to look at things in the wrong context. I entirely agree with halik008's statement until I think about it for a moment.

This man desires personal protection. He has decided to employ the most effective means of personal protection allowed by law (a firearm). The same law prohibits him from wearing that personal protection when he enters a vehicle.

This is not a matter of him reattaching a holster for a short jaunt in the convenience store. This is a matter of him taking that holster off while he is in a vehicle.

Open carry IS our second amendment right in action. Our legislators have reduced conceal carry to a licenseable privilege - it thereby is not a direct expression of our 2A rights. I know we would not stand for this on the first amendement. Why do we stand for it on the second?

We are stuck in "group-think" when we judge this young man for chosing a continuation of his rights where they still remain. The legislature has already ripped this guy's rights to bear in a vehicle. Now the legal system is trying to tear him apart for actually following the ridiculous laws they have made.

[halik008]

Unfortunately, we have been trained to look at things in the wrong context. I entirely agree with halik008's statement until I think about it for a moment.

This man desires personal protection. He has decided to employ the most effective means of personal protection allowed by law (a firearm). The same law prohibits him from wearing that personal protection when he enters a vehicle.

This is not a matter of him reattaching a holster for a short jaunt in the convenience store. This is a matter of him taking that holster off while he is in a vehicle.

Open carry IS our second amendment right in action. Our legislators have reduced conceal carry to a licenseable privilege - it thereby is not a direct expression of our 2A rights. I know we would not stand for this on the first amendement. Why do we stand for it on the second?

We are stuck in "group-think" when we judge this young man for chosing a continuation of his rights where they still remain. The legislature has already ripped this guy's rights to bear in a vehicle. Now the legal system is trying to tear him apart for actually following the ridiculous laws they have made.


i'd say if it was about him having a personal protection at all time he would have CPL in the first place so that he can CC and OC as he wishes inside AND outside of the vehicle.

Seems kind of illogical to me that a person feels "perfectly safe" inside his vehicle at the gas station (judging by his lack of CPL) but feels he needs protection outside of his vehicle at that same gas station. That's of course if you are trying to argue that his whole point of OC was for protection and had nothing to do with MO ;)

[halik008]

But still Legal!

Do you feel he should be charged with a felony and striped of his rights for this?

Don't you think THAT is a "bit over the top and ridiculous"?


Well yeah it's still legal per 2A, but so is hate-speech under 1A. Being protected under an Amendment does not mean somebody can't take it over the the top to the point of being ridiculous.

No he shouldn't. All the charges should be dropped but it should serve as a lesson to him that he needs to either OC "smartly" or get a CPL to be 100% in the white.

[dougwg]

He's still young and he has learned many lessons from this I assure you.

He has his reasons for not obtaining his CPL but as soon as this is over (hopefully dismissed) it will be a top priority for him.

But please don't throw him under the bus, he was trying to be legal and should be commended for that.

You bring up "hate speech". I deplore it but I will say that you(not you personally but you know what I mean) have every right to express it and should not be imprisoned for it.

[halik008]

He's still young and he has learned many lessons from this I assure you.

He has his reasons for not obtaining his CPL but as soon as this is over (hopefully dismissed) it will be a top priority for him.

But please don't throw him under the bus, he was trying to be legal and should be commended for that.

You bring up "hate speech". I deplore it but I will say that you(not you personally but you know what I mean) have every right to express it and should not be imprisoned for it.

I'm sure he has learned his lessons from this.

I'm not trying to throw him under the bus, but I'm trying to point out for everybody for future reference that this situation could have been avoided if MO....which generally is associated with young age....had no part in his decision to OC in two big gray areas (IWB holster, and the act of transporting)

Yes I agree about the hate-speech. All i was trying to point out that if you play in the gray areas you will get negative attention from LEOs which should not amount to any legal punishment but will make your life just more difficult.

[dougwg]

BTW: he transported the same way everyone does in Michigan that has a truck.

Unloaded, encased and inaccessible.

Please understand, he IS being railroaded.

[dougwg]

No word from any memeber of the EC as of yet.

[halik008]

BTW: he transported the same way everyone does in Michigan that has a truck.

Unloaded, encased and inaccessible.

Please understand, he IS being railroaded.


ah ok that part was not mentioned in the original post. From the wording of the OP i was under the impression he just put the gun into the case (with loaded mag sill in the gun) and drove off.

[dougwg]

So you assumed he did something illegal instead of assuming he did nothing illegal. ;-)

Please ask direct concise questions if you have any, I will do my best to answer them.

[halik008]

So you assumed he did something illegal instead of assuming he did nothing illegal. ;-)

Please ask direct concise questions if you have any, I will do my best to answer them.


heh nowhere in the article did it say that the LEO or the defendant unloaded the weapon, thus the article indicates that the weapon was loaded when it was cased. I didn't make any assumptions either way. ;)

[dougwg]

Didn't say it was left loaded either. :)

[Tallbear]

Let me know when the case goes to trial and I'll try to be there.

[halik008]

Didn't say it was left loaded either. :)

lol unless he OCed unloaded the article indicates the gun left in a truck just as it was OCed :P

[dougwg]

Tallbear,

I'll make sure to let everone know the date time and place, thank you.



If anyone feels they need more info you can e-mail me and I will do my best.

[dougwg]

lol unless he OCed unloaded the article indicates the gun left in a truck just as it was OCed :P
I have cleared that point up, so lets drop it, k?

[halik008]

I have cleared that point up, so lets drop it, k?

10-4

[Hcidem]

i'd say if it was about him having a personal protection at all time he would have CPL in the first place so that he can CC and OC as he wishes inside AND outside of the vehicle.

Seems kind of illogical to me that a person feels "perfectly safe" inside his vehicle at the gas station (judging by his lack of CPL) but feels he needs protection outside of his vehicle at that same gas station. That's of course if you are trying to argue that his whole point of OC was for protection and had nothing to do with MO ;)

I'd have to strongly disagree with this idea. Our government was designed to protect and serve us, not hamper us. They have no constitutional right to regulate a person's right to bear arms to protect themselves or others (per Michigan constitution). This argument fails the logic test on these counts.

Additionally, anyone from 18 to 20 years old is prohibited from obtaining a CPL. This infringement of rights while occupying a vehicle impedes a right in this case, not just a casual choice. There is a tremendous difference here that should not be ignored.

[halik008]

I'd have to strongly disagree with this idea. Our government was designed to protect and serve us, not hamper us. They have no constitutional right to regulate a person's right to bear arms to protect themselves or others (per Michigan constitution). This argument fails the logic test on these counts.

Additionally, anyone from 18 to 20 years old is prohibited from obtaining a CPL. This infringement of rights while occupying a vehicle impedes a right in this case, not just a casual choice. There is a tremendous difference here that should not be ignored.

The supreme court already ruled that no right is absolute...whether its yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, implicating violence in a speech, or firearms laws. Your argument is simply ideological, thus moot.

[adawg]

So was he carring IWB or not?

[Hcidem]

The supreme court already ruled that no right is absolute...whether its yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, implicating violence in a speech, or firearms laws. Your argument is simply ideological, thus moot.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with you here, too. The legal ramnifications of yelling "fire" in a theater, or inciting people to riot are in place because they significantly jeopardize the rights of others - these two cases impede the natural rights of others' life, liberty, and pusuit of happiness (in essence). There would be nothing wrong with these actions otherwise.

The gov't doesn't prosecute most conspiracy theorists from inciting people to riot because they are of no obvious threat (they are usually not taken seriously by the people). Likewise, if someone stands in a theater, draws everyone's attention to announce that they will be yelling "fire" although there is no fire, and then proceeds to do so, they will most likely not be prosecuted (although probably be asked to leave). These "speech" actions are somewhat separate from the effects the create. It is the effects they produce which creates the condition under which a person may be prosecuted.

Contrary to all of this, bearing arms within a vehicle generally causes no harm to others - even when done with great frequency. If it were otherwise, there would be cause for pause and consideration on whether this act is a direct violation of the rights of others.

We have to abandon our obeiances to the courts. Judges are not our lord governors, and the court system in which they operate has been allowed to hijack the balance of powers intended by the founders of our nation. All three branches of government AND the people have equally important methods through which they can dismantle unconstitutional laws. It is well past time for people outside the court system to employ those methods.

[Hcidem]

So was he carring IWB or not?

Yes, he was. This is what started the whole issue rolling.

The additional charges claiming illegal transportation were added after the prosecution commenced.

[halik008]

Contrary to all of this, bearing arms within a vehicle generally causes no harm to others - even when done with great frequency. If it were otherwise, there would be cause for pause and consideration on whether this act is a direct violation of the rights of others.


Bering arms in vehicles does not generally cause direct harm to others just like yelling "fire" in a theater does not generally cause harm to others unless they are taken serious and just as inciting violence in hate speech does not cause harm unless somebody acts on it.

All three directly increase the chances of harm to natural rights of others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in essence).

This is why no amendment rights are taken as absolute.

[adawg]

Yes, he was. This is what started the whole issue rolling.

The additional charges claiming illegal transportation were added after the prosecution commenced.

And if one is open carrying, why would that be done with an IWB holster? How is that open? I can see how an officer would consider that an intent to conceal seeing as the entire intent of an IWB holster is to hug the weapon close to the body for concealment.

[dougwg]

Knimrod was wearing his 45 in the small of his back with only the grip sticking out, just like an IWB (not sure if he had an actual holster though) and I could PLAINLY tell it was a GUN! This was at the EC meeting last month. I made a joke that HE and not I was open carrying. Nobody agrued that he was trying to conceal it.

Again, can a "casual observer" tell it's a gun. The answer is yes and that is all that matters in the eyes of the law.

[halik008]

Again, can a "casual observer" tell it's a gun. The answer is yes and that is all that matters in the eyes of the law.

I wonder if "questionablility"/"doubtnees" in casual observer telling it's a gun can/will burn him in the end?

With regular holster 10 out of 10 casual observers would with confidence say "it's a gun" But in the case of IWB how many would say with confidence "it's a gun" with just a grip/portion of the grip and how many would say "i think it might be a gun but im not sure". With just that right there the prosecutor will have a field day since it would prove intent to conceal as their argument.

[Hcidem]

...

All three directly increase the chances of harm to natural rights of others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (in essence).

...

Now this is plain nonsense in regard to transporting a loaded pistol. Possessing a loaded pistol in a vehicle in no way causes harm to others, direct or indirect, to others. It doesn't increase the chance of harm either.

This is the exact same line of "reasoning" which the antis employ in their attempts to invalidate all traces of legitimicy in the bearing of arms. I am surprised that you cannot see this connection.

It isn't the speech, the pamphlets, or the guns which are dangerous. Its the criminals who are creating the danger.

[wishn-i-was-fishn]

[QUOTE=adawg]Just trying to make heads or tails of this. So the guy was OCing with an IWB holster? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
/QUOTE]

How does that defeat the purpose? As much of the gun is visible in an IWB as it is in most full OWB holsters.

[Hcidem]

And if one is open carrying, why would that be done with an IWB holster? How is that open? I can see how an officer would consider that an intent to conceal seeing as the entire intent of an IWB holster is to hug the weapon close to the body for concealment.

This seems to be the essence of why he was questioned...why the LEOs were unsure...and why he was charged after he left. From what little I saw of a transcript from his hearing the judge seemed to understand the difficulty here. If one can see it, how then is it concealed? If it is tucked into the pants, how is it open carry?

It definitely is a good question to consider. I would prefer that the judge had taken the step to rule in favor of the defendent. I understand why he left this decision to a jury of average "reasonable" people. I just don't think those involved in the legal system truly realize the full effects this has on the average citizen.

The point of criminalizing concealed weapons is to provide law enforcement an additional tool for catching criminals. Its not to increase the count of citizens who meet the definition of a criminal.

I just wish jury nullification was properly taught in our schools.

[halik008]

Now this is plain nonsense in regard to transporting a loaded pistol. Possessing a loaded pistol in a vehicle in no way causes harm to others, direct or indirect, to others. It doesn't increase the chance of harm either.

This is the exact same line of "reasoning" which the antis employ in their attempts to invalidate all traces of legitimicy in the bearing of arms. I am surprised that you cannot see this connection.

It isn't the speech, the pamphlets, or the guns which are dangerous. Its the criminals who are creating the danger.

Yes, it does increase the chances of possible harm to others just like the other instance, when mixed with youth. "Young and "dumb" " is a saying for a reason. There is plethora of evidence that youth make poor decisions compared to any other age group whether its speeding citations, number of car accidents, number of drinking and driving, etc, etc, etc.

[mechredd]

This topic was discussed in both my CPL class and in a few of my CJ classes.

This was a few years ago, so the laws may have changed.

There is (or was) a technicality/flaw in the wording of the law. If you are open carrying and any part of the gun/holster is concealed, then you can be charged with concealing a firearm without a license. If you have a CPL and any part of you gun/holster is exposed, then you can be charged with brandishing a firearm.

I don't know if this technicality has ever been used in court, or if it has been corrected since I first learned of it almost eight years ago. My understanding is that Michigan has several laws on record that are confusing and very open to interpretation.

[Hcidem]

Yes, it does increase the chances of possible harm to others just like the other instance, when mixed with youth. "Young and "dumb" " is a saying for a reason. There is plethora of evidence that youth make poor decisions compared to any other age group whether its speeding citations, number of car accidents, number of drinking and driving, etc, etc, etc.

You might not have ever realized this, but this has nothing to do with age. Immaturity is entirely a different thing from youth. Rights and responsiblities always go hand-in-hand.

Also, you are talking about criminals again...not about pistols in vehicles...not about law-abiding youth...but about criminals. Criminals don't follow the law. They obtain pistols under age 18. They possess loaded guns in cars, and they shoot people with them.

They are already breaking these laws - the same laws which infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. They will continue to break the remaining laws if these overly-restrictive laws are repealed.

[Done Deal]

This topic was discussed in both my CPL class and in a few of my CJ classes.

This was a few years ago, so the laws may have changed.

There is (or was) a technicality/flaw in the wording of the law. If you are open carrying and any part of the gun/holster is concealed, then you can be charged with concealing a firearm without a license. If you have a CPL and any part of you gun/holster is exposed, then you can be charged with brandishing a firearm.

How is that brandishing???? Especially since OC is legal in this state....

[halik008]

You might not have ever realized this, but this has nothing to do with age. Immaturity is entirely a different thing from youth. Rights and responsiblities always go hand-in-hand.

Also, you are talking about criminals again...not about pistols in vehicles...not about law-abiding youth...but about criminals. Criminals don't follow the law. They obtain pistols under age 18. They possess loaded guns in cars, and they shoot people with them.

They are already breaking these laws - the same laws which infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. They will continue to break the remaining laws if these overly-restrictive laws are repealed.

lol since when I was talking about criminals?

[Hcidem]

lol since when I was talking about criminals?

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your meaning.

When you entered irresponsible youth into the equation of possessing loaded guns in vehicles, I thought you were referring to criminal acts. Perhaps you were referring to accidents which might happen in such an instance. Can you clarify what you might have meant otherwise?

As I understand the law, accidental discharges which result in personal injury or property damage still falls under our criminal statutes. The law would still classify the shooter of a victim to be a criminal.

[halik008]

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your meaning.

When you entered irresponsible youth into the equation of possessing loaded guns in vehicles, I thought you were referring to criminal acts. Perhaps you were referring to accidents which might happen in such an instance. Can you clarify what you might have meant otherwise?

As I understand the law, accidental discharges which result in personal injury or property damage still falls under our criminal statutes. The law would still classify the shooter of a victim to be a criminal.


well if you want to label all youth that makes a bad call as "criminals", then yes i suppose i was talking about "criminals" then....

[Hcidem]

well if you want to label all youth that makes a bad call as "criminals", then yes i suppose i was talking about "criminals" then....

Well, you've got me there. I'm sure Webster probably defines a criminal as one who breaks the law, but I have to concede that regular folks use the term to describe those who make a habit of it. My posting was definitely hard-nosed.

My point, however, lies in that our legislators are only succeeding in qualifying more people as criminals as they expand their restrictions on our lives and rights. Outlawing the possession of pistols in vehicles deprive most of the public of the means by which they can provide their own personal protection.

This young defendent is definitely in a pickle. I would have advised him to avoid the IWB holster. I happen to understand folks' concerns about hidden guns, and wanting to have the practice licensed.

In regard to the transportation issue, however, this is not just a seatbelt citation; its a felony count we are talking about. The PA is being a first-class jerk in seeking prosecution on this charge.

There is no justification in pursuing this charge other than inflating the PA's ego. If this is any indication of how he regularly conducts his office, he should be definitely reconsider his MO. He is appearing to be nothing more that just another bully on our payroll; I hope the people of Wayne County have not led him to believe this is how he should treat citizens. I fully expect otherwise.

[dougwg]

she

[ltdave]

well this thread got all over the map...

what is the bottom line on OCing with an IWB holster?

i prefer IWB because the gun is not as likely to flop around on my tubby body...

i got a little bit of cc-oc-cc action a couple of months ago in flint. the family stopped for lunch and i had my suit coat on. i was carrying (in a belt holster ironically enough). when we left the restaurant i wanted my suit coat off for the drive. i removed it and laid it in the trunk. i had my government on my hip, exposed for about 2 minutes or so. all went well...

[Venator12]

well this thread got all over the map...

what is the bottom line on OCing with an IWB holster?

i prefer IWB because the gun is not as likely to flop around on my tubby body...

i got a little bit of cc-oc-cc action a couple of months ago in flint. the family stopped for lunch and i had my suit coat on. i was carrying (in a belt holster ironically enough). when we left the restaurant i wanted my suit coat off for the drive. i removed it and laid it in the trunk. i had my government on my hip, exposed for about 2 minutes or so. all went well...
If you have a CPL you have nothing to worry about. This case involves someone that didn't have a CPL. The judge didn't know if an IWB holster was OC.

[ltdave]

The judge didn't know if an IWB holster was OC.

is it?

[who dat]

is it?
Visible is OC. The case isn't settled yet, but it's pretty clear to me.

[Done Deal]

Visible is OC. The case isn't settled yet, but it's pretty clear to me.

Interesting concept....but, it looks like somebody is going to have to define things a little better than they way they are now.

[who dat]

Interesting concept....but, it looks like somebody is going to have to define things a little better than they way they are now.
As is the case with most laws. Ambiguous by design in my opinion.

Look at it this way, if concealed means concealed, what is it if it's not concealed?

[dougwg]

“Concealment for CCW occurs when the pistol is not discernable
by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it."

[who dat]

“Concealment for CCW occurs when the pistol is not discernable
by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it."
I'd ask where that quote came from but I don't want you to tell me to go kick my dog.:rotate:

[dougwg]

If you ask nicely, I don't have any problems with questions.


I'll even hyperlink it for you.

Top of page 16
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Supplement_to_2006_edition_-_Summer_2007_206822_7.pdf

[Done Deal]

From that link...

The case continued by defining CCW. “Concealment for CCW occurs when the pistol is not discernable
by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it. Absolute invisibility of
the weapon is not indispensable to concealment; the weapon need not be totally concealed.”
* Note: The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in this case. As of the date of
publication, the MSC’s opinion had not been released.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Hmmmmm, without a CPL, I wouldn't recommend toting IWB.

[dougwg]

My take on that bolded portion to mean something like this.

A guy gets busted for CCW (probably stopped and questioned for something else he did that was illegal) and his defense is that you could see .1" of some portion of the gun so it wasn't concealed.

In that case I would be saying to myself... yeah...riiiight.

In the case in Canton a "significant" portion of the gun was exposed. So much so that "it was discernable by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it."

The officer stated that he "observed a white male, standing in the checkout line, with the handle of a black handgun exposed on the right side of his waistband." *This quote is directly from the police report that I recieved with my FOIA request.*

Not only did he immediately recognize the gun but also commented on the color of the gun it self, not the handle of the gun being black but rather the gun it self.


I hope I explained this correctly, if not I'll try again.

[Hcidem]

This can either be referring to "printing" through clothing or partial visibility of a portion of the weapon. The additional defining points are not entirely clear.

As our conversation on this issue continues, I have to ask "Does anyone here think that the carrying of a concealed weapon law should be applied strictly whenever LEOs encounter a citizen carrying a concealed weapon?"

[Done Deal]

My take on that bolded portion to mean something like this.

.

My take on that bolded portion was to let everybody else read the rest of the decision which you had omitted from your quotation of what it said.

Furthermore, based on the rest of the story....would you tell anybody to carry IWB without a permit? I sure as hell wouldn't....

[dougwg]

I never did either. ;-)

[mechredd]

How is that brandishing???? Especially since OC is legal in this state....

I agree with you on this, but this is what I have been taught.

Brandishing mostly deals with the motive of why the firearm is seen. If you are legitimately OCing, then you are fine. If you are CCing, and the gun accidentally becomes visible, then that's fine also. If you attempt to conceal a weapon but purposely leave it visible, then it could be argued that you were brandishing, because you wanted people to know that you have a concealed weapon. When you OC, people will see that you have a weapon and wonder why. When you partially CC, people will see your weapon and not only wonder why you have one but wonder why you are hiding it. This, just as with brandishing, can cause an "unnecessary panic" which authorities don't like.

Personally I think that this is a load of BS. I have never heard of any cases in which this situation has ever occurred, and I don't think a case such as this could be winnable for the prosecution. However, it is my understanding that the law allows for the remote possibility of this situation occurring.

[Hcidem]

LEOs have been know in the past to say they would charge a citizen with brandishing if they encounter one openly carrying a firearm. I have not known of any instance where this has actually occured. Since open carry has repeatedly been acknowledged to be a legal practice, they would have very little legal support to classify open carry as brandishing.

Additionally, Jennifer Granholm issued an AG opinion (when she held that office) in 2002 which addressed the issue of brandishing:

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

[freewilly57]

But still Legal!

Do you feel he should be charged with a felony and striped of his rights for this?

Don't you think THAT is a "bit over the top and ridiculous"?

If he was carrying IWB, to me that is a Concealed type of holster. I personally would never attempt to open carry with an IWB, just as I would never attempt to carry concealed with a belt holster. Unfortunately based on that fact, I do think he is wrong, IWB means more than half of the gun was concealed inside his pants right? This same situation if he had his CPL and was carrying this way and his shirt or jacket opened the gun would then be exposed and could be considered brandishing right? Sounds like a nasty Catch 22.... :jailed:

[esq_stu]

If he was carrying IWB, to me that is a Concealed type of holster. I do not think the type of holster determines whether a gun is concealed. I realize the AG opinion 7113 is about hunting. But the conclusion that A plain reading of section 5o(1) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act discloses, however, that its prohibition applies only to the carrying of pistols that are “concealed.” A holstered pistol carried openly and in plain view is not “concealed” and therefore does not violate the prohibition contained in that section. sounds to me like it is about whether the gun is "concealed" and not whether a certain type of holster is used. I think that if an LEO sees that it is a gun and it is not covered by clothing (Opinion 7113 asks if it is OK to keep the gun under a coat so it won't get wet), it will ultimately be held by a trial court to be open carry. I don't mean the wind blows, causing the gun to be exposed. I mean, the clothing cannot cover the "handle" of the gun.

That assumes counsel for the defendant is reasonably competent.

I do not, recommend carrying that way because it is not black and white. The comment by freewilly is exactly what I would say if I were a prosecutor.

[dougwg]

I do not think the type of holster determines whether a gun is concealed. I realize the AG opinion 7113 is about hunting. But the conclusion that sounds to me like it is about whether the gun is "concealed" and not whether a certain type of holster is used. I think that if an LEO sees that it is a gun and it is not covered by clothing (Opinion 7113 asks if it is OK to keep the gun under a coat so it won't get wet), it will ultimately be held by a trial court to be open carry. I don't mean the wind blows, causing the gun to be exposed. I mean, the clothing cannot cover the "handle" of the gun.

That assumes counsel for the defendant is reasonably competent.

I do not, recommend carrying that way because it is not black and white. The comment by freewilly is exactly what I would say if I were a prosecutor.

But the real question and you and I both know this is, was it discernable by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it to be a gun.

If so then he was not concealing it.

[Done Deal]

But the real question and you and I both know this is, was it discernable by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it to be a gun.

If so then he was not concealing it.

Casually observing? Ordinary observation? Discernable as what?

What about all the other people that didn't see the gun because of the fact that it was carried in a holster inside the pants?

Tough situation....why would somebody without a CPL ever carry IWB when a pancake could have easily prevented this hassle?

[RifleGuy]

Casually observing? Ordinary observation? Discernable as what?
All very subjective...

[dougwg]

Casually observing? Ordinary observation? Discernable as what?

What about all the other people that didn't see the gun because of the fact that it was carried in a holster inside the pants?

Tough situation....why would somebody without a CPL ever carry IWB when a pancake could have easily prevented this hassle?

Young and dumb and...well you know.

[Done Deal]

Young and dumb and...well you know.

Lord, don't I know...

At least mine finally grew up some and moved out of state, got hitched and next month I am gonna be a grandpa. The first part was the roughest....we wondered if he ever would make it.

And son----if you are reading this (he is a lurker) you KNOW it is true.

[dougwg]

This kid is not a bad guy and being that this is a gray area of the law and that it would be a serious travesty of justice for him to have this hanging over his head for the rest of his live is why I ask for others to join me in my support of him.

[Hcidem]

The thing that's bothering me today about this case is the underlying laws. If there were drugs involved, there would be an issue of contraband. His pistol, on the other hand, is not contraband. If someone had been assaulted, there would have been a victim. There was no victim in this case. The laws which are being applied to this case are "what if" laws.

Concealed weapon and transportation laws are designed to address the issue of possible dangers to the public. They are procedural in nature. I have decided to call them "procedural felonies."

If you thing of the term, procedural felony, it can give you a real taste of the shaky ground on which such laws are based. These two particular laws were certainly passed with good intentions, but the particular application in which they are being used in the present case speaks volumes to me of the injustice of their use here. He is being charged with two concurrent felonies just because he didn't dance the way the legislature wanted him to.

[esq_stu]

But the real question and you and I both know this is, was it discernable by the ordinary observation of persons casually observing the person carrying it to be a gun.

If so then he was not concealing it.that is my view as well

[esq_stu]

All very subjective...I doubt it will ever get to trial, but if it does, I'd love to see the motions and arguments over the jury instructions (how to decide if it was concealed or not). If you are right, it may depend on whether the jury likes the guy or not.

[dougwg]

that is my view as well

Thats what I assumed. :)

[Craig]

Another case where a citizen is minding his own business, not bothering anyone and Mr. Rogue cop steps up to the plate to harass him.

[langenc]

And a CPL holder and much of a shooter will never be on the jury "of his peers".

Shouldnt that mean all on the jury should be shooters?

[Done Deal]

Another case where a citizen is minding his own business, not bothering anyone and Mr. Rogue cop steps up to the plate to harass him.


Anything like taking a leak when all the cop sees is the stream and somebody gets charged for indecent exposure?

Subjective....yup, thats it....subjective.

Until we have a legal definition of concealed for the purposes of carry on ones person, how can it be anything but subjective?

[Hcidem]

The uncertainty of whether a citizen will encounter a "Barney Fife" or an "Andy Taylor" makes "wash, rinse, and repeat" all the more important.

[Done Deal]

The uncertainty of whether a citizen will encounter a "Barney Fife" or an "Andy Taylor" makes "wash, rinse, and repeat" all the more important.

But in this case, didn't the decision to charge originate in the Prosecutors office rather than on the street? If the chief LE in the county authorizes a warrant....you can't blame the cops for following through with an arrest.

[dougwg]

There was no arrest. They gave him his gun back and let him go.

A MONTH later they sent him a letter that he was being charged with CCW.

[Done Deal]

There was no arrest. They gave him his gun back and let him go.

A MONTH later they sent him a letter that he was being charged with CCW.

As I understand it, he was not arrested at the scene. But later, didn't the Prosecutors office authorize the issuance of a warrant for his arrest?

So, after he was charged, he had to be placed under arrest at some point or else he would not have been arraigned on the charges specified in that warrant.


My point was...it wasn't the cop on street that arrested him.

[dougwg]

As I understand it, he was not arrested at the scene. But later, didn't the Prosecutors office authorize the issuance of a warrant for his arrest?
Yes, sorry for the confusion

So, after he was charged, he had to be placed under arrest at some point or else he would not have been arraigned on the charges specified in that warrant.
I'm sure this was the case.


My point was...it wasn't the cop on street that arrested him.
Gotcha

It also seemed as though the 2 LEO's really weren't "into" the court case.

This is what I perceived when listening to their testimony while on the stand.

[halik008]

The real question here is, should young and dumbness be punished and how.

[nisjer05]

The real question here is, should young and dumbness be punished and how.

Dude, who are you? You sure seem to like to crap on people!!

I don't think that young and dumb has anything to do with this case. He was exercising his right, and some overzealous DA decided he should be charged a MONTH after the original encounter. He is being railroaded so the DA can make an example out of him. I hope that this turns out a being a chance to clarify the laws as written, or even a constitutional challenge to the restrictive laws on gun ownership and concealed carry.

[Done Deal]

Dude, who are you? You sure seem to like to crap on people!!

I don't think that young and dumb has anything to do with this case. He was exercising his right, and some overzealous DA decided he should be charged a MONTH after the original encounter. He is being railroaded so the DA can make an example out of him. I hope that this turns out a being a chance to clarify the laws as written, or even a constitutional challenge to the restrictive laws on gun ownership and concealed carry.

Dude, who are you? Yoiu sure seem to like to give crap to people when you obviously have not read the entire thread.

Next time, you might want to keep the egg off your face by reading a thread before replying to a thread.

[nisjer05]

Ok, so you (edit, Dougwg, was, you just agreed)were the first one to say young and dumb, I apologize! But I stand by the comment against young and dumb. Youth has nothing to do with questionable judgment. According to the reading that I have done, and that I am sure the defendant has read, is that open is open and concealed is concealed.
Any one, of any age, may have been caught in the same situation.

As far as my comment to Halik008 is that he has a propensity to leave comments that are judgmental and harsh. And now that I have wiped the egg off of my face I realize that I have just done the same!:slap: Thanks for the slap!

[dougwg]

Ok, so you were the first one to say young and dumb, I apologize! But I stand by the comment against young and dumb. Youth has nothing to do with questionable judgment. According to the reading that I have done, and that I am sure the defendant has read, is that open is open and concealed is concealed.
Any one, of any age, may have been caught in the same situation.

As far as my comment to Halik008 is that he has a propensity to leave comments that are judgmental and harsh. And now that I have wiped the egg off of my face I realize that I have just done the same!:slap: Thanks for the slap!

You have a PM

[_DK_]

Anything like taking a leak when all the cop sees is the stream and somebody gets charged for indecent exposure?

Subjective....yup, thats it....subjective.

Until we have a legal definition of concealed for the purposes of carry on ones person, how can it be anything but subjective?

My ticket for that was written up as urinating in public, but somehow ended up as disorderly conduct when I had to see the Judge... At least it wasnt indecent exposure.

[Done Deal]

As far as my comment to Halik008 is that he has a propensity to leave comments that are judgmental and harsh.


Well, I betcha that there are lots of folks that would agree that I belong to that club too....

[Done Deal]

My ticket for that was written up as urinating in public, but somehow ended up as disorderly conduct when I had to see the Judge... At least it wasnt indecent exposure.

No kidding...

http://www.lawrefs.com/item/urinating-in-public---michigan/catid/17

[halik008]

As far as my comment to Halik008 is that he has a propensity to leave comments that are judgmental and harsh. And now that I have wiped the egg off of my face I realize that I have just done the same!:slap: Thanks for the slap!

Judmental?!!? harsh?!?!? WTF i posted a question not a comment that you quoted me on. :lol:

Would a much more experienced person would strap one on without a CPL in a holster designed purposely for concealed carry just to run into a gas station to grab a pop? Seems like MO and not enough wise thinking got him into the situation.

[Done Deal]

Seems like MO and not enough wise thinking got him into the situation.


Uh....wouldn't that be a judgement call?

[halik008]

Uh....wouldn't that be a judgement call?

never said that what you quoted isn't :lol:

[dougwg]

hrmm

[dougwg]

It's like an Elephant hiding behind a blade of grass...

[halik008]

concealed and attempt to conceal might be one and the same in this case.

Prosecutor can argue for example black IWB holster + black gun w/ black grip + black shirt and pant = concealment. With the IWB hoslet being the essential part of making it break the shape and blend in.

[dougwg]

He was wearing khaki pants and a white shirt I believe.

There was NO intent to conceal.

[halik008]

There was NO intent to conceal.

Prosecutor can argue otherwise though w/ the IWB....

[dougwg]

That's very insightful, thanks.

[TFin04]

I don't feel like reading through all the mindless trashing of one another.

Are there any updates to this case? Has he even been in court yet?

Thanks.

[Venator12]

I don't feel like reading through all the mindless trashing of one another.

Are there any updates to this case? Has he even been in court yet?

Thanks.

Arraignment today. Trial???

[Done Deal]

He was wearing khaki pants and a white shirt I believe.

There was NO intent to conceal.


Question:

Was that pic you posted (kahki colored pants and white shirt) and actual depiction?

I ask that because...the way many carry with an IWB....actual exposure is very limited, especially if the person carrying has his arm down or his hand in his pocket or whatever. One cannot ignore the fact that what the pants may not conceal, the arm might do very effectively, if only for a second or two....and I was not aware of any time requirements on CCW.

[dougwg]

That is, as far as I know, just a pic from the web.

The defendant was dressed similarly. With his "rig" the gun is exposed similar to the picture above also.

Not sure about the arm, time thing.

[dougwg]

I should have said a "Light colored button up shirt" instead of white.

[Venator12]

I should have said a "Light colored button up shirt" instead of white.
It was a polo style shirt.

[Venator12]

Question:

Was that pic you posted (kahki colored pants and white shirt) and actual depiction?

I ask that because...the way many carry with an IWB....actual exposure is very limited, especially if the person carrying has his arm down or his hand in his pocket or whatever. One cannot ignore the fact that what the pants may not conceal, the arm might do very effectively, if only for a second or two....and I was not aware of any time requirements on CCW.

Using this logic anytime you open carry you are carrying concealed because the moment you turn your gun side away from someones line of view it's concealed. And swinging your arms as you walk also "conceals" the firearm for a fraction of a second. So perhaps everyone that OCs without a CPL is carrying concealed.

I suggest that anyone that OCs without a CPL keep their arms above their head and make supersonic circles while they walk in public. That way you handgun is visible "nearly" all the time.

[Done Deal]

dougwg I should have said a "Light colored button up shirt" instead of white.









Venator12 Quote:
Originally Posted by dougwg
I should have said a "Light colored button up shirt" instead of white.

It was a polo style shirt.






Ok, whatever kind of shirt it was, may or may not have effected how the pistol stood out.

My point was, with IWB, what pants don't conceal, the arm often does.

[Venator12]

concealed and attempt to conceal might be one and the same in this case.

Prosecutor can argue for example black IWB holster + black gun w/ black grip + black shirt and pant = concealment. With the IWB hoslet being the essential part of making it break the shape and blend in.

Why go the Johnny Cash route? If one wanted to conceal a handgun wouldn't it be so much easier to just cover it with a shirt? Besides in regards to this case the person was wearing light colored clothes and his handgun was very visible. He made every attempt to follow the law both in carry and vehicle transport.

[Done Deal]

Using this logic anytime you open carry you are carrying concealed because the moment you turn your gun side away from someones line of view it's concealed. And swinging your arms as you walk also "conceals" the firearm for a fraction of a second. So perhaps everyone that OCs without a CPL is carrying concealed.

I suggest that anyone that OCs without a CPL keep their arms above their head and make supersonic circles while they walk in public. That way you handgun is visible "nearly" all the time.


Your comparison flat out sucks.

If the pants are covering the majority of the gun and the arm covers the view of the remainder......has the view of the gun been concealed?

I am certainly no attorney but, if I was trying to make a case for the fact that it was concealed, I would take photos of a person carrying IWB, with their arm at rest, probably covering the gun. Show several angles and ask what the viewer sees and do you want to jeopardize your freedom on what the decision might just be? Common sense would say, if you want to stay out of jail, maybe you should carry your handgun so it is visible nearly all the time....otherwise, wouldn't it be concealed carry?

[dougwg]

I guess the arm, time thing is another gray area.

Regardless, it was a light colored shirt.

I could have swore he told me button up.

[Done Deal]

He made every attempt to follow the law both in carry and vehicle transport.

Apparently not, otherwise he might have selected a different holster that is completely exposed....

[halik008]

Why go the Johnny Cash route? If one wanted to conceal a handgun wouldn't it be so much easier to just cover it with a shirt? Besides in regards to this case the person was wearing light colored clothes and his handgun was very visible. He made every attempt to follow the law both in carry and vehicle transport.

Problem is, law is not concerned whether the concealment or the attempt to was intentional or unintentional.

I agree the transport change is BS based on the info provided. But as typical in any court case the lawyers are trying to make up a whole list of charges, even if they know only 20% have any chance of sticking, just to influence judge/jury and have stronger bargaining chip.

[Done Deal]

I guess the arm, time thing is another gray area.



I know....and the ambiguity of the law is a major part of the problem....especially considering the fact that intent is not an element of such a serious offense.

I really do hope it works out....

[dougwg]

Done Deal,

I think we agree that the better choice, if he was going to OC, would have been to use a OWB. He was told this but as we have already discussed, he young and dumb and full of ......

He has learned his lesson, I just hope this lesson doesn't cost him his freedom.

[Done Deal]

Done Deal,

I think we agree that the better choice, if he was going to OC, would have been to use a OWB. He was told this but as we have already discussed, he young and dumb and full of ......

He has learned his lesson, I just hope this lesson doesn't cost him his freedom.


Yup, I know. And in that freedom is the ability to possess firearms and get a CPL. Even with a plea....he may not be getting a CPL for a few years. Damned tough situation all the way around.

[dougwg]

I know....and the ambiguity of the law is a major part of the problem....especially considering the fact that intent is not an element of such a serious offense.

I really do hope it works out....

I do to.

This really is ridiculous.... law abiding people having to jump through hoops just to keep the "LAW" off our backs.

Meanwhile criminals go about their daily live with much less concern.

[Jim Simmons]

Using this logic anytime you open carry you are carrying concealed because the moment you turn your gun side away from someones line of view it's concealed. And swinging your arms as you walk also "conceals" the firearm for a fraction of a second. So perhaps everyone that OCs without a CPL is carrying concealed.

I suggest that anyone that OCs without a CPL keep their arms above their head and make supersonic circles while they walk in public. That way you handgun is visible "nearly" all the time.

Speaking abstractly, and not commenting on any actual case, that's pretty much what Michigan caselaw says. Absolute invisibility of the weapon is not required, and a weapon is concealed under the statute when it is not discernible on the defendant's person by those casually observing him or her, as people do in the ordinary and usual associations of life. The issue of concealment depends on the particular circumstances present in each case, and the question whether the weapon was concealed from ordinary observation is for the trier of fact to determine. In a case from the 70s, a defendant's conviction of carrying a concealed weapon was sustained where the testimony established that the defendant had placed a revolver in the waisband of his trousers and that as some point a witness "couldn't see the revolver plain."

Everyone here knows my opinion of OC, especially with a CPL, but it's especially not a good idea someoen without a CPL to carry using an IWB holster.

[halik008]

Wouldn't this be equivalent of OC in OWB pancake holster with top half of the gun covered by say polo shirt which most people wear not tucked in pants?

[lead]

Personally I do not think anyone allowed to legally own a firearm should have to jump through any hoops to carry open or otherwise.

I see many tout that this person should have had a cpl or they shouldn't have used that or should have done/not done this/that.. why was he/she a criminal? Should they have to prove otherwise for personal protection?

This whole concealed carry/open carry thing is a joke imo and a waste of time and money.. How many real criminals are walking the streets while they waste time on this?

Hopefully they have a jury with half a brain in this case.

[Done Deal]

Hopefully they have a jury with half a brain in this case.


Hopefully, a satisfactory resolution can be obtained without the expense and gamble of leaving it up to a jury.

[_DK_]

Wouldn't this be equivalent of OC in OWB pancake holster with top half of the gun covered by say polo shirt which most people wear not tucked in pants?


I would consider that "concealed". Same thing with a coat covering the top half.
Same thing with IWB holster. Personally I consider carrying IWB whether in a IWB holster or just IWB to be concealed.

If I was out walking my dog and OC'ing I would make sure my shirt is tucked around the grip so everything is exposed.

[Leader]

I would consider that "concealed". Same thing with a coat covering the top half.
Same thing with IWB holster. Personally I consider carrying IWB whether in a IWB holster or just IWB to be concealed.

If I was out walking my dog and OC'ing I would make sure my shirt is tucked around the grip so everything is exposed.

So... If I carry with an IWB holster I shouldn't have any troubles with the police (or any members of this forum) because my weapon is "concealed"?
There will be no MWG calls. No panic. No kids crying. I could even go to my child's soccer game.

[Done Deal]

So... If I carry with an IWB holster I shouldn't have any troubles with the police (or any members of this forum) because my weapon is "concealed"?



Lets poll a hundred people.

How many would cite an IWB as a typical OC type holster?

How many would cite an IWB as a concealment type holster?


We can debate this amongst ourselves until we are blue in the face and the bottom line is....based on current laws, it looks like if it goes to trial, it will be a helluva gamble for the defendant. Who amongst us would care to be in his shoes?

Lets just hope that an acceptable plea agreement is attainable and move on.

[_DK_]

IWB holsters are marketed as concealment holsters, thats what they were designed for. I'm sure thats how the prosecutor is going to spin it should this go to trial.

[dougwg]

and as we all know "marketing" is the LAW.

[_DK_]

Since when does the LAW mean anything to a jury? It's all about who can spin better the prosecutor or the defendants lawyer.

It's all a matter of perception. I wish the guy the best of luck. But until I get my CPL I won't be carrying IWB.

[Hcidem]

So... If I carry with an IWB holster I shouldn't have any troubles with the police (or any members of this forum) because my weapon is "concealed"?
There will be no MWG calls. No panic. No kids crying. I could even go to my child's soccer game.

If by "troubles," you are referring to MWG calls, irrational fear, or crying kids, there is little any of us can do to affect other peoples' choices other than to conform ourselves to every whim they might have. I have read about the police being called for black men eating in "white" diners, crowds driven to panic in reaction to civil rights marches, and children even crying because of their parents' irrational beliefs. This can, at times, be the cost of asserting our rights.

In regard to the police, they are supposed to be following the law at all times. For the time being, the Michigan courts have accepted the opportunity to determine whether an IWB holster should be exclusively used for concealed carry. Anyone using one for open carry should be advised that they should consider this action to be one of civil disobedience until the courts have ruled on the matter.

I don't understand how the reference to a child's soccer game has any bearing on the issue at all.

[DLK]

I don't understand how the reference to a child's soccer game has any bearing on the issue at all.

I believe Leader was referring to the incident that made national news last September, in which a parent had openly carried a pistol. Complaints led to the revocation of her concealed weapons permit.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Toting_gun_at_soccer_costs_mom_her_permit_09-24-2008.html

[Done Deal]

I believe Leader was referring to the incident that made national news last September, in which a parent had openly carried a pistol. Complaints led to the revocation of her concealed weapons permit.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Toting_gun_at_soccer_costs_mom_her_permit_09-24-2008.html

If that is the soccer mom story....I believe that she got it right back.

But, who really needs all the drama? I can think of alot better ways to spend my time and money, thats for sure...

[Leader]

Do you really think M. Hain wouldn't have been hassled if she had only worn an IWB holster?
No way an uncovered IWB holster is concealed.

[dpgperftest]

I have a friend is a cop well lets say within ST-joe county Michigan I asked him about OC and he states that they will take your gun and charge you with brandishing

[ghostrider]

I have a friend is a cop well lets say within ST-joe county Michigan I asked him about OC and he states that they will take your gun and charge you with brandishing
What's your point?

[dougwg]

I have a friend is a cop well lets say within ST-joe county Michigan I asked him about OC and he states that they will take your gun and charge you with brandishing

And there are many more e-mails from this guy saying it's legal to OC.

Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

Plus I have court transcripts with a Judge stating that OC IS legal in Michigan.

Plus anyone that has actually read the laws will tell you that OC is legal in Michigan.

So I would say that whoever you talked with was incorrect.

How much time have you spent researching OC? I bet very little.

[JEMSCS]

I have a friend is a cop well lets say within ST-joe county Michigan I asked him about OC and he states that they will take your gun and charge you with brandishing
STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL



CRIMINAL LAW:

FIREARMS:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

PEACE OFFICERS:

POLICE:
Reserve police officer carrying exposed but holstered handgun is not brandishing firearm in violation of Michigan Penal Code


A reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.


Opinion No. 7101

February 6, 2002

Honorable Bill Bullard, Jr.
State Senator
The Capitol
Lansing, MI



You have asked if a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, violates section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.

The Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq, revises, consolidates, and codifies the state's criminal statutes. Section 234e(1) of the Code criminalizes1 the brandishing of a firearm in public as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

Subsection (2) of the same section states that "[s]ubsection (1) does not apply to . . . [a] peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer."

The term "peace officer" refers to members of governmental police forces who have been given broad, general authority by law to enforce and preserve the public peace. People v Bissonette, 327 Mich 349, 356; 42 NW2d 113 (1950). Most governmental police officers, i.e., officers who are employed by the state or its political subdivisions, possess such authority and are, therefore, "peace officers." 1 OAG, 1955, No 1891, p 72 (February 24, 1955); 2 OAG, 1958, No 3212, p 60 (February 21, 1958). Conversely, police officers such as motor carrier enforcement officers who possess only restricted or special enforcement authority do not meet this standard and therefore do not qualify as "peace officers." People v Bissonette, supra; OAG, 1987-1988, No 6530, p 362 (August 5, 1988). Thus, a reserve police officer with limited law enforcement authority would not qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection 2 of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. A reserve police officer with general law enforcement authority who is regularly employed would qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection (2) of section 234e. See OAG, 1973-1974, No 4792, p 78 (August 27, 1973), and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5806, p 1055 (October 28, 1980).

Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases,2 none of the cases define the term.

In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.



JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General

1Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100, or both.

2 See, for example: People v Jones, 443 Mich 88, 90; 504 NW2d 158 (1993), People v Kreger, 214 Mich App 549, 552; 543 NW2d 55 (1995), and People v Stubbs, 15 Mich App 453, 455; 166 NW2d 477 (1968).

[ghostrider]

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL



CRIMINAL LAW:

FIREARMS:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

PEACE OFFICERS:

POLICE:
Reserve police officer carrying exposed but holstered handgun is not brandishing firearm in violation of Michigan Penal Code


A reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.


Opinion No. 7101

February 6, 2002

Honorable Bill Bullard, Jr.
State Senator
The Capitol
Lansing, MI



You have asked if a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, violates section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.

The Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq, revises, consolidates, and codifies the state's criminal statutes. Section 234e(1) of the Code criminalizes1 the brandishing of a firearm in public as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

Subsection (2) of the same section states that "[s]ubsection (1) does not apply to . . . [a] peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer."

The term "peace officer" refers to members of governmental police forces who have been given broad, general authority by law to enforce and preserve the public peace. People v Bissonette, 327 Mich 349, 356; 42 NW2d 113 (1950). Most governmental police officers, i.e., officers who are employed by the state or its political subdivisions, possess such authority and are, therefore, "peace officers." 1 OAG, 1955, No 1891, p 72 (February 24, 1955); 2 OAG, 1958, No 3212, p 60 (February 21, 1958). Conversely, police officers such as motor carrier enforcement officers who possess only restricted or special enforcement authority do not meet this standard and therefore do not qualify as "peace officers." People v Bissonette, supra; OAG, 1987-1988, No 6530, p 362 (August 5, 1988). Thus, a reserve police officer with limited law enforcement authority would not qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection 2 of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. A reserve police officer with general law enforcement authority who is regularly employed would qualify as a "peace officer" under subsection (2) of section 234e. See OAG, 1973-1974, No 4792, p 78 (August 27, 1973), and OAG, 1979-1980, No 5806, p 1055 (October 28, 1980).

Section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code does not define the crime of brandishing a firearm in public. The Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, published by the Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, does not include a recommended jury instruction on brandishing a firearm. Research discloses that while the term "brandishing" appears in reported Michigan cases,2 none of the cases define the term.

In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner."

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a reserve police officer, by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.



JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General

1Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100, or both.

2 See, for example: People v Jones, 443 Mich 88, 90; 504 NW2d 158 (1993), People v Kreger, 214 Mich App 549, 552; 543 NW2d 55 (1995), and People v Stubbs, 15 Mich App 453, 455; 166 NW2d 477 (1968).What else should be highlighted (and more important to the discussion at hand, is the following.

...

Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code.
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm

[edge]

i just read this whole thing and didn't see any results. Is this case still active? if not, what was the ruling?

[ghostrider]

i just read this whole thing and didn't see any results. Is this case still active? if not, what was the ruling?
Due to the nature of it being a pending legal action, I'm guessing that we won't hear many details until it's finished. Last I heard (about a month ago, or less) is that he was bound over. So, it's still active.

[edge]

Due to the nature of it being a pending legal action, I'm guessing that we won't hear many details until it's finished. Last I heard (about a month ago, or less) is that he was bound over. So, it's still active.
thanks


does anyone know the details of the origional incident? did i read that it was in canton? if so, do you know what gas station? when did it actually take place?

[ghostrider]

thanks


does anyone know the details of the origional incident? did i read that it was in canton? if so, do you know what gas station? when did it actually take place?Because of the legal proceedings, the nature of the incident isn't being put out on open forums. dougwg has posted the court transcripts, and was asked to remove them. I believe it was in Canton. Beyond that I can't say much more.

[edge]

Because of the legal proceedings, the nature of the incident isn't being put out on open forums. dougwg has posted the court transcripts, and was asked to remove them. I believe it was in Canton. Beyond that I can't say much more.

can you say what court house its going through?

[dougwg]

Gas station @ Joy and Haggerty, October I think.

The case was pled out.

Court was in Plymouth and was bound over to Wayne county

[ghostrider]

can you say what court house its going through?
I don't know off hand. You could PM dougwg.

[edge]

Gas station @ Joy and Haggerty, October I think.

The case was pled out.

Court was in Plymouth and was bound over to Wayne county

thanks

[mechredd]

In my CPL class I was told that if any part of the pistol/holster combo is concealed, then the gun is considered concealed.


I also never understood why people would OC with an in the pant/waist band holster. If you're going to OC then there are allot more comfortable holsters styles on the market to choose from than an IWB.

[Venator12]

In my CPL class I was told that if any part of the pistol/holster combo is concealed, then the gun is considered concealed.


.

That info may be wrong. If you OC a part of the pistol is "concealed" in a holster are you CCing then? The case law has been if a reasonable person can determine if it's a gun and worn openly then it' has been considered OC.

No Michigan case law is know whether an IWB holster is considered OC or CC. Other states have considered an IWB holster worn with no clothes covering the gun to be open. Hence the term the "Virgina tuck" which is OCing with an IWB holster

[Done Deal]

Other states have considered an IWB holster worn with no clothes covering the gun to be open. Hence the term the "Virgina tuck" which is OCing with an IWB holster

Please provide link to that....

[Venator12]

Please provide link to that....
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=12420&forum_id=7&jump_to=273421

[Done Deal]

ok, one guy on a Virginia open carry forum calls that the Virginia tuck and now its a term?

I wondered why I had never even heard of it. Thanks.

[dougwg]

ok, one guy on a Virginia open carry forum calls that the Virginia tuck and now its a term?

I wondered why I had never even heard of it. Thanks.

Nobody called it concealed carry until someone called it concealed carry.

[Divegeek]

In my CPL class I was told that if any part of the pistol/holster combo is concealed, then the gun is considered concealed.


Well our anti-gun governess issued an opinion when she was attorney general that a holster with a flap was not concealed carry. The gun is completely covered by the holster, but was still to be considered open carry.

[Done Deal]

Well our anti-gun governess issued an opinion when she was attorney general that a holster with a flap was not concealed carry. The gun is completely covered by the holster, but was still to be considered open carry.

Hmmmmm.....so, if the holster doesn't count for concealing a gun.....


What if somebody carried a gun in a holster that provided total protection against the elements and none of the pistol showed?

[Venator12]

What if you have denim covered holster and are wearing jeans? The holster would blend into the pants. Oh kinda like an IWB holster. Now what?

[Venator12]

ok, one guy on a Virginia open carry forum calls that the Virginia tuck and now its a term?

I wondered why I had never even heard of it. Thanks.

Oh you're just jealous because we don't have a DD Tuck.:smile: Yet!

[countryboy3248]

Dude, who are you? Yoiu sure seem to like to give crap to people when you obviously have not read the entire thread.

Next time, you might want to keep the egg off your face by reading a thread before replying to a thread.


You, Mister Deal, may want to worry about yourself first, then other people. Ever since I first joined this forum a year ago, you have been giving people crap. Do you think your perfect? It sucks to see that when I came back, you sure haven't changed! Find a new hobby that doesn't include trying to make people feel as miserable as yourself! Have a nice day buddy!:thumbup:

[Done Deal]

You, Mister Deal, may want to worry about yourself first, then other people. Ever since I first joined this forum a year ago, you have been giving people crap. Do you think your perfect? It sucks to see that when I came back, you sure haven't changed! Find a new hobby that doesn't include trying to make people feel as miserable as yourself! Have a nice day buddy!:thumbup:


Wow....I don't know where that tirade came from and am not going to take the time to try and figure it out.

You have a better day than you appear to be having.....ok?

[esq_stu]

What if you have denim covered holster and are wearing jeans? The holster would blend into the pants. Oh kinda like an IWB holster. Now what?You do like hypotheticals, don't you? I assume you don't mean a denim shirt over the holster but a holster made of denim or denim coating.

You probably could prove it is not concealed, since it is a holster on the belt. You might even call it a "fashion statement." But you probably would have to prove it - it's a crap shoot whether an LEO would let it go without arresting and charging you.

[cwo4uscgret]

not concealed.

So says Merriam-Webster:

con·ceal
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsēl\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English concelen, from Anglo-French conceler, from Latin concelare, from com- + celare to hide — more at hell
Date: 14th century
1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>
2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>

I know nothing in law is ever clear, concise, or cut and dried - just ask me about how bad I got bent over the judge's bench in my first divorce; 24 months in jail for contempt (fortunately I was out of state and it was civil conptemt) - however if I were carrying a pistol or revolver IWB and it was clearly identifiable as a pistol from a reasonable distance then I would hope that he would be found not guilty. The bit about transportation? Its stacking; like pulling you over for speeding and finding our your seatbelt is not on, you left front turn signal just burned out, and while you are sitting there idling, in your winter beater, it throws a gasket and starts smoking so you get a ticket for pollution too......

I say BS. Drop the charges and let my people be free!

[Done Deal]

not concealed.

So says Merriam-Webster:




Merriam-Webster did not define Michigan CCW statutes.

For example, a pistol openly carried in a vehicle by somebody without a blue card is considered what again?

[dougwg]

DD is right about being "concealed" within a car and it doesn't matter one bit what a dictionary says.

[Venator12]

You do like hypotheticals, don't you? I assume you don't mean a denim shirt over the holster but a holster made of denim or denim coating.

You probably could prove it is not concealed, since it is a holster on the belt. You might even call it a "fashion statement." But you probably would have to prove it - it's a crap shoot whether an LEO would let it go without arresting and charging you.

I do indeed, it helps me try and figure things out. But my point was, if my above example IS OC, then having the holster tucked in those same jeans would be OC. The mere fact of having the holster unrecognizable is not the critical issue, it's whether the gun can be discerned by an average and reasonable person.

Just a thought exercise.

[kdogg]

I have a friend is a cop well lets say within ST-joe county Michigan I asked him about OC and he states that they will take your gun and charge you with brandishing

Well your friend to check out the next county overs webpage.

http://www.vanburencountysheriff.com/gunregistration.php

They have a brand new FAQ up.. VERY top question:

Following are answers to frequently asked firearms-related questions courtesy of MSP's Firearms Division.

*

Is it legal to openly carry a firearm? Subject to MCL 750.234d it IS legal to carry a visible pistol in public.


Tell your friend his department needs to check up on a few things.

[Leader]

The question I didn't see was .... Is it legal to restrict the times people can get permits & applications?
maybe they should "check up on a few things" too.

[dougwg]

The question I didn't see was .... Is it legal to restrict the times people can get permits & applications?
maybe they should "check up on a few things" too.

Pretty sweet that they do it on Sat and Sun though.

[springerdave]

I would say that if they felt compelled to do a background check and fingerprint me at, let's say, 4:00 a.m. that they would find the time! Should be done any time there is someone at the department.

[who dat]

I would say that if they felt compelled to do a background check and fingerprint me at, let's say, 4:00 a.m. that they would find the time! Should be done any time there is someone at the department.
That's what is stated in the law. They are to process permits at all hours the offices are open.

[springerdave]

28.422 Sec 3...shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase...springerdave.

[_DK_]

This case was Pled out? what was the plea?

[Venator12]

This case was Pled out? what was the plea?

IF/WHEN this link works towards the end of the talk show this case is discussed and the plea is explained. Comments from call in guest Dougwg.

http://www.stickam.com/viewMedia.do?mId=182913527

[who dat]

IF/WHEN this link works towards the end of the talk show this case is discussed and the plea is explained. Comments from call in guest Dougwg.

http://www.stickam.com/viewMedia.do?mId=182913527
Can't hang for an hour to get the verdict...can you summarize?

[Venator12]

Original charge was BS, 2-Felonies: CCW on person and in vehicle.

This was a screwed case from the start. This person did everything he could to be lawful. I really like the charge of CCW in a vehicle, when he transported the handgun unloaded in a case following the law to the letter. It was so clear that even the prosecutor instructed the LEO to return the gun to the person and let him transport it the same way home he did to get where he was. They decide to charge him four weeks later.

knowing the case was week, the prosecutor offered a reduced charge, god forbid they should admit to a mistake and drop the charges, but you have to add those convictions to your belt, looks good at re-election time. Another gun of the street, don't chay know. But threatened with 2-5 year felonies and a growing legal bill the person accepted the lesser charge.

Info below from Dougwg:

Plead to Disorderly Person
2 years probation
3 years disqualified for CPL
Has to turn in the gun for destruction
Community service
Can't own any guns(has to sell everything he's got)for 2 years
He can't even be around anyone with a gun.
$6500 lawyer fees

[esq_stu]

But threatened with 2-5 year felonies and a growing legal bill the person accepted the lesser charge.That sucks. More than that, it is depressing. Yes it costs money to defend yourself in court. Having that record and losing gun rights and guns - I can't put myself in the defendant's position, but I feel like I could not accept such a plea personally. I have seen what it takes and know what I had to do to wear a prosecutor down to even return my calls to discuss a plea other than on the original charge. I didn't get a nickle as a PD for all the motions I brought just to keep clients out of jail. Defendants that can't afford it to go to the mat, they plea. And then they're screwed. Depressing.

[Knimrod]

Info below from Dougwg:

Plead to Disorderly Person
2 years probation
3 years disqualified for CPL
Has to turn in the gun for destruction
Community service
Can't own any guns(has to sell everything he's got)for 2 years
He can't even be around anyone with a gun.
$6500 lawyer fees

Interesting... So this is what you risk when you lawfully open carry? While the defendant may have been in the right and the charges complete BS, it appears his only other option was to go to trial and spend an obscene amount of money in an attempt to just break even legally. And even then he could have lost big time.

This is very telling. Our legal system has become less about right, wrong, fact and truth, and more about money. Ultimately, his decision to cop a plea was probably rooted in the financial reality of the situation and what it would cost for the resources to actually win in a jury trial.

I'm betting this will be his last open carry escapade... ever.

[who dat]

OK, the way I read this is that now there is precedent for IWB being concealed. That means we can do one of two things:

1. Accept it and never carry IWB without a CPL.

2. Ask for an AG opinion on this ruling.

Personally I think 1 is unacceptable, and 2 is the way to go.

[dougwg]

Yeah... and I'll be giving AG Mike Cox an ear full next Friday about this BS too.

About how the Wayne county ADA was a moron and didn't even understand the law in regard to firearm carrying and transport. And about how Kim Worthy's "Firearm Team" just like to railroad innocent people.

And about all the BS my nephew has/is going through because of the ineptness and ignorance of the prosecutors. Not to mention the waste of tax dollars.

[dougwg]

I'm betting this will be his last open carry escapade... ever.

Wanna bet on it?

[dougwg]

OK, the way I read this is that now there is precedent for IWB being concealed. That means we can do one of two things:

1. Accept it and never carry IWB without a CPL.

2. Ask for an AG opinion on this ruling.

Personally I think 1 is unacceptable, and 2 is the way to go.

There is NO precedent. Legally anyway as it never went to trial.

1. Yes, for now, NO IWB w/o CPL
2. I will be asking personally for something to be done about this BS.

[dougwg]

Wanna bet on it?

This experiance has not scared OCer's.... it's pissed us off.

This is NOT the end of this.

[who dat]

There is NO precedent. Legally anyway as it never went to trial.

1. Yes, for now, NO IWB w/o CPL
2. I will be asking personally for something to be done about this BS.
Give'em hell.

[dougwg]

I'm going to be handing Mike Cox several pieces of paper listing grievances next Friday.

A. This little story
B. Hours for purchase permits and the waiting periods
C. All the damn gray areas in the law (motorcycle carry, bicycle carry, horse...)
D. The pitfalls in the new registration law.
E. Illegal ordinances
F. anything else?

[who dat]

I'm going to be handing Mike Cox several pieces of paper listing grievances next Friday.

A. This little story
B. Hours for purchase permits and the waiting periods
C. All the damn grey areas in the law (motorcycle carry, bicycle carry, horse...)
D. The pitfalls in the new registration law.
E. anything else?
Registration.

[esq_stu]

OK, the way I read this is that now there is precedent for IWB being concealed. That means we can do one of two things:

1. Accept it and never carry IWB without a CPL.

2. Ask for an AG opinion on this ruling.

Personally I think 1 is unacceptable, and 2 is the way to go.It has no value as precedent whatsoever. For 2 reasons:

1. The court did not make any judgment at all on whether IWB is CC. The court simply accepted the plea.

2. Even if it were a judgment on the facts and the law, trial court judgments are rarely, if ever, considered as precedent. Trial courts are required by law to follow precedents set by appeals courts. This was not an appeals court.

If there's ever another case like this, it will start from scratch.

[Leader]

OK, the way I read this is that now there is precedent for IWB being concealed. That means we can do one of two things:

1. Accept it and never carry IWB without a CPL.

2. Ask for an AG opinion on this ruling.

Personally I think 1 is unacceptable, and 2 is the way to go.

The way I see it,

He was never charged with CC, he was charged with "Disorderly Person" because he had a gun.

The fact that he didn't have a CPL had nothing to do with it.
The fact that he had an IWB holster had nothing to do with it.
The fact that the gun was transported 100% within the law had nothing to do with it.
With the logic that the Plymouth/Canton PD used, ANYONE that has a gun in public ( or privare ) could be charged with being a "Disorderly Person" just because he/she had a firearm. With or without a CPL.

[dougwg]

The way I see it,

He was never charged with CC, he was charged with "Disorderly Person" because he had a gun.

The fact that he didn't have a CPL had nothing to do with it.
The fact that he had an IWB holster had nothing to do with it.
The fact that the gun was transported 100% within the law had nothing to do with it.
With the logic that the Plymouth/Canton PD used, ANYONE that has a gun in public ( or privare ) could be charged with being a "Disorderly Person" just because he/she had a firearm. With or without a CPL.

Sorry but you are wrong.

HE WAS CHARGED WITH CCW

[Leader]

Ya.. Posted before I saw the other thread.

Still sucks BIG TIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dougwg]

agreed

[Thomas]

Seems like a open carry rally is needed in the city this happened in. A very public one with news crews and interviews given. I'm in for a road trip.

[Venator12]

OK, the way I read this is that now there is precedent for IWB being concealed. That means we can do one of two things:

1. Accept it and never carry IWB without a CPL.

2. Ask for an AG opinion on this ruling.

Personally I think 1 is unacceptable, and 2 is the way to go.

No trial no precedent set. The verdict, pun intended, is still out on whether an IWB holster is OC or CC.

I don't think the AG would touch it because the law states that if a reasonable person can determine if it's a gun it may or may not be concealed.....clear as mud.

[_DK_]

There is NO precedent. Legally anyway as it never went to trial.

1. Yes, for now, NO IWB w/o CPL
2. I will be asking personally for something to be done about this BS.

This what why I asked the question...

I was going to take the dog for a walk tonight and open carry in Eastpointe. But I only have a IWB holster right now.

I should be getting my CPL on the 24th, so I can wait I guess.

I do not have the money or resources to fight a charge.

[who dat]

This what why I asked the question...

I was going to take the dog for a walk tonight and open carry in Eastpointe. But I only have a IWB holster right now.

I should be getting my CPL on the 24th, so I can wait I guess.

I do not have the money or resources to fight a charge.
So wear it crossdraw outside your pants. Or inside your belt, but not inside the pants. Wouldn't that work?

[ghostrider]

So wear it crossdraw outside your pants. Or inside your belt, but not inside the pants. Wouldn't that work?
Good idea. Also, if they make a J.I.T. slide for your gun, the Don Hume's are only about $25.

[Jim Simmons]

Now do you see why many of us recommend against open carry?

I, too, would like to have taken that case to trial; but in the end, win or lose, I go home at night. The client's the one who risks spending time in the slam, and dealing with all the other consequences.

I had one a few years ago -- a "road rage" thing. The "victim" cut my client off; then at a stop light, pulled his truck in front of my client such that client was trapped. "Victim" then got out of his truck, kept trying to open the client's locked car door, and beat on the window. He testified that if he'd been able to open the door, he'd have "beat the shit" out of my client. Client had a CPL, and pulled our his gun. "Victim" then runs to his truck and calls 9-1-1: man with a gun. LEOs charge client with felony assault. After the "victim's" testimony at exam, prosecutor offered client misdemeanor assault. Client took the deal, even though it meant that client lost pistol and CPL.

[lead]

Now do you see why many of us recommend against open carry?

I, too, would like to have taken that case to trial; but in the end, win or lose, I go home at night. The client's the one who risks spending time in the slam, and dealing with all the other consequences.

I had one a few years ago -- a "road rage" thing. The "victim" cut my client off; then at a stop light, pulled his truck in front of my client such that client was trapped. "Victim" then got out of his truck, kept trying to open the client's locked car door, and beat on the window. He testified that if he'd been able to open the door, he'd have "beat the shit" out of my client. Client had a CPL, and pulled our his gun. "Victim" then runs to his truck and calls 9-1-1: man with a gun. LEOs charge client with felony assault. After the "victim's" testimony at exam, prosecutor offered client misdemeanor assault. Client took the deal, even though it meant that client lost pistol and CPL.

And what does that say about our legal system and the people who supposedly the ones who are charged with "protecting and serving" the public..

I know you're a good man Jim.. I've read enough on here to know that.. but people shouldn't have to live in fear of the legal system and/or the people who supposed to be serving the public.. This case and your example are good examples of how far the country has sank..

Given the current political climate.. I wonder how much longer it's going to be that you're going to have to be defending peoples rights in the "eyes of the law".. and it's only going to be a matter of "you're a criminal if you have any firearm/weapon"..

[dougwg]

Jim, with all do respect you are just casting aspersions.

The ONLY reason this all happened was because he wore a IWB.

If he had wore his sidearm outside the pants this would have never happened.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Open Carry was not the issue here. Partially concealing the gun by wearing it IWB (inside the waistband) was the true issue.

Remember I have the direct quote from the Judge of him stating and agreeing that Open Carry is LEGAL and "and if thats the case then he shouldn't even be here!".

[dougwg]

I understand that you (Jim) are just trying to protect people and I do appreciate that.

[esq_stu]

I'm with Jim on this.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, whether concealed or open. One responsibility is to oneself and one's family, by not taking risks that are uncalculated. That means learning as much as possible about both what the law allows and what society allows.

Each person has to have that knowledge in order to weigh the risks and benefits of open carry (or anything else) for that matter. When we're talking about something with a gray area and risk of prosecution if a prosecutor sees it differently, how do you even do that balancing? In this thread, nobody could say for certain whether IWB was legally considered concealed or not. The defendant may have thought it was a no-brainer. But the prosecutor and the police thought otherwise.

I'm not casting aspersions on this. I'm just saying that one has to do that balancing of risks and benefits.

When the risks are great (criminal penalties, loss or rights, legal costs, and not really for sure knowing whether something's legal or not), and the benefits are slight (the benefit of IWB vs OWB escapes me if there's no intent to conceal), then it's not worth it.

That's why I have not yet seen fit to open carry. I'm sure a time will come that I will consider it. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Venator12]

I guess I'm glad the founding fathers didn't feel that way or we would have a Queen as our ruler. Everybody bow down.

[Jim Simmons]

A queen?

[lead]

I'm with Jim on this.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, whether concealed or open. One responsibility is to oneself and one's family, by not taking risks that are uncalculated. That means learning as much as possible about both what the law allows and what society allows.

Each person has to have that knowledge in order to weigh the risks and benefits of open carry (or anything else) for that matter. When we're talking about something with a gray area and risk of prosecution if a prosecutor sees it differently, how do you even do that balancing? In this thread, nobody could say for certain whether IWB was legally considered concealed or not. The defendant may have thought it was a no-brainer. But the prosecutor and the police thought otherwise.

I'm not casting aspersions on this. I'm just saying that one has to do that balancing of risks and benefits.

When the risks are great (criminal penalties, loss or rights, legal costs, and not really for sure knowing whether something's legal or not), and the benefits are slight (the benefit of IWB vs OWB escapes me if there's no intent to conceal), then it's not worth it.

That's why I have not yet seen fit to open carry. I'm sure a time will come that I will consider it. But it hasn't happened yet.

So... you're a criminal(with no victim)... until you become a victim.. and even then, you're still a criminal(gray area in the eyes of the law) provided you decide to actually defend yourself or even have the ability to do so.. or atleast you're financially ruined, trying to prove you are/were the victim and not the criminal..

Hell of a country we've become.. When you have to weigh your "rights".. verses having "the eyes of the law" devistating your whole life, just for thier own "beliefs".. or political gains.. or job security.. (define what "is" actually "is"?)

Not trying to bash law enforcement here.. but any reasonable person has to look at this and be thinking "WTF!!"..

[dougwg]

I'm with Jim on this.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, whether concealed or open. One responsibility is to oneself and one's family, by not taking risks that are uncalculated. That means learning as much as possible about both what the law allows and what society allows.

Each person has to have that knowledge in order to weigh the risks and benefits of open carry (or anything else) for that matter. When we're talking about something with a gray area and risk of prosecution if a prosecutor sees it differently, how do you even do that balancing? In this thread, nobody could say for certain whether IWB was legally considered concealed or not. The defendant may have thought it was a no-brainer. But the prosecutor and the police thought otherwise.

I'm not casting aspersions on this. I'm just saying that one has to do that balancing of risks and benefits.

When the risks are great (criminal penalties, loss or rights, legal costs, and not really for sure knowing whether something's legal or not), and the benefits are slight (the benefit of IWB vs OWB escapes me if there's no intent to conceal), then it's not worth it.

That's why I have not yet seen fit to open carry. I'm sure a time will come that I will consider it. But it hasn't happened yet.

Yes, IWB is a huge gray area.

Which I already knew and have been and will continue telling people to not carry IWB without a CPL.

But you have grouped OC and IWB into the gray area which they are not.

Open Carry is legal and IS NOT a gray area.

[Jim Simmons]

Open Carry is legal and IS NOT a gray area.

No, but that road has more landmines than a Fallujah highway.

There are so many ways that an open carrier can get into trouble, especially if encountered by a hostile LEO. If the pistol's covered for the briefest moment, it's concealed. If the carrier doesn't have a CPL, that's a five year felony. Look what happened to IWB guy.

There are a significant number of CEZs. And no way to carry in a car or motorcycle.

Without a CPL, just about any mistake you make while OC'ing turns it into a five year felony. It's just not worth the risk.

[dougwg]

Jim I know exactly what happened to the "IWB guy", he's my nephew.
BTW: I NEVER encouraged him to OC. When I found out he was OCing, I told him not to carry IWB, he did it anyway.

There are a significant number of CEZs. And no way to carry in a car or motorcycle.

Without a CPL, just about any mistake you make while OC'ing turns it into a five year felony. It's just not worth the risk.

Which is why I always tell people they should apply for their CPL.

[Venator12]

No, but that road has more landmines than a Fallujah highway.

There are so many ways that an open carrier can get into trouble, especially if encountered by a hostile LEO. If the pistol's covered for the briefest moment, it's concealed. If the carrier doesn't have a CPL, that's a five year felony. Look what happened to IWB guy.

There are a significant number of CEZs. And no way to carry in a car or motorcycle.

Without a CPL, just about any mistake you make while OC'ing turns it into a five year felony. It's just not worth the risk.

If fear of arrest without a CPL is the reason not to OC then why not OC with a CPL if you want to? No risk with a CPL, right? By OCing once in awhile with a CPL you are bringing gun ownership and carrying out of the closet. All good things in my mind.

[karcent]

I'm going to be handing Mike Cox several pieces of paper listing grievances next Friday.

A. This little story
B. Hours for purchase permits and the waiting periods
C. All the damn gray areas in the law (motorcycle carry, bicycle carry, horse...)
D. The pitfalls in the new registration law.
E. Illegal ordinances
F. anything else?

You plan to do this at his fundraiser?
That's bad form.

[dougwg]

Well maybe you could show up and show me how to show good form.

Or don't you have the balls?

[Venator12]

You plan to do this at his fundraiser?
That's bad form.
He gets my money I get his ear, that's politics in nutshell. Bad form is him asking you to a private dinner and you do what you object to above. Fund raisers are fair game.

[Jim Simmons]

Karcent is right: a fundraiser is not the ideal place to expect to get access in exchange for your donations. It looks bad.

If you want to air your grievances, send them to him through channels. Don't trap him -- or worse, embarrass him -- in front of a bunch of other donors and supporters. Or worse, in front of the press.

[esq_stu]

But you have grouped OC and IWBYes I have. That's how I balance the risk/benefit for myself. YMMV. You are entitled. I've seen too many defendants get railroaded to think otherwise.

[dougwg]

Yes I have. That's how I balance the risk/benefit for myself. YMMV. You are entitled. I've seen too many defendants get railroaded to think otherwise.

Please list some pitfalls for a CPL holder carrying openly. Or how a CPL holder carrying openly maybe possibly be "railroaded".

[dougwg]

Karcent is right: a fundraiser is not the ideal place to expect to get access in exchange for your donations. It looks bad.

If you want to air your grievances, send them to him through channels. Don't trap him -- or worse, embarrass him -- in front of a bunch of other donors and supporters. Or worse, in front of the press.

This is not the place for this discussion.

[karcent]

Well maybe you could show up and show me how to show good form.

Or don't you have the balls?

It takes balls to attend a fundraiser?

You're not going to get anywhere by shoving a list of demands in a guys face at his fundraiser. He'll probably view that play as immature and boorish.

[dougwg]

It takes balls to attend a fundraiser?

You're not going to get anywhere by shoving a list of demands in a guys face at his fundraiser. He'll probably view that play as immature and boorish.

Why the hell would you think that I would do that? Believe it or not I do have tact.

That's like me asking you why you would beat up old ladies as I find that criminal.

Don't change the subject.

And where is the list of pitfalls that can be used to railroad someone with a CPL that is OCing. As the old saying goes, "Back it up or...."

[MikeSessa]

Tact. Nobody should be disrespectful. You introduce yourself compliment the AG on his positions and stands, maybe you tell him your interests are in the NFA realm, you support him and thank him on the mg opinion and you hope to one day own a suppressor.

That's it. It's a social thing at a fundraiser for the man. You are there to support the man AG Mike Cox because he supports you. Our presence is welcome - we better not have anybody trying to be argumentative - that would be disrespectful and would damage our cause.

If you're talking to Mike one on one in a bit of chit chat you could very briefly mention a problem you see with gun law as long as you're not drawing it out and as long as you're not holding up others. Mike will make the rounds around the room and stop by our group to chat. He knows we're gun guys - his staff knows we're gun guys. We have a rapport with the AG and many of his staff.

I'll also add that yours truly - meaning the guys that repeatedly turn out for these things already have established and built a reputation with Mike. Turning out to support the man over and over again builds trust. We are not there to buy access rather to reinforce our standing and to build our support group - the greater online gun owner in order to advance our causes. If Mike respects that then that's great and we are respected.

We have a well respected reputation with the AG and his staff.

Why you guys are talking about balls going to a fundraiser is beyond me. I do think that Doug is simply trying to get guys involved and maybe stepping on some toes in the process.

Ahh - reading back a bit - Doug if you want to get a package to the AG on problem gun laws then we can do that through a staffer as long as none of the communication is hostile! Not that I'm going to want to censor you. It is the way it's presented. If it's professional - I think we can get it to where it needs to go.

[dougwg]

Mike,

Thank you for the clarification.

It was NEVER my intention to be argumentative at all. What some of us have done is put together a small list of issues on paper for Mike Cox to review at his leisure. I'm perfectly ok with giving it to one of Mike's staffers. I would also like for you to look it over as I respect your opinion and would like your thoughts on it. I'm fully aware that hostility will get us nowhere. Please don't assume that of me. I'm aware and feel that we are basically riding on your band wagon(NFA guys from arfcom) and will act accordingly.

Again, thank you and see you there! I wish more would attend.

[MikeSessa]

Don't sweat it Doug.

Mike is a pretty easy going guy once you get to know him. As for riding our coattails like I said before - there's lots of various interests and sub cultures within the greater 2A community. We are a very diverse group especially so in Michigan. People get active then they might take a break and pass the torch and so on. Lot's of guys are taking a break - many are still active in the background. I appreciate your activism.

I've got a picture of MadMatthew and his buddy - a kind of photo greeting card wishing Mike a Happy St. Pat's Day with a picture of them standing in front of their helo to give a copy to Mike and to get the other autographed. I also have a hard copy of something else to give to his staffer on gun issues - so I'm sure we'll package it all up.

[Doat]

Original charge was BS, 2-Felonies: CCW on person and in vehicle.

This was a screwed case from the start. This person did everything he could to be lawful. I really like the charge of CCW in a vehicle, when he transported the handgun unloaded in a case following the law to the letter. It was so clear that even the prosecutor instructed the LEO to return the gun to the person and let him transport it the same way home he did to get where he was. They decide to charge him four weeks later.

knowing the case was week, the prosecutor offered a reduced charge, god forbid they should admit to a mistake and drop the charges, but you have to add those convictions to your belt, looks good at re-election time. Another gun of the street, don't chay know. But threatened with 2-5 year felonies and a growing legal bill the person accepted the lesser charge.

Info below from Dougwg:

Plead to Disorderly Person
2 years probation
3 years disqualified for CPL
Has to turn in the gun for destruction
Community service
Can't own any guns(has to sell everything he's got)for 2 years
He can't even be around anyone with a gun.
$6500 lawyer fees

"And justice for all."
Why do you think the average joe on the street ops to taking it the ass? Our tut tut tut a nation with the rule of law. Law is for the wealtlhy otherwise shut up and take!
Nothing and I repeat Nothing fires me up more than our legal system.

[dpgperftest]

Tact. Nobody should be disrespectful. You introduce yourself compliment the AG on his positions and stands, maybe you tell him your interests are in the NFA realm, you support him and thank him on the mg opinion and you hope to one day own a suppressor.

That's it. It's a social thing at a fundraiser for the man. You are there to support the man AG Mike Cox because he supports you. Our presence is welcome - we better not have anybody trying to be argumentative - that would be disrespectful and would damage our cause.

If you're talking to Mike one on one in a bit of chit chat you could very briefly mention a problem you see with gun law as long as you're not drawing it out and as long as you're not holding up others. Mike will make the rounds around the room and stop by our group to chat. He knows we're gun guys - his staff knows we're gun guys. We have a rapport with the AG and many of his staff.

I'll also add that yours truly - meaning the guys that repeatedly turn out for these things already have established and built a reputation with Mike. Turning out to support the man over and over again builds trust. We are not there to buy access rather to reinforce our standing and to build our support group - the greater online gun owner in order to advance our causes. If Mike respects that then that's great and we are respected.

We have a well respected reputation with the AG and his staff.

Why you guys are talking about balls going to a fundraiser is beyond me. I do think that Doug is simply trying to get guys involved and maybe stepping on some toes in the process.

Ahh - reading back a bit - Doug if you want to get a package to the AG on problem gun laws then we can do that through a staffer as long as none of the communication is hostile! Not that I'm going to want to censor you. It is the way it's presented. If it's professional - I think we can get it to where it needs to go.


This will keep happening Intel hundreds of people write letter and protest for action but in to days world no one will it the me me me I I I me me me it doesn’t affecte me people.

[Venator12]

Well here is a photo of the Mike Cox party. Doug and I are on the left. I found out one thing Mike doesn't like to be picked up and have his head rubbed. Oh I'm kidding..he does. No really, it all went well, MOC handed a short packet on some firearm issues to Mike's staff, hopefully he reads it. I also gave Mike a guns saves lives button and I gave one to all at our table. Some are wearing them in the photo.

[Done Deal]

Doug and I are on the left.


Who is the goofy looking one?

[Venator12]

Who is the goofy looking one?
You will have to be more specific as there are more than one goofy looking one in the photo.:smile: Doug is far left and I'm on his left and then there are the goofy looking ones.

[pgaplayerless]

You will have to be more specific as there are more than one goofy looking one in the photo.:smile: Doug is far left and I'm on his left and then there are the goofy looking ones.

What Doug is far leftie?!?! No way! :lol::silly: