new guy here where can i open carry?

[joe_robi]

where can i not open carry
gas station they sell beer?
hardware?
car, has to be locked up right?

[dougwg]

The answer is not a simple one.

Please read these two threads first. They will answer most of your questions.
Then if you still have questions I will be more than happy to try to answer them for you.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/17262.html

[Rugergirl]

Transporting a gun without a CPL, the gun must not be loaded and not be accesible by the vehicles occupants. Ammunition must be kept separate of the gun. Trunk is great is you have one.
As far as carrying you should be fine in the gas station, and the hardware unless the have a sign specifically stating No Guns Allowed.
This sign should be 11 x 14 inches with lettering at least 1 inch tall for them to be in compliance with MI law.

[joe_robi]

even when they sell alcohol

[dougwg]

Joe,

Please understand that sometimes these questions aren't easy. There is far to much info that you are leaving out.

Do you have a CPL?
Do you OWN the pistol? (over 18 y/o?)
Does the "gas station" sell alcohol?
Do you own the gas station?


I understand that you just want a simple answer but sometimes thats not possible.

The problem with this type of question is that you could give a bunch of parameters but leave out just 1 important one and the answer could change.

[joe_robi]

sry
no i dont have cpl
yes the pistols mine it would be illegal otherwise
yes im over 18
yes they sell alcohol
no its not my gas station

[Jim Simmons]

Transporting a gun without a CPL, the gun must not be loaded and not be accesible by the vehicles occupants. Ammunition must be kept separate of the gun. Trunk is great is you have one.
As far as carrying you should be fine in the gas station, and the hardware unless the have a sign specifically stating No Guns Allowed.
This sign should be 11 x 14 inches with lettering at least 1 inch tall for them to be in compliance with MI law.

Rugergirl: Where did you get the highlighted part?

To avoid trespass, the sign only has to be such that it places a reasonable person on notice that the owner prohbits guns (or weapons in general) from the premises.

[dougwg]

In that case I would say that it would be illegal for you to carry in that place.

If you do not have your CPL it is unlawful for you to carry in any place that sells alcohol (bar, party store, supermarket, applebee's)

[dougwg]

Rugergirl: Where did you get the highlighted part?

To avoid trespass, the sign only has to be such that it places a reasonable person on notice that the owner prohbits guns (or weapons in general) from the premises.

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

FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927
***** 28.425o.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 2009 *****



28.425o.amended Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.
Sec. 5o.

(1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.

(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.

(c) A sports arena or stadium.

(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.

(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.

(g) A hospital.

(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.

(2) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol in violation of R 432.1212 or a successor rule of the Michigan administrative code promulgated under the Michigan gaming control and revenue act, 1996 IL 1, MCL 432.201 to 432.226.

(3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1).

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An individual licensed under this act who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the law enforcement agency stating that the retired police officer or law enforcement officer retired in good standing.

(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.

(c) An individual who is licensed as a private investigator or private detective under the professional investigator licensure act, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 to 338.851.

(d) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department.

(e) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

(f) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a member of a sheriff's posse.

(g) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is an auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's department.

(h) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a parole or probation officer of the department of corrections.

(i) A state court judge or state court retired judge who is licensed under this act. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a state court retired judge to obtain and carry a letter from the judicial tenure commission stating that the state court retired judge is in good standing as authorized under section 30 of article VI of the state constitution of 1963, and rules promulgated under that section, in order to qualify under this subdivision.

(5) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the individual is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $500.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol suspended for 6 months.

(b) For a second violation, the individual is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.

(c) For a third or subsequent violation, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.

[joe_robi]

thanks i just read that on your link doug

so pretty much i can get out of my car unlock my gun, load it , put it no my side
and walk around town, and into the hardware, and a non alcohol selling resturant, or walk my dog?
i dont have much in my town so most are banks, churches, and almost everyone sells alcohol.
would this be a good conclusion?

[dougwg]

Pretty much.

[Rugergirl]

Rugergirl: Where did you get the highlighted part?

To avoid trespass, the sign only has to be such that it places a reasonable person on notice that the owner prohbits guns (or weapons in general) from the premises.

I know I've read it somewhere in the past few weeks, let me hunt for the source...

[esq_stu]

thanks i just read that on your link doug

so pretty much i can get out of my car unlock my gun, load it , put it no my side
and walk around town, and into the hardware, and a non alcohol selling resturant, or walk my dog?
i dont have much in my town so most are banks, churches, and almost everyone sells alcohol.
would this be a good conclusion?I did not look at the links, but consider this: there are links here that discuss whether open carry is a good idea. Read them.

There are people out there, including police, that freak out at the sight of an openly carried gun. Think it through and decide it is worth the hassel. Just because you have the right does not mean others actually know that you have the right. Some of those people may react very badly.

[dougwg]

I did not look at the links, but consider this: there are links here that discuss whether drinking from the white water fountain is a good idea. Read them.

There are people out there, including police, that freak out at the sight of a non-white drinking from the white water fountain. Think it through and decide it is worth the hassel. Just because you have the right does not mean others actually know that you have the right. Some of those people may react very badly.
:slap:

[esq_stu]

I did not look at the links, but consider this: there are links here that discuss whether drinking from the white water fountain is a good idea. Read them.

There are people out there, including police, that freak out at the sight of a non-white drinking from the white water fountain. Think it through and decide it is worth the hassel. Just because you have the right does not mean others actually know that you have the right. Some of those people may react very badly.
:slap::moon: :bash::poke:

[dougwg]

Now there is a great, well thought out, reasoned and logical response. :biggrin:

[joe_robi]

come on you guys take it outside

[dougwg]

We're just talkin. :)

[joe_robi]

it was a joke
you know ha ha lol
you guys were slaping each other and poking with sticks and hammers lol

[sarco001]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people wearing their guns "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend open carry just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....

[Rugergirl]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people wearing their guns "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend open carry just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....

Isn't that the truth! Common Sense is fast becoming rather uncommon.

[PhotoTom]

I know I've read it somewhere in the past few weeks, let me hunt for the source...

I'm betting you ran across this:
MCL 324.73102
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.73102 Entering or remaining on property of another; consent; exceptions.
Sec. 73102.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon the property of another person, other than farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property, to engage in any recreational activity or trapping on that property without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, if either of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The property is fenced or enclosed and is maintained in such a manner as to exclude intruders.
(b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaced to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property for any recreational activity or trapping without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, whether or not the farm property or wooded area connected to farm property is fenced, enclosed, or posted.
(3) On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction, including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the riparian owner.
(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.
(5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry.


Keep in mind, however, the above is DNR law and does not apply to a business posting their property "rules", as they relate to firearms, etc.

[Rugergirl]

That does look familar, but not the one I was thinking of. I haven't found it yet but I'll keep looking.

[Howard000003]

I did not look at the links, but consider this: there are links here that discuss whether drinking from the white water fountain is a good idea. Read them.

There are people out there, including police, that freak out at the sight of a non-white drinking from the white water fountain. Think it through and decide it is worth the hassel. Just because you have the right does not mean others actually know that you have the right. Some of those people may react very badly.
:slap:

Excellent point Doug -- Every person, be they white, black, or of any other ethnic origin, in fact had to decide if going against the status quo in the 50's and 60's was worth the hassle and the potential negative repercussions of those that believed segregation was right. I agree with your comment, all sarcasm aside. Each person who decides to OC needs to understand all the ramifications of their actions, despite the fact it is legal. A well-informed individual will react to any situation they encounter better. Great piece of advice Doug! :p

[dougwg]

Excellent point Doug -- Every person, be they white, black, or of any other ethnic origin, in fact had to decide if going against the status quo in the 50's and 60's was worth the hassle and the potential negative repercussions of those that believed segregation was right. I agree with your comment, all sarcasm aside. Each person who decides to OC needs to understand all the ramifications of their actions, despite the fact it is legal. A well-informed individual will react to any situation they encounter better. Great piece of advice Doug! :p

I tell people that they should know the law inside and out AND know how to react in a given situation BEFORE the start OC'ing.

When people ask, my first response is always "Yes, it's legal BUT you better know the law BEFORE trying it".

I think it's just as scary as some that get their CPL and forget most of what the class teaches them and are oblivious to all the pitfalls that weren't covered in the short class room time.

I mean look at all the discussions we have here on MGO about what is and is not legal while conceal carrying. Look at all the people that have been carrying concealed for years and many still didn't know that if they were a passenger in a car that was pulled over they must disclose that they have a CPL and are carrying.

I don't think there should be any "required" instruction for CC or OC for that matter. (shall not be infringed) But I DO think that it's the responsibility of EVERYONE to learn the law for themselves before they decide on either.

[Garbo]

Transporting a gun without a CPL, the gun must not be loaded and not be accesible by the vehicles occupants. Ammunition must be kept separate of the gun. Trunk is great is you have one.
As far as carrying you should be fine in the gas station, and the hardware unless the have a sign specifically stating No Guns Allowed.
This sign should be 11 x 14 inches with lettering at least 1 inch tall for them to be in compliance with MI law.

I'm pretty sure thats the Ohio law. Is that where you could be getting it from?

[Venator12]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people wearing their guns "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend open carry just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....

An intellectual look at "common sense".

On common sense: Randy Wayne White wrote in his novel Captiva “It is a character standard from folklore in which “good old common sense” is an essential bedrock ingredient. But too often “common sense” is a safe harbor of ignorance and an excuse for intellectual laziness. They don’t need the facts because they already know the truth—their common sense has spared them the effort of investigation or thought.

[SEMIEMT]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people saying what they think "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend speaking out just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....

I think it all comes down to use it or lose it. It's your right and it doesn't really matter what the "cops think" their job is not to think it's to enforce the law.

[TheGunMan]

I've heard it said both ways. Does anyone know does State law trump local law? There was a guy last fall open carrying in a park. The cops came and ran him off but the news dropped it issue at that point so don't know any more.

If there is a city law about no open carry, is it legal or does state law prevail?

[dougwg]

Yes, State law (Preemption) makes all local gun ordinances illegal.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-123-1102

[G22]

This only pertains to entertainment facilities, and is not required by law.

Originally Posted by Jim Simmons
Rugergirl: Where did you get the highlighted part?

To avoid trespass, the sign only has to be such that it places a reasonable person on notice that the owner prohbits guns (or weapons in general) from the premises.

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


FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927
***** 28.425o.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 2009 *****



28.425o.amended Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined; exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.
Sec. 5o.

(1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.

(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.

(c) A sports arena or stadium.

(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.

(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.

(g) A hospital.

(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.

(2) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol in violation of R 432.1212 or a successor rule of the Michigan administrative code promulgated under the Michigan gaming control and revenue act, 1996 IL 1, MCL 432.201 to 432.226.

(3) As used in subsection (1), "premises" does not include parking areas of the places identified under subsection (1).

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An individual licensed under this act who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the law enforcement agency stating that the retired police officer or law enforcement officer retired in good standing.

(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.

(c) An individual who is licensed as a private investigator or private detective under the professional investigator licensure act, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 to 338.851.

(d) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department.

(e) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.

(f) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a member of a sheriff's posse.

(g) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is an auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's department.

(h) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a parole or probation officer of the department of corrections.

(i) A state court judge or state court retired judge who is licensed under this act. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a state court retired judge to obtain and carry a letter from the judicial tenure commission stating that the state court retired judge is in good standing as authorized under section 30 of article VI of the state constitution of 1963, and rules promulgated under that section, in order to qualify under this subdivision.

(5) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the individual is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $500.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol suspended for 6 months.

(b) For a second violation, the individual is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.

(c) For a third or subsequent violation, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.

Originally Posted by Rugergirl
I know I've read it somewhere in the past few weeks, let me hunt for the source...

I'm betting you ran across this:
MCL 324.73102
Quote:
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.73102 Entering or remaining on property of another; consent; exceptions.
Sec. 73102.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon the property of another person, other than farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property, to engage in any recreational activity or trapping on that property without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, if either of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The property is fenced or enclosed and is maintained in such a manner as to exclude intruders.
(b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaced to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property for any recreational activity or trapping without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, whether or not the farm property or wooded area connected to farm property is fenced, enclosed, or posted.
(3) On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction, including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the riparian owner.
(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.
(5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry.

Keep in mind, however, the above is DNR law and does not apply to a business posting their property "rules", as they relate to firearms, etc.

As Tom has said this only applies to DNR law.

These are however the only 2 places in the Firearms Laws of Michigan that I was able to find anything about posting signs.

[joe_robi]

wow that's a lot of reading!!

[Jim Simmons]

That deals with concealed carry, and hunting. You won't find what you're looking for in firearms law. Trespass, in the Penal Code.

[DOUGHBOY RACING]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

[Talus]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.


:yeahthat:

Its just a question of how much effort are you willing to put forth to have that tactical advantage. Though, all of our fore fathers carried openly - and proudly.

[OpenSights]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people wearing their guns "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend open carry just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....

Lets say I owned a store or bank or whatever, I would rather have 30 customers, plus myself, carrying and one BG with a gun.

Wonder who would be the bravest? or if the question would even need be asked.

Life would be so simple if common sense was common.

[Venator12]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
We hear this myth all the time. While this is possible, it's more likely I will be hit by lightning, as there are thousands of cases of people being hit by lightning, but no examples of someone being shot for open carry other than police, security, and in the movies.

If you know of a documented case please post it.

[dougwg]

You better not go outside....you could slip on the ice... or get hit by lightning... or ride a bike or go swimming.

Come to think about it, you better stay out of the bathroom too. More people die in the bathroom then just about anywhere else.

Compared to those things, Open Carry is a VERY safe activity.

[langenc]

I have friends that are cops and they frown on people wearing their guns "just because they can".
The question is, "Why do you wish to do it?"
I would not recommend open carry just for the fun of it, it could be misunderstood as to be a threat to the public, and yes, someone will do something about it.

It all comes down to common sense. Some got it, some don't....


We are in terrible shape this ole US of A.

Cops dont know law or enforce what they think the law should be. What is selling alchol got to do with anything-really?? other than some yahoo thinks it is not a good idea to OC where alcohol is sold.

That is not much different than CCW in a place that sells mostly alcohol-cant be over 0.02, but cant carry in a bar-yuk.

[Leader]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

And the motion of you pulling your shirt out so you can dig in your pants somewhere MIGHT just get you shot where if you had open carried, you would have already had your gun out & shot the BG.

[Andy Drumm]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.


Wouldnt it be safe to say ,Bad things would be less likely to happen if all law abiding citizens open carried ??

Just a question ..

[Leader]

Figure it this way , if something happens it takes time to asses the situation and react, if you open carry you are going to be the first person someone takes out and you may never see it coming, if you carry concealed you may have time to take cover and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

Figure it this way... If you are open carrying, the BG is going to see that & move on to a place where he isn't going to meet armed resistance.
He already knows that there is no such thing as a one shot stop and doesn't want you to get a chance to shoot back if he misses.
Judging from the amount of places that are NOT robbed while someone is open carrying, and the amount of reports of people open carrying being shot, I think this is MUCH more likely.

[M&P Man]

Here in Saginaw I have a friend who is a Sheriffs Deputy and he told me to be prepared to be stopped by an officer if seen OC and with this post I think I am prepared now that I have more knowledge than I had before thanks guys and gals.


One side ???? can you open carry if your in a car or in my case on my Harley?

[joe_robi]

no

[Venator12]

Here in Saginaw I have a friend who is a Sheriffs Deputy and he told me to be prepared to be stopped by an officer if seen OC and with this post I think I am prepared now that I have more knowledge than I had before thanks guys and gals.


One side ???? can you open carry if your in a car or in my case on my Harley?
If you have a CPL yes to both. If no CPL no to both.

[tom-n8ies]

The new 2009 firearms laws are out link in the legal beagle section.

I wonder why the AG opinions on open carry by individuals was not included in the text?

The open carry opinions I have seen posted around here look very similar to
the opinions relating to reserve officers in the back of the firearms laws.

tom

[Venator12]

The new 2009 firearms laws are out link in the legal beagle section.

I wonder why the AG opinions on open carry by individuals was not included in the text?

The open carry opinions I have seen posted around here look very similar to
the opinions relating to reserve officers in the back of the firearms laws.

tom

If you read the AG opinions you will see that they apply to anyone that has a CPL. I'm not aware of any pure open carry opinions, as the activity is legal. The AG opinions are in regards to brandishing and open carry in a gun free zone. Summaries below.

BRANDISHING Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002: …In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions…..the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions…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…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. 7097 January 11, 2002… A person licensed by this state… to carry a concealed weapon….By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition “[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.” Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, including a private investigator, is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.

“Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan's pistol free zones.”
Sincerely, Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, (517) 336-6441

“…My office has contacted the Michigan State Police legislative liaison and has received some answers to share with you. According to the liaison, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are a licensed CPL holder. I was advised that your information was correct that MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity. I was informed that there was no other additional relevant laws regarding this matter…” Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District"

[boganz45]

Not saying I would do this or promote this but if you have a CPL you could open carry in a school?

[dougwg]

Yes

[tom-n8ies]

Thanks for the clarification.

Don't you just love AG opinions? Like the law years ago that allowed concealed carry if you had a license from another state?

tom

[Jim Simmons]

Not saying I would do this or promote this but if you have a CPL you could open carry in a school?

No.

[Kimberguy1371]

Originally Posted by boganz45
Not saying I would do this or promote this but if you have a CPL you could open carry in a school?

No.

Why not?

[joe_robi]

i pulled this of another thread here

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Deasy <DeasyT@michigan.gov>
To: ----------
Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:21 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: Contact MSP Webmaster (ContentID - 22600)


Mr. ----------,

Michigan pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders who are openly carrying
their pistol. However, schools are also federal firearms free zones. Although
the federal statute is partially driven by state law, we are not aware of any
court cases analyzing the interplay between Michigan and federal law as it
relates to school zones. So, our recommendation is that CPL holders avoid
carrying a pistol on school property.

Sincerely,



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


>>> MSP_Webmaster 3/24/2009 8:58 AM >>>
Following is an email received by the MSP_Webmaster.


>>> <ContactMSP@michigan.gov> 3/24/2009 1:47 AM >>>
f01name: ----------
f02address: ----------
f03city: ----------
f04state: MI
f05zip: ----------
f06phone: ----------
f07email: ----------
f07question: Hope you can help.

I'm a CPL holder. I was having a discussion with a few people and I was
informed that a non-law enforcement CPL holder can open-carry a pistol at a
school. I'm not sure this is factual and ask that you please clarify.

I was told MCL 28.425o and MCL 750-234d permit this activity and there are no
other additional relevant laws regarding this matter.

I was told the following was clarified by Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State
Police Executive Resource Section, who stated, "...Non-CPL pistol free zones do
not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders
carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol
in Michigan's pistol free zones."

I was also told Michael A Prusi, State Senator 38th District clarified it is
legal to openly carry a firearm in a "Pistol Free Zone" if you are a licensed
CPL holder.

[TAC]

Carry lots of cash for posting bail, and Jim Simmons phone number! ;)

[Venator12]

No.
Come on Jim support this No with some facts. You know it's legal to OC in a school with a CPL. You just don't believe it's a good idea.

One is a legal opinion without any laws cited and the other is a personal opinion that doesn't need a cite, just be sure you clarify which one you are giving.

[zigziggityzoo]

No.

Well that was a douchey response, 'scuse the language. An outright lie, too. From the legal moderator, who happens to have a law degree, and currently practices. Who also happens to have a CPL. Who also happens to carry.

[dougwg]

Well that was a douchey response, 'scuse the language. An outright lie, too. From the legal moderator, who happens to have a law degree, and currently practices. Who also happens to have a CPL. Who also happens to carry.

Yeah... doesn't seem too ethical to me....

[Jim Simmons]

No.

[Knimrod]

Personally, I respect the conservative approach here.

From my view as Administrator, many of these topics border on advocating or promoting activity which may be illegal as many revolve around legal gray areas.

I would ask that everyone respect the fact that there may be personal liability as well as liability for this organization when giving advice here. It's one thing to ask the question, it's another altogether to give an answer which may not be immediately reconcilable with the law and fly in the face of our long standing policy of not posting material which may violate any applicable laws.

I think Jim's answers reflect this concern appropriately.

[Leader]

It would be interesting to hear Jim reason for his answer.
As with every opinion expressed here, I will decide how much weight I give it.

[sport883xlc]

Interesting thread. I am of the camp that thinks we are at a apoint in time where one needs to consider the "a right not exercised is lost" viewpoint. I have always been extremely conservative in my approach to ownership, but lately I must admit that I have begun to gain a great distaste for having to stay conservative to the point where I am not exercising a right just avoid "the hassle". It seems as though the "hassel" is getting just a little more expansive every day lately...just my 2 cents

It matters not though I suppose, since I lost everything in that tragic boating accident last weekend...

:peace:

[lulethanh]

What about, can you carry on your property WITHOUT a CPL? And yes, of course the firearms legally registered to you. And would you get in trouble in the case that have to use it for defense?

[Venator12]

What about, can you carry on your property WITHOUT a CPL? And yes, of course the firearms legally registered to you. And would you get in trouble in the case that have to use it for defense?

You can carry concealed or open on your property without a CPL. You have the same right to self defense as the next person.

[lulethanh]

You can carry concealed or open on your property without a CPL. You have the same right to self defense as the next person.
And that is just for inside the house or the whole entire property (like garage, yard)?

[dougwg]

And that is just for inside the house or the whole entire property (like garage, yard)?

The whole thing as long as YOU own the land.

I don't thing it counts if it's your parents land....not sure.

[ghostrider]

And that is just for inside the house or the whole entire property (like garage, yard)?
Some time ago I asked this question for apartment dwellers. Jim Simmons basically told me that a person can only carry concealed in areas of sole ownership (or in this case the renter), but not the common areas. IOW, inside the apartment only, not in the parking lot or outside in the yard that is common to others who live in that complex.

If it's your own property, you can conceal or open carry. If you are not listed as the owner on the papers, then get permission from the person who is.

[joe_robi]

i asked this question a while back here check it out
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43627

[Venator12]

And that is just for inside the house or the whole entire property (like garage, yard)?
On any property that you own. If you own 500 acres and want to drive around CC or OC on YOUR land you can.

[vi3t1uv]

On any property that you own. If you own 500 acres and want to drive around CC or OC on YOUR land you can.
What about when you renting? Like apartment, mobile home park? You're just a resident there but do not own property, how is that work?

[Done Deal]

On any property that you own. If you own 500 acres and want to drive around CC or OC on YOUR land you can.

Just because people will want to have your source handy....please provide the language that permits you to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle without a CPL.

[Done Deal]

What about when you renting? Like apartment, mobile home park? You're just a resident there but do not own property, how is that work?

Only what is exclusively yours by contract. NOT common areas.

[dougwg]

Went to work and picked up my check. Taylor
Went to the credit union and deposited my payroll and got out some pocket money. Taylor
Returned a package of new born shirts to Baby's R Us (Think of the Children!)and picked up some formula (Enfamil). Taylor
Returned 2 bottles of Similac to Kmart. Garden City
Went to CVS and exchanged some diapers for smaller ones, bought some shampoo and pit spray. Westland
Blockbusters to drop off a movie. Westland
My favorite party store and picked up a 6 pack. Garden City

Not a word or a dirty look from anyone.

NOTHING HAPPENED just like always.

P.S. It's summer time again....screw concealing....

[bow7907]

Interesting thread. I am of the camp that thinks we are at a apoint in time where one needs to consider the "a right not exercised is lost" viewpoint. I have always been extremely conservative in my approach to ownership, but lately I must admit that I have begun to gain a great distaste for having to stay conservative to the point where I am not exercising a right just avoid "the hassle". It seems as though the "hassel" is getting just a little more expansive every day lately...just my 2 cents

It matters not though I suppose, since I lost everything in that tragic boating accident last weekend...

:peace:

Well put. I could not agree more!

[noscoupe]

im looking for some suggestions.i know when OC,you cant carry in the car(without CPL),but was looking for some ideas,its a pain in the a$$ to keep going to the back of my SUV to get the gun and put it away,just to go in a store for 5-10 min.or running place to place.i know for legal resaons ,these will only be suggestions.

[dougwg]

If it's that much of a PITA you could get your CPL.

There are NO OTHER ways around it.

[noscoupe]

If it's that much of a PITA you could get your CPL.

There are NO OTHER ways around it.
ok

[joe_robi]

...please provide the language that permits you to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle without a CPL.

police don't patrol my property so how will they pull me over???

[Done Deal]

police don't patrol my property so how will they pull me over???

I think that you oughtta wait for Venator to produce an exerpt of the law that permits carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle on private property without a CPL before you possibly go committing a felony. Your call of course.....

[SADAacp]

I think that you oughtta wait for Venator to produce an exerpt of the law that permits carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle on private property without a CPL before you possibly go committing a felony. Your call of course.....

That's not exactly what Venator said. McDonald's, K-mart, Wal-Mart, Meijers, etc, is private property and a non-CPL holder carrying inside his/her vehicle while on said private property would be in violation.

Now, what Venator did say is: "On any property that you own. If you own 500 acres and want to drive around CC or OC on YOUR land you can."

See the difference?

[sport883xlc]

All the legal arguements aside, if I were to discover that I am not legally allowed (I have a CPL, but let's say I didn't) to possess a loaded firearm in MY vehicle on MY own property...well, this just aint the country I thought it was. Not only does that seem to violate 2A, but a few others as well, namely 4A and 9A...

:twocents:

[Done Deal]

That's not exactly what Venator said. McDonald's, K-mart, Wal-Mart, Meijers, etc, is private property and a non-CPL holder carrying inside his/her vehicle while on said private property would be in violation.

Now, what Venator did say is: "On any property that you own. If you own 500 acres and want to drive around CC or OC on YOUR land you can."

See the difference?


But Joe wasn't talking about other property, he was talking about his property the same as Venator was.

So, I see no difference. Please enlighten me...

[Venator12]

I think that you oughtta wait for Venator to produce an exerpt of the law that permits carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle on private property without a CPL before you possibly go committing a felony. Your call of course.....
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

This seems to say that you can do the above prohibited activity, including in a vehicle if you can show the you fall under the exemption below it.

I have just sent an email to Sgt. Deasy of the MSP for his take on it and will post his response.

As always these are opinions and are not legal advice. Every person is free to do as he or she feels is right.

[who dat]

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

This seems to say that you can do the above prohibited activity, including in a vehicle if you can show the you fall under the exemption below it.

I have just sent an email to Sgt. Deasy of the MSP for his take on it and will post his response.

As always these are opinions and are not legal advice. Every person is free to do as he or she feels is right.
Seems pretty clear to me...

[sport883xlc]

So if I am operating my vehicle inside my house I am covered?

:laugh:

[Done Deal]

So if I am operating my vehicle inside my house I am covered?

:laugh:

seems pretty clear to me.....