• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Carrying an unregistered pistol

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
438
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
Please provide Michigan case law upholding registration of firearms, Section 28.422a, as constitutional.

I agree it’s not but never the less it is there and I don’t recommend being a test case. The question is about staying within the law as written, not the constitutionality of the law. If we were strictly talking Constitutionality I would be drilling some extra holes, there is not a single gun law on the books that is Constitutional. The question though is about staying legal within the law as written and what happens if a violation occurs.

Until we have case law correctly labeling it as unconstitutional we are stuck with it.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,986
Location
here nc
Welcome to the world of our resident troll, who will argue with himself if no one else is available.

KB always the provocateur with the childish elementary school taunts....

And here you are hurling them while providing absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion...

you might review merriam-webster's for a valid definition of the word 'troll'.

"a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content Internet trolls In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word "troll" to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities."

let's see now,
posting inflammatory, irrelevant or offensive comments - - check... yepper KB has and did!

intentionally disrupts - - check...yepper KB has and did!

ya know KB, it appears you shouldn't cast stones as M-W's definition fits your actions to a capital T as you again prove the adage - better be thought, as you previously posted where your legislative peer stated "how I was a F***** idiot.." then here you go and post to once again prove it!
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I agree it’s not but never the less it is there and I don’t recommend being a test case. The question is about staying within the law as written, not the constitutionality of the law. If we were strictly talking Constitutionality I would be drilling some extra holes, there is not a single gun law on the books that is Constitutional. The question though is about staying legal within the law as written and what happens if a violation occurs.

Until we have case law correctly labeling it as unconstitutional we are stuck with it.
You are a good example of why people and groups in all these different states spin their wheels and never get to first base.

How about reading People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012.
[H]eller stated that concealed weapons may be banned, but made no such statement regarding openly carried arms. Id. at 626-627, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Indeed, Heller cited with approval two state cases that struck down laws prohibiting the public carrying of handguns. Id. at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to "carry" as well as the right to "keep" arms. Likewise, the Michigan Constitution specifically allows citizens to "bear" arms for self-defense. We therefore conclude that a total prohibition of the open carrying of protected arms such as a Taser or stun gun is unconstitutional.
In other words, tasers and stun guns are lawful weapons under the Second Amendment and the open carrying of tasers and stun guns/ WEAPONS is constitutional under the federal and state constitution.

So, requiring a conceal carry license to open carry is unconstitutional.

Now your stupid legislators (eleven years later) are trying to pass a law making the carrying of tasers and stun guns illegal unless you have a CC license.

I am done screwing with this; Open carry in your state is perfectly legal without a license, and the state demanding you notify them that you are selling your personal property is also unconstitutional.

So, just keep on kissing governor Whitmer's buttocks. You all deserve her.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Additionally to the above; see Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) in regards to stun guns.
If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
 

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
438
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
You are a good example of why people and groups in all these different states spin their wheels and never get to first base.

How about reading People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012.

In other words, tasers and stun guns are lawful weapons under the Second Amendment and the open carrying of tasers and stun guns/ WEAPONS is constitutional under the federal and state constitution.

So, requiring a conceal carry license to open carry is unconstitutional.

Now your stupid legislators (eleven years later) are trying to pass a law making the carrying of tasers and stun guns illegal unless you have a CC license.

I am done screwing with this; Open carry in your state is perfectly legal without a license, and the state demanding you notify them that you are selling your personal property is also unconstitutional.

So, just keep on kissing governor Whitmer's buttocks. You all deserve her.

I wasn’t arguing any of that wasn’t true and never even mentioned it so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Open carry is legal. I never said it wasn’t.
Concealed carriers should not be required to conceal. I never said they should.
I also never said anything about tasers.
I never mentioned any of that.

Did you reply to the wrong thread?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,543
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I wasn’t arguing any of that wasn’t true and never even mentioned it so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Open carry is legal. I never said it wasn’t.
Concealed carriers should not be required to conceal. I never said they should.
I also never said anything about tasers.
I never mentioned any of that.

Did you reply to the wrong thread?
You just don't get it. A thumbs-up from KB shows his ignorance too.

To open carry you must register your firearm. That, in of itself, denies you a constitutional right. Michigan law makes it a crime if you don't register your firearm. That is a violation of your Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination.
Go read Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85 - Supreme Court 1968.
Make sure you read the footnotes.
 
Top