Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

[stainless1911]

Huh? You feeling okay? You can CC in Meijers if you have a cpl.

Looks like Concealing without a CPL, Unknown Intent.

From PDs post I thought he was CC. Im about to read the article.

 

[TheQ]

News Updates:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2012/04/man_arrested_after_allegedly_c.html

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...Police-arrest-man-who-brought-gun-into-Meijer

Looks like Concealing without a CPL, Unknown Intent.

The man is charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He is expected to be arraigned Monday in Lansing District Court.


CCW is a felony. Why is he being arraigned in District Court versus circuit?

 

[stainless1911]

Talk about some BS.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Most Likely a Violation of MCL 750.227 and MCL 750.234d.

Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any 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.

(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.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227

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

Sec. 234d.

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

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

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

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

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

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

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

(b) A peace officer.

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

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

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

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d

 

[PDinDetroit]

Talk about some BS.

Explain yourself, if you dare!

 

[PDinDetroit]

The man is charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He is expected to be arraigned Monday in Lansing District Court.


CCW is a felony. Why is he being arraigned in District Court versus circuit?

Possibly an Article Misquote?

 

[stainless1911]

You think that these laws are ok?

IMO they run afoul of the MI and the US constitutions, both of which recognize and allegedly "protect" a pre existing right to both keep and to bear arms.

 

[PDinDetroit]

You think that these laws are ok?

IMO they run afoul of the MI and the US constitutions, both of which recognize and allegedly "protect" a pre existing right to both keep and to bear arms.

I asked you to elaborate on your position, if you dare!

 

[stainless1911]

I did.

No one should have to get a permission slip to exercise their rights. They are going to ruin this guys life because of a security guard who didn't understand that he was exercising a right, despite the presence of a law that needs to be repealed because it/they are unconstitutional.

He will probably get a felony. If he lived in a different state in our free country, it wouldnt have even been a crime.

 

[ManInBlack]

I did.

No one should have to get a permission slip to exercise their rights. They are going to ruin this guys life because of a security guard who didn't understand that he was exercising a right, despite the presence of a law that needs to be repealed because it/they are unconstitutional.

He will probably get a felony. If he lived in a different state in our free country, it wouldnt have even been a crime.

Agreed.

As to PDinDetroit's argument about cops needing to make the arrest because they are "just following orders," I would point out that the Nuremberg Tribunal invalidated the premise that committing a crime because one was ordered to absolved him of guilt. In fact, the Tribunal sent several men to the gallows after they had mounted just such a defense...

 

[stainless1911]

Thank you

 

[PDinDetroit]

Agreed.

As to PDinDetroit's argument about cops needing to make the arrest because they are "just following orders," I would point out that the Nuremberg Tribunal invalidated the premise that committing a crime because one was ordered to absolved him of guilt. In fact, the Tribunal sent several men to the gallows after they had mounted just such a defense...

How long did it take for Godwin's Law to take effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Your comparison is invalid. Nice to see you again!

 

[stainless1911]

History repeats.

 

[ManInBlack]

How long did it take for Godwin's Law to take effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Your comparison is invalid. Nice to see you again!

The comparison is very much valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan

United States v. Keenan was a court case in the United States where the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." The soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity.

Nice try, though, troll. Care to ever have a reasoned debate, or do you prefer to employ only ad hominem attacks?

 

[PDinDetroit]

I did.

No one should have to get a permission slip to exercise their rights. They are going to ruin this guys life because of a security guard who didn't understand that he was exercising a right, despite the presence of a law that needs to be repealed because it/they are unconstitutional.

He will probably get a felony. If he lived in a different state in our free country, it wouldnt have even been a crime.

So, you have lost your "permission slip" for the next 8 years. Do you plan to do what this person did? You think the laws are BS then you should have no problem not following them like you are advocating others to do. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

 

[stainless1911]

Damned if I do, damned if I dont. People wonder why I do what I do.

 

[PDinDetroit]

The comparison is very much valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan

Nice try, though, troll. Care to ever have a reasoned debate, or do you prefer to employ only ad hominem attacks?

I encourage you to point out where I have engaged you specifically in this thread with ad hominem attacks.

If you honestly believe in staying away from ad hominem attacks, then you would not call others "trolls".

Comparing Nazi's Murdering Human Beings to Police Officers Arresting this Person for an Alleged Crime is an Invalid Comparison.

 

[stainless1911]

Nazis were just following orders, and enforcing laws too.

 

[ManInBlack]

Comparing Nazi's Murdering Human Beings to Police Officers Arresting this Person for an Alleged Crime is an Invalid Comparison.

What you fail to realize is that I am not comparing the acts. What I am pointing out is that US courts have repeatedly stated there is no duty to obey an unlawful order; in fact, there is a duty to refuse an unlawful order. One can, and people have, been punished for not doing so.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Damned if I do, damned if I dont. People wonder why I do what I do.

What I am doing with these posts Stainless, is to get you to contemplate your position here. No one here that I know of is happy with the state of the Firearm Laws in Michigan, let alone Federally. Advocating changes to the Laws is, IMO, what our goal should be and this matches the OCDO Founders Viewpoint of not advocating for Unlawful Action.

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules