State police instructed to check CPL's

[lapeer20m]

using the logic of some folks, since every single handgun in michigan must be registered, then the entire state is an "exempted place". seeing a firearm must be RAS for a stop and ID and a seizure of pistol until registration can be verified.

This!

Either this is a stop and id state for anyone possessing a pistol anywhere, or it is not.

 

[Bronson]

If I was an attorney (I'm not) I would argue these points. I would also default to the safest position and show my CPL, UNLESS I had the means and support to take it to court.

This.

There seems to be an implication that those of us that feel that a visible pistol in a normally firearm free zone would be upheld by the lower courts as sufficient for RAS for a stop support that idea. We don't. We simply choose to accept that regardless of how we want it to be or how it should be, the reality of the situation is that until a higher court specifically tells the police they cannot stop OCers in a firearm free zone because the carrier might be legal they will continue to do so and they will continue to be backed up by their superiors.

Bronson

 

[WalkingWolf]

This.

There seems to be an implication that those of us that feel that a visible pistol in a normally firearm free zone would be upheld by the lower courts as sufficient for RAS for a stop support that idea. We don't. We simply choose to accept that regardless of how we want it to be or how it should be, the reality of the situation is that until a higher court specifically tells the police they cannot stop OCers in a firearm free zone because the carrier might be legal they will continue to do so and they will continue to be backed up by their superiors.

Bronson

(sigh) "might" anything does not equal RAS, or PC. Reasonable Articulate Suspicion of a crime, and the SCOTUS has ruled the mere presence of firearm is not RAS, unless it is illegal in all circumstances, such as Illinois. This would be the same as stopping a shopper with a bag because shoplifting is illegal.

 

[FreeInAZ]

This.

There seems to be an implication that those of us that feel that a visible pistol in a normally firearm free zone would be upheld by the lower courts as sufficient for RAS for a stop support that idea. We don't. We simply choose to accept that regardless of how we want it to be or how it should be, the reality of the situation is that until a higher court specifically tells the police they cannot stop OCers in a firearm free zone because the carrier might be legal they will continue to do so and they will continue to be backed up by their superiors.

Bronson

Thanks for the post Bronson. I think most of us agree that there's how it should be and how it really is. Maybe more of us will be motivated to get engaged and jump out from behind our keyboards and start making some racket in Lansing? We can only hope...

 

[WARCHILD]

You know, I truly regret starting this all over again. I merely wanted to notify that I had been told that the state police have been told to check for cpl's in these areas.
This claim by the officer has NOT been verified.
Reading between the lines of all the discussion, we basically agree on the RAS issue. And it still comes down to the bottom line;

The way we wish it was

The way it should be

THE WAY IT IS!

Unless of course you have the deep pockets to support your beliefs through the system.

 

[TheQ]

So did anyone call Maike or are we all just talking heads?

 

[WalkingWolf]

You know, I truly regret starting this all over again. I merely wanted to notify that I had been told that the state police have been told to check for cpl's in these areas.
This claim by the officer has NOT been verified.
Reading between the lines of all the discussion, we basically agree on the RAS issue. And it still comes down to the bottom line;

The way we wish it was

The way it should be

THE WAY IT IS!

Unless of course you have the deep pockets to support your beliefs through the system.

Take a trip over to the Ohio forum, check out the guy that was polite complied and see what happened to him.

 

[FreeInAZ]

So did anyone call Maike or are we all just talking heads?

Crickets...chirp...chirp...

 

[Mike]

The police cannot seize people just to see if they have a license, driver's, or gun. See Delaware v. Prause. Reasonmable suspicion of crime afoot is required before the police may seize you. See Terry v. Ohio.

 

[DrTodd]

So did anyone call Maike or are we all just talking heads?

I thought you say never to ask the police what the law is and yet... ok, just kidding.
I will just end my participation in this thread by stating:
1. A law is apparently being broken by possessing a pistol in one of the aforementioned zones. In Michigan, no law is apparently being broken by carrying one openly down the street. In the first, the fact of possession is obvious, in the second registration or, lack thereof, is not.
2. People act as if they are attorneys... they are not. The law states a specific behavior is illegal. To state that one would argue a particular point, or further stating that a case regarding automobiles somehow supports a possible defense to a gun charge could be read as practicing law. Not saying I haven't indulged myself at times; just a friendly warning that "they" protect their own. There is no case law in Michigan concerning this, so until there is, carrier beware.
3. As I have stated before, when we are dealing with an issue which has a potential to cause severe legal ramifications, being cautiously conservative is, imho, the best consideration when answering.
4. Bronson is correct that many here seem to be under the impression that we who argue the cautious side somehow support LEOs having unlimited ability to develop RAS in these zones. I can't speak for Bronson, but I would love for the "No RAS" to clearly be the case but... unless you are willing to test the issue, with a clearly knowledgeable legal defense team supported by almost unlimited funds, I would suggest showing the CPL. I'm not so much concerned that a loss would be costly to the individual, rather that a decision explicitly upholding RAS in this circumstance would be a huge setback for everyone here. Much like DC v Heller, the RIGHT case with the RIGHT defendant can make all the difference in the world.

 

[lapeer20m]

I thought you say never to ask the police what the law is and yet... ok, just kidding.
I will just end my participation in this thread by stating:
1. A law is apparently being broken by possessing a pistol in one of the aforementioned zones. In Michigan, no law is apparently being broken by carrying one openly down the street. In the first, the fact of possession is obvious, in the second registration or, lack thereof, is not.

Your assertion that there is no law being broken by possession a pistol while walking down the street appears to be incorrect....It is unlawful to possess, carry, purchase, or transport a pistol unless you meet an exception.



license to purchase....28.422 excerpt:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state.........

how is that different than this:

Sec. 234d.

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

or this:

750.237a

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who possesses a weapon in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:

I am not a lawyer. But my opinion is that either possessing a pistol anywhere in the State is RAS of a crime, or it is not.

furthermore, if the legislature intended for one to present ID and CPL upon request while possessing a firearm they would have created a requirement to do so. As it is, there is no law that requires a person to even possess ID or CPL in order to open carry in a CEZ.

I do, however, agree that the safest legal strategy is likely to provide CPL and ID upon request. In that same vein, it would be an even safer legal strategy to simply not carry a firearm.

 

[Venator]

I thought you say never to ask the police what the law is and yet... ok, just kidding.
I will just end my participation in this thread by stating:
1. A law is apparently being broken by possessing a pistol in one of the aforementioned zones. In Michigan, no law is apparently being broken by carrying one openly down the street. In the first, the fact of possession is obvious, in the second registration or, lack thereof, is not.
2. People act as if they are attorneys... they are not. The law states a specific behavior is illegal. To state that one would argue a particular point, or further stating that a case regarding automobiles somehow supports a possible defense to a gun charge could be read as practicing law. Not saying I haven't indulged myself at times; just a friendly warning that "they" protect their own. There is no case law in Michigan concerning this, so until there is, carrier beware.
3. As I have stated before, when we are dealing with an issue which has a potential to cause severe legal ramifications, being cautiously conservative is, imho, the best consideration when answering.
4. Bronson is correct that many here seem to be under the impression that we who argue the cautious side somehow support LEOs having unlimited ability to develop RAS in these zones. I can't speak for Bronson, but I would love for the "No RAS" to clearly be the case but... unless you are willing to test the issue, with a clearly knowledgeable legal defense team supported by almost unlimited funds, I would suggest showing the CPL. I'm not so much concerned that a loss would be costly to the individual, rather that a decision explicitly upholding RAS in this circumstance would be a huge setback for everyone here. Much like DC v Heller, the RIGHT case with the RIGHT defendant can make all the difference in the world.

Some are attorneys. Just saying. Mike that posted above you is I think.

 

[TheQ]

So did anyone call Maike or are we all just talking heads?

Anyone?

The premise of this thread is the MSP is training their ppl to.....


Maike is a big part of the training division.

I'll make this easy: (517) 241-1966

http::/www.state.mi.us/dit/directory.aspx

Someone call and find out if this is indeed their training procedure?