Question on laws pertaining to under 21

[CV67PAT]

Many of us have taken the risks in order that others may follow in relative safety.

To discourage someone from participating in a lawful activity to provide safety for themselves and their loved ones is elitist.

Again, open carry is the only way that an 18 - 21 year old can lawfully possess a loaded pistol.

Words used in statutes carry specific meanings. Knowing them is what prevents being caught in a situation that will cause problems.

I have simply pointed out that the two terms, possess and transport, are used in different statutes to define different activities.

[yance]

Well I OC whenever possible.  Now for the purpose that he said, just driving around with it locked in his trunk he might as well leave it at home because it will serve the same purpose.  If he wants to go out and OC, then by all means get out and OC, he just needs to make sure hes aware of the laws such as 750.234d.  Because even in his trunk he has a very good potential of getting hit for possession if it comes into play during a stop.  Just as you are in possession of the vehicle you are in possession of the contents of the vehicle. 

and I'll make you a deal, I'll come out from under my rock if you get off your pedestal.    

Then maybe we can go OC together.

[CV67PAT]

Again, the statutes do not use the terms possession and transportation interchangeably. In fact in MCL 28.422 states:

"... a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol..."

750.234d specifies possession. Doesn't mention transportation.

Trolls don't reside on pedestals. 

[yance]

well since we can all agree that courts use definitions of words I'll throw this at you.

Definition of POSSESSION
1a : the act of having or taking into control b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership

oh and... from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constructive+Possession

Constructive Possession

Constructive possession is a legal theory used to extend possession to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it (United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177 [11th Cir. 1996]).

Therefore yes...I would say you can be in violation of 750.234d by having "contructive possession" as defined above if the firearm is in the trunk of the vehicle and you are aware it is there while on the premesis of an entity described in 750.234d.  I wouldnt put it past a prosecutor to go for it either. 

Your argument to that?

 

[CV67PAT]

Wrong laws.

This is a discussion of firearm statutes of Michigan.

[yance]

I'm sorry that said united states v derose...doesnt federal law trump state law???

and nothing in there was a law other than michigan laws.  it was a legal definition which would apply to the possession of a firearm that is located in the trunk of a vehicle which you know is there.  Dont people, including yourself, say once its used in court its pretty much how it is.  It appears as though there is a court case attached to that in which it was quoted from. 

So, yes..you can be in possession of a firearm as described in the definition of constructive possession even if it is in your trunk because you know it is there and you can have access to it and the ability to take immediate possession.  and since 750.234d states "shall not possess," by having constructive possession you are in fact in possession of the firearm. 

Now in an attempt to not see this young mans CPL rights be taken away, its important he be aware of possibilities such as this that could cause him to lose his ability to obtain a CPL for several years because he wanted to store it in his trunk while he drove around taking care of business and stopped in the wrong parking lot.

[CV67PAT]

Constructive possession is a legal theory.

[yance]

one that has been used in a court case.

also it is held as a definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constructive+possession

Noun 1. constructive possession - (law) having the power and intention to have and control property but without direct control or actual presence upon it

I have found a few other sites that cite that same definition and it being as a noun.  So its less of a theory than it is a means to describe a way a person can be in possession of an item without having direct possession of it, such as on their person.  So by definition, as stated above, by having it in the trunk you are in possession of it because you have the power and can hold the intention to have and control the property even though you are not in direct control of it at any given time.

[TheQ]

30-Luv

[CV67PAT]

You win. I bow down to you. I can't debate your kind of logic.

[yance]

we can still be friends

[CV67PAT]

Why? Trolls don't want friends.   

ETA: smiley

[yance]

I still accept you 

[Bronson]

As I understand it, constructive possession is one reason people go with a NFA trust for machine guns and silencers.  Without a trust only the named owner may be in possession of the NFA item.  If you are the named owner and your NFA item is in the safe that your wife knows the combo. to then she also has constructive possession of the NFA items.

Same thing with a spouse that has a felony.  While they may not possess a firearm that doesn't prevent their non-felon spouse from owning one but it must be stored in a manner that prevents the felon from having access to it or they will be in constructive possession.

So as far as the law is concerned you don't actually have to be holding the item to possess it.  You just have to be able to access the item.

Bronson

[CV67PAT]

By this logic then, a non-CPL holder is in possession of a loaded pistol when a CPL holder enters the car. Therefore they should never ride in a car with a CPL holder that has a loaded gun in there.

I hardly think that the legislature had intended this when the statutes were written. Especially when the statutes uses the terms "possess" and "transport" separately, specifically, and not interchangeably.

But what do I know? You guys seem to know a whole lot more about the law. I'm just a trigger happy psychopath.

[Bronson]

Oops, I should have clarified in my previous post that in both of those situations the allowed party is not present at the time.

NFA named spouse is not home + non-NFA spouse is home and has combo to the safe = constructive possession.

CPL holder leaves car with loaded pistol locked in safe under the seat + non-CPL holder in the car with knowledge of the gun & the keys to the underseat safe dangling from the ignition = constructive possession.

Again, just how I understand it.

Bronson

[CV67PAT]

That I agree with.

[yance]

According to the definitions I found it seems like if you have the ability to take control of it, and you know and can have the intention of taking control of it, then you are in "contructive possession" of it.  It seems like its possession of something, without physical possession of something, like having it in your pocket. 

So from my understanding Bronson your follow up post would be a correct example of constructive possession.

This turned into a pretty informative thread.

[CV67PAT]

According to the definitions I found it seems like if you have the ability to take control of it, and you know and can have the intention of taking control of it, then you are in "contructive possession" of it.  It seems like its possession of something, without physical possession of something, like having it in your pocket. 

So from my understanding Bronson your follow up post would be a correct example of constructive possession.

This turned into a pretty informative thread.

Explain why, as you understand it, the legislature chose to use the terms "possess" and "transport" and "carry" separately, specifically, and not interchangeably in enacting the Michigan firearm statutes.

[northofnowhere]

Hey guys, I've got a question I was hoping someone might be able to help with.

I've done some research on Michigan's gun laws, and as I understand it, an 18 yr. old can legally own a handgun if the gun is transferred to the individual by another individual, such as a family member, rather than being bought from a dealer.

As most of the research I've done suggests the above is true, my question is, would an 18 yr. old who legally owns a handgun only be allowed to transport the gun to and from a shooting range?

When I was looking at Michigan's laws, it almost looked like the only time such a person would be allowed transport the weapon would be if they were going directly to or from a shooting range.

Wondering if this is true, or if I was reading the law incorrectly?

Thanks everyone.

The op's question has been answered.  If you wish to begin a seperate conversation on another related topic, feel free.  I think we are at the thread hijack stage of the game and should stop to alleviate any confusions the origonal thread starter had.