Author Topic: First LEO encounter while OCing (Read 27068 times)

ocdetroit · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:39:47 AM »

+1 P. P. Carry On.

METL · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:33:40 PM »

Since I already have my gun in my hand while IHOCing, it can be tough for me to get to my wallet... I don't want to set my gun down and risk scratching it... so when the cops draw and train on me, I just try to shove it in my pocket the best I can.

bagz013 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2012, 12:15:51 PM »

I probably woulda handled it about the same way.

Good job.

Question, Did you have a audio recorder with you?

prospectpuppet · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2012, 06:40:41 PM »

Quote from: bagz013 on October 24, 2012, 12:15:51 PM

I probably woulda handled it about the same way.

Good job.

Question, Did you have a audio recorder with you?

I don't currently. It's crossed my mind a few times to pick one up but you know how life is...others become a higher priority.

bagz013 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2012, 11:29:07 AM »

Quote from: prospectpuppet on October 24, 2012, 06:40:41 PM

I don't currently. It's crossed my mind a few times to pick one up but you know how life is...others become a higher priority.

I understand but I would highly recommend getting one.

Even if its something as simple as an App on your phone(assuming you have smartphone) it is worth it.

grampajeep · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2012, 11:50:56 AM »

All joking aside, I just say to the officer that I am armed and I have a license to carry it. The word GUN is a red flag to leos, I think it is best not to use that word.

Gerry

Lapeer20m · « **Reply #26 on:** October 28, 2012, 05:54:42 PM »

the couple of times i've been stopped while driving, i say something like "I have a concealed pistol license and i am carrying" Both times the officers had no reaction when i disclosed.

Lapeer20m · « **Reply #27 on:** October 28, 2012, 06:01:53 PM »

I am happy to hear that you handled yourself well. I think you acted appropriately.

Here is some food for thought....

Did the officer have RAS to make a stop? If so, at what point?

ie: would it have been lawful to detain an individual for oc'ing a pistol while he got into a car?

How about detaining an individual for possessing the pistol on the premises of an establishment licensed by the liquor control commission?

or
how about detaining an individual who was in a public park simply to make sure that he is licensed to possess a pistol? After all, it is unlawful to possess a pistol anywhere in this state unless you have a license to do so, (or meet another exemption. )

wayne · « **Reply #28 on:** October 29, 2012, 05:40:51 AM »

I will probably get schooled here by the more experienced members, but #1 there is no such thing as OC when you enter a vehicle, at that point it become CC and individual would need CPL to be legal. Same goes for OC on site licensed under the liquor control act, must have CPL to OC, but generally parking lots are not considered to be part of the establishment.

No, a person could not legally be detained for carrying a pistol on state land. You are not required to have a license to OC, other than that the weapon must be registered to you and you must have obtained a purchase permit to acquire it. Simply carrying a weapon would not give LEO PC to stop you. They might approach and attempt to interview you, in such circumstance you are under no obligation to talk to them and you should simply ask if you are being detained or if you are free to go. If they do not tell you that you are detained, it is best to not speak to them any further and leave / go on about your business. Check out the video why you should never speak to the LEO.

TheQ · « **Reply #29 on:** October 29, 2012, 07:53:35 AM »

Actually carry in a vehicle while "OC" is best legally described as "carried otherwise" (see MCL 750.227). Yes, it's illegal (felony) w/o a CPL.

By the way, what's in what thread can he find a link to that video you mentioned?

Hammurabi · « **Reply #30 on:** October 29, 2012, 10:40:49 AM »

Seeing unconcealed carry in a vehicle described as 'concealed carry' bothers me more than it probably should, especially coming from 'experts.' The penalties may be the same, and unlicensed concealed carry may be addressed in the same code section as unlicensed vehicular carry, but "concealed or otherwise" shows that legislation recognizes that not all vehicular carry is concealed.

I'd like to see vehicular carry opened up, but that will be no mean feat when so many people equate it with concealed carry.
That said, I do understand why some people tend to just lump the two together and call it all concealed.

As for there being no license to carry openly, there is no requirement to carry a license beyond 30 days after the purchase.
MCL 28.422:

Quote

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.
...
The licensee may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the license. However, the person is not required to have the license in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period.

The license is required, they can perform a query by serial number, and stopping just to check for a license is apparently acceptable. Why would they not have grounds to stop a person to run the pistol's serial, and confirm that a license was obtained, or to stop and confirm an exemption from licensure?

gryphon · « **Reply #31 on:** October 29, 2012, 10:54:58 AM »

Even though registration is law, I would say there is no RAS to suspect the OCer is committing a crime.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2012, 11:18:04 AM »

Quote from: Hammurabi on October 29, 2012, 10:40:49 AM

Seeing unconcealed carry in a vehicle described as 'concealed carry' bothers me more than it probably should, especially coming from 'experts.' The penalties may be the same, and unlicensed concealed carry may be addressed in the same code section as unlicensed vehicular carry, but "concealed or otherwise" shows that legislation recognizes that not all vehicular carry is concealed.

I'd like to see vehicular carry opened up, but that will be no mean feat when so many people equate it with concealed carry.
That said, I do understand why some people tend to just lump the two together and call it all concealed.

As for there being no license to carry openly, there is no requirement to carry a license beyond 30 days after the purchase.
MCL 28.422:
The license is required, they can perform a query by serial number, and stopping just to check for a license is apparently acceptable. Why would they not have grounds to stop a person to run the pistol's serial, and confirm that a license was obtained, or to stop and confirm an exemption from licensure?

You are right. Not all vehicular possession of a firearm is carrying. Readily accessible is also "otherwise."

scot623 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2012, 04:12:24 PM »

I agree with the OP and his approach here. I too wouldn't have disclosed until I was in the car and officially approached by the officer. Only then would I comply with the lawful request of producing my ID and CPL while carrying in a manner which required disclosure.

prospectpuppet · « **Reply #34 on:** November 01, 2012, 12:03:14 AM »

I'm sure you all are already aware but concerning being stopped by an LEO based solely on OC, here's a reminder: per MSP legal update #86: "...officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol."

Also...

"Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation." I didn't have to say anything until I entered the vehicle (even if he approached me and started questioning me before I got into the car). At the point I entered the vehicle, he got his PC because it's illegal for me to do such a thing without a license. However, he can't stop me and check my weapon just because of OC. And he didn't. He waited until I entered the vehicle....he knew his place and as far as I see, he didn't cross any lines. Carry on y'all.

Hammurabi · « **Reply #35 on:** November 02, 2012, 08:38:00 AM »

If I'm not horribly mistaken, carrying a pistol in a car without the appropriate paperwork in order would be a violation of Michigan Penal Code, rather than Michigan Vehicle Code, so there's no duty to identify per that.
The police are barred from stopping to verify registration, because there is no reason to believe that a pistol is unregistered. Likewise, with no reason to suspect that you had entered the vehicle without a CPL, he should have not approached.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that the encounter was not more severe, but I don't think approaching and making unofficial quasi-stops because a person "could be" committing a (victimless)crime should be praised.

prospectpuppet · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2012, 09:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Hammurabi on November 02, 2012, 08:38:00 AM

If I'm not horribly mistaken, carrying a pistol in a car without the appropriate paperwork in order would be a violation of Michigan Penal Code, rather than Michigan Vehicle Code, so there's no duty to identify per that.
The police are barred from stopping to verify registration, because there is no reason to believe that a pistol is unregistered. Likewise, with no reason to suspect that you had entered the vehicle without a CPL, he should have not approached.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that the encounter was not more severe, but I don't think approaching and making unofficial quasi-stops because a person "could be" committing a (victimless)crime should be praised.

I certainly agree. I wouldn't put him up or an "officer of the year" award or anything but he was by no means harassing me. I was totally ok with it and I understood. He handled it better than I expected. Although he had no LEGAL ground to stop me, I think there's something to be said about his morals. I'm a criminal justice student at a local college. I'm almost done with my degree and I'll be starting the academy next fall and with any luck, I'll be in uniform this time in two years. Keeping that in mind, I also strongly support our second amendment rights and I open carry more than I conceal...and I never leave home without a gun (or two). I've put myself in that position mentally and to be totally honest, I'd probably strike up a conversation with someone openly carrying too. I wouldn't attempt to illegally detain them but if they'll talk with me so I feel a little more confident that they know the laws and know what they're doing, awesome. It's a police officers job to keep guns away from criminals (in theory) and the way I see it, he politely did his job. If he didn't talk to me, who would? They don't know if I'm a second amendment supporter or a dude who is about to go shoot up a bunch of cars on 96 for example. But I have nothing to hide and I think after our brief encounter with each other he realized that and quickly ended it. I'm not going to sit here and complain. Nor will I call the department and recommend him for promotion. He simply fulfilled his moral obligation to do his best to keep his beat safe while he has that badge on. You can't blame him really. I'd rather the police be curious about it to make sure we're on our toes than to have them do nothing at all. When they become complacent, the criminal will start to open carry because the cops "don't seem to care". Then what? We don't know who's good and who's bad anymore right?

gryphon · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2012, 09:39:28 PM »

Quote from: prospectpuppet on November 04, 2012, 09:27:20 PM

the criminal will start to open carry because the cops "don't seem to care".

I don't know that I agree with that. Criminals will always want to keep their deeds in the dark. It's the nature of evil and criminal intent.

CV67PAT · « **Reply #38 on:** November 04, 2012, 09:55:44 PM »

Quote from: gryphon on November 04, 2012, 09:39:28 PM

I don't know that I agree with that. Criminals will always want to keep their deeds in the dark. It's the nature of evil and criminal intent.

I have to agree with that. Evil likes the darkness.

prospectpuppet · « **Reply #39 on:** November 04, 2012, 10:07:09 PM »

Currently, yes. But you don't think that if it came to the point where there were more people in this country OCing than not and where LEOs paid no attention to it that some of those carriers wouldn't be legal? If the majority carried openly, a criminal who is doing the same thing is still "in the dark" right? He blends in. (Not that this is a realistic possibility. Its a possibility nonetheless)

News:

Author Topic: First LEO encounter while OCing (Read 27068 times)