My problems with Lansing refusing to issue a Purchase Permit

[lil_freak_66]

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=99893

Our trade is pending,Lansing doesnt want to give me a purchase permit,they even told me i passed the background check,but they still want to do further research...if i dont get it by the middle of next week im getting my lawyer involved,that will have given them 3 weeks total for they're "research"

I also got my civil infraction for failure to turn in handgun registration dismissed,turns out that the ticket was never filed in,and my registration "just turned up"

[autosurgeon]

They are jerkin your ... well if I said what they are jerkin it would break the rules... but you get my drift!

Also I would ask for pictures and ask how it is a .380 when the Russians never made the Makarov in .380 and in order to change it the barrel would have to be pressed out?

[lil_freak_66]

Concerns noted.

I honestly dont care what it is as long as it is over .35 and goes boom every time i want it to,accuracy is another thing i need.

[autosurgeon]

Well if it is indeed a decent Makarov it will be accurate and I feel it is plenty good as a carry caliber. 2 of the three guns I was carrying on Saturday are chambered in 9mm Mak.

[lil_freak_66]

http://tristatetraderspost.finddiscussion.com/guns-only-f1/makarov-380-t115.htm

well is that a makarov?i havent done much research,i cant exactly pick and choose what handguns i acquire

[autosurgeon]

Ah it has the aftermarket Mak barrel that is no longer made. Just did some research and found that the importers did this back when there was little 9x18 available in the states!

You could convert it back if you wanted too...

Looks like a nice gun!

[lil_freak_66]

Around here,i see more .380 than 9x18 so i doubt i would switch.

Just to get Lansing to get me my permit now.

They are acting like they are may issue rather than shall issue,and i feel them making me wait for the reasons they have given me(needing "further research to look at some police reports") is unlawful,considering i passed the background check and have no disqualifying offenses pending.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

LPD & PP hold.

This is technically illegal see sec. 28 of the firearms law. BUT they wiggle around this with "made up law" like: "research" etc...officially they are supposed to enter a order of disposition into the LEIN system which automatically generates a flag & sets up a hearing with the MSP & the entering PD & you. Since they know they are breaking the law they "cheat" by using these never ending stall tactics. You may very well have to get a lawyer involved & that's what the (LPD) figure most people won't do because of the costs; they just give up and that's what the cops (some anyways) want, another "sheeple" to push around.

[lil_freak_66]

Hopefully i can get down there tomorrow morning before i go small game hunting, to demand my permit,or a written statement as to why i am being denied,and under what authority they are denying me,ill likely be recording video and audio as well.
Also have to drop off a damaged property claim form for the damage they did to my 10/22 awhile back.

Anyone care to go with me?

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Wish you were closer, sorry Tyler. If at all possible you want to take as many witnesses as possible & multiple cameras. You may want to wait until you get back from hunting so you can organize this. Just an idea here - several days before you go call the mayors office and tell them that you will be filming this encounter and you will be making the video available to the mayors opponent if the permit is denied, so they can use it to demonstrate how little control this mayor has over Lansing police & how could he be trusted with the armed forces of the entire state. I bet you have no issues getting your permit when you show up. Often in life timing is everything.

[lil_freak_66]

Im going to try nicely again in the morning,video recorder in hand.

If they dont give it to me,with a good,legal reason why i am being denird then i will organize something,everyone has to remember that the Lansing Police dept. HQ is a complete PFZ and cannot carry in there,but holsters are fine.

If they do anything badly in the morning,Ill get on the porcupine line so that there is a secure recording of anything that goes on.

[emt805]

Is a Police dept not public property? After all are we not the ones that pay their wages each week?

[TheQ]

Is a Police dept not public property? After all are we not the ones that pay their wages each week?

Downtown presinct is in a courthouse. No carry, period.

[emt805]

Is a Police dept not public property? After all are we not the ones that pay their wages each week?

Downtown presinct is in a courthouse. No carry, period.

How is a court house diff than any other place listed in Section 750.234d
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kh5ll2454vyluguhmcjqwrqj))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-234d

750.234d 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.


History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 218, Imd. Eff. Oct. 13, 1992 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 158, Eff. Aug. 15, 1994


Also stated here AG opinion
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10188.htm

[onnie0047@gmail.com]

Here is a exert from
FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN
Compiled by the Legislative Service Bureau
Pursuant to Act 381 of the Public Acts of 2000
March 2009
FOUND ON PAGE 243 of that document...

"An examination of the Michigan laws dealing with the possession of firearms discloses several additional instances where the prohibition of firearms is “otherwise provided by law.” Among these is 2001 PA 225, MCL 259.80f, effective April 1, 2002,which prohibits the possession of a firearm in the “sterile” (i.e., secure) area of a commercial airport. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Administrative Order 2001-3, 464 Mich 1xxv, has, with certain exceptions, prohibited the possession of a weapon in any courtroom or facility used for official business of the court. A person violating the order may be held in contempt of court."

I read this as ANY part of ANY courthouse or building can be made off limits for weapons if its used in any way for the official business of the court. 

now it also says "With Certain Exceptions" and I am sure that at best would be limited to police and the like.



I am no expert but it seems clear, taking a weapon into any building doing OFFICIAL COURT BUSINESS is going to get you in trouble!

[autosurgeon]

The reason a courthouse is Diff is BC the Supreme Court of MI made it different through an administrative order. It has nothing to do with the law cited as they went above the law and made their own judicial ruling. However they did give the local Chief Judge the ability to apply it or not as they see fit. Which is why we have Hillsdale county where you can carry everywhere in the courthouse except the courtrooms.

[emt805]

Here is a exert from
FIREARMS LAWS OF MICHIGAN
Compiled by the Legislative Service Bureau
Pursuant to Act 381 of the Public Acts of 2000
March 2009
FOUND ON PAGE 243 of that document...

"An examination of the Michigan laws dealing with the possession of firearms discloses several additional instances where the prohibition of firearms is “otherwise provided by law.” Among these is 2001 PA 225, MCL 259.80f, effective April 1, 2002,which prohibits the possession of a firearm in the “sterile” (i.e., secure) area of a commercial airport. In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Administrative Order 2001-3, 464 Mich 1xxv, has, with certain exceptions, prohibited the possession of a weapon in any courtroom or facility used for official business of the court. A person violating the order may be held in contempt of court."

Has anyone seen what those include? I am not able to find them.

I just read michigan firearm laws may 2006 and could not find anything that with a cpl you are not allowed to oc in a court, what am I missing?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/531895/Firearms

[onnie0047@gmail.com]

here is where i found it

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

[lil_freak_66]

Me and TheQ stopped in today to check on my permit "they are still working on it" refusing to give a time estimate,or a real reason why i am being denied/being held.
We were escorted out of the building and told not to come back to check on my permit,and that they will get ahold of me.

They also told me they would get ahold of me within 7 days...but that was 20 days ago.

(they basically told me to f*ck off in a nice way)

Recorded the conversation,but cannot figure out how to convert the files.

[TheQ]

We were escorted out of the building and told not to come back to check on my permit,and that they will get ahold of me.

"Don't call us, we'll call you", was the general feeling I got.

[autosurgeon]

Ok so now they have proven what I knew all along. They are just screwing with you BC you have questioned some of their action s in the past. I am afraid it will take an attorney to shake them loose.

This is one of the reasons registration was put in place to begin with so that the local yocals can discriminate at will

[TheQ]

Ok so now they have proven what I knew all along. They are just screwing with you BC you have questioned some of their action s in the past. I am afraid it will take an attorney to shake them loose.

This is one of the reasons registration was put in place to begin with so that the local yocals can discriminate at will

It was pretty bad.  They (the unit man and his boss) wouldn't let me in the conference room right outside the chief's office while they spoke with freak.  I should have been more assertive on this point.

When they left the room I asked: "When can he reasonably expect to hear back from you?"  They refused to even acknowledge me, saying: "We were speaking to him, are you an attorney?"

Is this a court room?  Do I have to be an attorney in order to participate (with the police) in a discussion about someone elses' rights?

[lil_freak_66]

We were in the conference room,it wasnt a court,and obviously not court related(yet,if they keep it up ill make it court related)

Is anyone interested in Attending the city council meetings?they are every monday.

[smellslikemichigan]

geez, this whole thing is ridiculous.  good luck. 

[Bronson]

If I remember correctly it has to do with the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government.  As it was explained to me the Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to dictate conduct within the purview of the Judicial branches bailiwick.  If you notice in the quoted Local Administrative Order (LAO) the penalty for disobeying is contmept of court, not a criminal charge of violating an MCL.

You can look up Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Orders here: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/other/lao.htm#spcf

Under the Required Local Administrative Orders heading you can click the second to the last link which is for Security Policies for Court Facilities LAO 15 to jump directly to the order....it's almost half-way down the page.

State Court Administrative Office
Model Local Administrative Order 15 - Security Policy for Court Facilities (Rev. 12/06)


[LOCAL COURT LETTERHEAD]


Administrative Order [Year] - [Number]

   
SECURITY POLICY FOR COURT FACILITIES


   This administrative order is issued in accordance with Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2001-1.  The purpose of this order is to address the presence of weapons in court facilities.

IT IS ORDERED:

   1.   No weapons are allowed in the (courthouse, courtroom, office, or space used for official court business or by judicial employees).  This prohibition does not apply to court security personnel or to uniformed or otherwise properly identified law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.  The chief judge may authorize additional exceptions in extraordinary circumstances..

   2.   All persons and their belongings (unless specifically excepted) and all parcels are subject to screening by (sheriff’s deputies, court officers, security personnel) for the purpose of preventing weapons and other prohibited or restricted items from entering the facility.

If at any time there is an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a weapon may be found, a person or object is subject to search.  The search shall be no more intrusive than necessary to protect against the dangers presented.

3.   Notice shall be posted that "No weapons are permitted in this (courthouse, courtroom, office, or space used for official court business or by judicial employees).  All persons and parcels are subject to a search for weapons and other prohibited or restricted items as a condition of entry.  Persons in violation of this order may be held in contempt of court.”

4.   Persons in violation of this order may be held in contempt of court.

Date: ____________________   ___________________________________    
                        CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

Date: ____________________   ___________________________________    
                        CHIEF PROBATE JUDGE

Date: ____________________   ___________________________________    
                        CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Bronson
 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Okay,

I'll try again. Tyler if you follow this advice, then call local media outlets, (which will in turn call Virg Bernero's office with questions). The threat of attention most likely get them to give it to you.

If at all possible you want to take as many witnesses as possible & multiple cameras. You may want to wait until you get back from hunting so you can organize this. Just an idea here - several days before you go call the mayors office and tell them that you will be filming this encounter and you will be making the video available to the mayors opponent if the permit is denied, so they can use it to demonstrate how little control this mayor has over Lansing police & how could he be trusted with the armed forces of the entire state. I bet you have no issues getting your permit when you show up. Often in life timing is everything. Virg is fighting tooth & nail to hang on to power! He won't risk getting a black eye in the media over this (piss-ant) issue. Trust me, if there's one thing I know it's how these ass-hat's think. You have nothing to lose & everything to gain.

[lil_freak_66]

Well who would like to help out?

They do purchase permits M-W 8-3,city hall meetings are Mondays at 7 or 7:30 i believe.

They called today(not even 5 minutes before this posting) saying they are still working on it,and asked alot of questions about my ruger 10/22...where it was obtained from,when it was modified to become a pistol,why i had it,where and how i sent the registration.
No questions about the new purchase permit,though he did say they are waiting for some information from another police agency before they can move forward,i personally think he is BS'ing,but thats what he said.

[CV67PAT]

I told you months ago that you had a problem with that gun. You didn't believe me then. Your problems with that gun are about to grow. I advised you back then to seek competent counsel. You blew me off. You have some very serious issues coming down the pike. There are other issues you have that I tried to raise on this forum, but was chastised by Jeff Sayers for doing so. I said it before, and I'll say it again, you have some very, very serious problems headed your way. You were a minor in possession of an unregistered pistol when the LPD roughed you up in your home. I told you that issue would come back to haunt you. Well there you go. WTF do I know? I'm just a troll.

[DetroitBiker]

Looks like the guy with the Makarov is not gonna wait http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1002498&postcount=12

[lil_freak_66]

Yeah i told him not to wait if he gets another offer,it could be awhile before i get a permit,if i get the purchase permit soon then i still have a chance at getting it,otherwise ill be picking up a different firearm.

and pat,your still a trouble maker,and know nothing of what is going on,this has nothing to do with me being in possession of an unregistered handgun,everything i own is lawful,and possessed in a lawful manner.
They are giving me trouble(at least this is mine,and quite a few others opinions) that i am being unlawfully harassed about the purchase permit because ive reported a few officers for various things,unlawful search and seizure,trespassing under color of authority,excessive force and a few other charges,which you dont need to know any details about other than it does not involve me in possesion unlawfully of any type of firearm.

I was called back after my original post,was told the reason they were asking is because they were not sure if my ruger was actually supposed to be considered a rifle,they originally thought i was trying to register a rifle as a pistol,after they checked with some other agencies i was called back and told it is indeed a pistol,as i had stated to them.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Well who would like to help out?

They do purchase permits M-W 8-3,city hall meetings are Mondays at 7 or 7:30 i believe.

They called today(not even 5 minutes before this posting) saying they are still working on it,and asked alot of questions about my ruger 10/22...where it was obtained from,when it was modified to become a pistol,why i had it,where and how i sent the registration.
No questions about the new purchase permit,though he did say they are waiting for some information from another police agency before they can move forward,i personally think he is BS'ing,but thats what he said.



I would seek the assistance of someone well versed in Section 28 of the firearms law such as Venator who is local to you. Let that person speak on camera for you. There are many on this & other forums who have supported you in the past I would suggest reaching out to them in PM's / Emails so you don't tip your hand to LPD too early. 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Also - I would limit my comments to LEO's, it sounds as if they are "fishing". Any info you give them [other than your purchase permit request] is undoubtedly being compiled to be used against you. If you are not a felon, or have some other "issue" that they are using as a grounds for denial & you have passed the written test & background checks then they MUST issue period! I know & they know that your resources are limited. This is why they are messing about with you. Follow the advise given in previous post. That should motivate them somewhat. Then (if you have not already) contact the MI. ACLU & the DOJ offices (Federal) in Detroit. Lansing PD is clearly targeting you (OC bias) which opens them up to litigation & Federal investigations.

PM me your contact info on OCDO & we can talk if you like. What I would also suggest is you put the original stock back on the 10/22 & re-register as a rifle for now; (I'll explain if we talk...I've got an idea I think you'll like).

[CV67PAT]

Once registered as a pistol... always a pistol in Michigan.

And he had the pistol stock on it when the LPD were in his house pushing him around and questioning him about OC. He even let the LPD walk around his house with the 10/22 pistol and put it in the bath tub. At this time he was a minor... 17 years old... and the 10/22 was NOT registered as a pistol in anyone's name. The LPD is fully aware of ALL of these facts. But I'm a trouble maker?

There are also questions of possible scofflaw status that has been raised before. This is also a bonafide reason to deny a permit to purchase.

The WHOLE story needs to be told. But it isn't in the interest of Little Freak to be honest, truthful. and forthright when attempting to rally support from MOC.

[lil_freak_66]

Again,Pat,you have no proof of any such claims,and if i was indeed committing acts you say that i have,do you not think they would have denied my first two permits,and brought up criminal charges on such things?

It was not until i took something to Internal Affairs attention that i started having any troubles with them issuing a permit.

Mostly i told them on the phone today was that the ruger was indeed acquired from a private person,the overall length,and that it is an aftermarket stock which causes it to fall between 26 and 30 inches,making it a pistol.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Okay we need to be clear on a few things. In the past (Tyler) you had mentioned that LPD never processed the original paperwork on the 10/22 correct? If so then it is still a rifle & you're ok to have it in your procession. If not can they provide proof of the 10/22 pistol registration with MSP? If not you're still ok. Just put the original stock on it & keep it that way until all the questions from them stop. For God's sake do not speak to them any further without the advice of an attorney.

[TheQ]

Okay we need to be clear on a few things. In the past (Tyler) you had mentioned that LPD never processed the original paperwork on the 10/22 correct? If so then it is still a rifle & you're ok to have it in your procession. If not can they provide proof of the 10/22 pistol registration with MSP? If not you're still ok. Just put the original stock on it & keep it that way until all the questions from them stop. For God's sake do not speak to them any further without the advice of an attorney.

+1 You have the right to remain silent.

[anetsprungen]

Pat,

It has become quite clear that for whatever reason, you don't trust Tyler.  That is your right.  But be mindful that you don't publicly chastise or humiliate him on this forum.  That is NOT your right.  Challenging the trust that MOC, Inc. has in his judgement is borderline.


Tyler,

You have multiple issues with the LPD.  Your relationship with them started when you were a minor.  They have become publicly embarassed by their ignorance, however they are unwilling to acknowledge that or apologize.  They are being extremely cautious, to a fault, but like has been said already, in the hope that you will drop it.


I agree with Glock9mmOldStyle's assessment and recommendation.  There are ways to deal with the bureaucracy.  But I think the 10/22 will be a thorn until it is resolved.  The interchangeability of parts/components is causing LEOs to reevaluate how they register weapons, because in one configuration they are clearly a rifle while in another, they are a pistol, yet either can be changed over to the other configuration in minutes.

My recommendation is to change the 10/22 back to its original configuration as a rifle, pursue the registration for the pistol, then pursue the registration of the 10/22 as a pistol.  That is my opinion.


Roy Sprunger
Forum Administrator
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

[Evil Creamsicle]

Pat,

Challenging the trust that MOC, Inc. has in his judgement is borderline.

I don't know, I think he has that right too, just as we have the right to challenge the judgement of our government...



Tyler, I agree with all posted above that you may want to put the rifle stock back on it for now.

[anetsprungen]

Pat,

Challenging the trust that MOC, Inc. has in his judgement is borderline.

I don't know, I think he has that right too, just as we have the right to challenge the judgement of our government...



Tyler, I agree with all posted above that you may want to put the rifle stock back on it for now.

The key to using "borderline" is in the details.  Embellishments and adjectives that demean or denigrate another person are unacceptable behavior if they can be determined by a Moderator to fall within the guidance provided by the "Language and Trolling" and "Personal Attacks" descriptions in our Forum Rules.  Many of Pat Dunbar's posts are provocative.   That alone, is justification to implement "The moderators of Michigan Open Carry Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."  However, I have chosen to review each incidence in the context in which it happens.

Challenging is not a bad thing.  But much depends on the language used to make the challenge.  A blasphemous tirade is clearly objectionable, but some things are much more subtle and not nearly so obvious.  There is often a fine line between 'challenge' and 'attack'.  Where one person may see workd that prod & probe, another may see a literal attack.

Sometimes I intervene, other times I don't.


Roy
 

[Evil Creamsicle]

I agree 

Just wanted to be sure that was pointed out.

[CV67PAT]

At no time did I challenge the trust of MOC, Inc that has been placed in Little Freak.

I called into question his posting of incomplete information here in an attempt to rally support from MOC members.

Insofar as my knowledge of the situation, I am not the only person that was present on teamspeak the evening that he recounted the event where the LPD was in his home, while he was still a minor (as in 17 years old), in possession of a ruger 10/22 that had been converted into a configuration causing it to become defined as a pistol under Michigan statute. And where he openly admitted that the firearm was not registered.

Furthermore, the officers present lectured him about his involvement with an open carry movement, without his having even raised the subject.

He was also searched and questioned during this encounter. All while one officer was wandering throughout the residence under the pretense of separating the firearm from him.

There was a great deal more that was discussed and disclosed by Little Freak. In the end, myself and several others advised him to seek advice from competent counsel. Which he says he did. But based upon the reply that he was given, serious doubt was raised whether he had presented the encounter accurately and completely. According to him he was advised that his only recourse was to file a complaint about damage to the firearm. He obviously did not ask counsel what the ramifications of a 17 year old being in possession of an unregistered pistol could be.

There is a great deal to this story, and I have always maintained that Little Freak only reveals those aspects of it that fit his agenda.

[Evil Creamsicle]

If true, I'm sure LPD intends to use that information in a negative way. It should not be ignored.

[lil_freak_66]

Again pat,if such things were true,wouldnt my first two permits have been denied,and criminal charges brought up?

Being inside a residence in which a registered pistol is located when the owner of said pistol is not home does not constitute it as being unlawfully in possession of an unregistered pistol.

I have no factory stock for the 10/22 anymore,they are also already aware of the way it looks,internal affairs had to take pictures of the damages to it.

I am taking the advice about not answering any more questions like they asked without a lawyer present,and am meeting with some people tomorrow to discuss some recourse.