Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Open Carry Specific => OC Experiences => Topic started by: kryptonian on April 26, 2011, 08:34:35 PM
-
stopping at my usual gas station for donuts and monster energy on my way to work. novi police unit parked in front and officer is helping a woman who locked her keys in her car at the pump. on my way back out i open my driver door and see the officer heading towards his unit 2 spots down from me. i get in and see him veer from his car towards my passenger side door. i motion that it is unlocked and open it. he does and asks
NPD - "are you just getting off duty?"
me - "no. just open carry"
NPD - "well you're in your car now so it's now considered concealed and i need you to get out please"
me - (getting out) "I have a CPL and i know you need one to open carry in a vehicle"
NPD - "oh. you didn't say CPL just open carry. since it was concealed can i see you CPL? you have to have a CPL to open carry in your car you know"
me - (handing him my CPL) "yes i do know. i know the law...WELL"
NPD - "just checking and make sure you do know that you need a CPL to open carry in a vehicle"
me - "yes. i know the law...WELL. thanks."
NPD - (handed it back) "ok. have a good day. bye"
this conversation was paraphrased and total time was about 1 minute. i can already predict the comments. probably should have said OC WITH A CPL. why let him open your door?
i thought my comment "i know you need a CPL..." established i knew the law and twice said "i know the law..WELL". not sure to class this one as positive or negative.
2 notable incidents at same 7-11 near my house. stopped on my way home and noticed when i got out an oakland co. deputy unit in lot. went in deputy standing in an aisle meandering never leaving. i entered, got my drink, paid and left. he never noticed and even made eye contact and a nod.
this past weekend stopped again 2 walled lake units 3 officers inside. while walking up to door all 3 ran out (thought it was for me) but all jumped in cars and took off lights and sirens. no comments towards me.
-
Bravo Zulu kryptonian
-
Did you ask him if he checks the drivers license of all people sitting in cars?
-
Did you ask him if he checks the drivers license of all people sitting in cars?
I don't believe he did. I read his post several times and did not note that anywhere therein.
-
no i did not..had the conversation extended beyond what you read i would have clicked into lawyer mode and defended the OC legality. if you have to point out the car/license analogy be sure to point out that cars (and cigarettes) kill hundreds more people than handguns. the transaction was very brief and ended as it should have. i think i demonstrated a necessary legal knowledge and left no room for sway in my conviction to OC. i believe a lot can be read into your demeanor when approached. the officer can quickly size up your ability to state your rights and back them up with the law. if some officers think you aren't able to state your case they will try to get you to believe you are in violation of law.
i recommend on any extended confrontation with an officer establish right away with him that you are NOT in violation of any law. once that is established their duties as an officer are not necessary.
-
8) +1 Carry On.
-
Well, as long as he didn't give you a lecture on the "evils" of OC, or carry in general, I'd say since you didn't get arrested and go to jail, it's mostly a positive encounter.
But that's just my opinion. :)
-
Am I right in thinking the officer had no legal right to ask for your credentials? Yes you were in your car, but he still needs RS to detain you, right?
-
not sure of the legality of that. he saw me OC and then get in the vehicle which i started. the purpose of calling an OC in a vehicle concealed is for officer safety as they can't see your weapon and need to be notified. if the officer already saw it OC and then it becomes temporarily concealed it kind of defeats the purpose of classifying it as concealed carry. wonder if there is some case law that covers that. when i got in the vehicle with keys he can legally require ID as i was operating a motor vehicle. i gave implied permission to open my door. it wasn't consent for search if anybody thought that.
what would stop an officer from just watching you OC until your weapon becomes even momentarily concealed by a shirt or coat or something and run up and demand ID for concealed carry?
-
To my knowledge, a cop needs Reasonable Suspicion (RS) of a crime before he can detain you (even something as little as asking for your ID). Did you do anything to give him RS? Having a gun in and of itself cannot be used for RS. If he came over and detained you (stopping you and taking your ID so you can't leave), he surely must've needed a reason.
I'm up in the air here, hoping a vet will help me out.
-
I am sure one of thee other guys will agree with me . If you are open carrying and a LEO see this ok, he should not have a problem. But once you conceal it , under your coat shirt ect..in this case the officer should be able to ask for your CPl. Why i say this is because as we know open carry is legell but once you entered the car its concealed. He would asked to see your CPl. Not your drivers licences. Now if you did not seperate the gun an ammo., you are concealing and must have an CPl. Hope this helped. Please forgive my spelling. Carry On. 8).
-
OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.
Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.
As you were.
-
OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.
Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.
As you were.
Disregarding the transition, what I gather is that you aren't required to submit your license to a police officer while OCing in a car because you aren't actually concealing, and 28.425f(2) only applies to when you are concealing, and 28.425f(3) applies to lawful stops, which this wasn't. I only ask because I feel like if I was in the same situation I would avoid submitting to the officer in any way.
-
OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.
Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.
As you were.
Disregarding the transition, what I gather is that you aren't required to submit your license to a police officer while OCing in a car because you aren't actually concealing, and 28.425f(2) only applies to when you are concealing, and 28.425f(3) applies to lawful stops, which this wasn't. I only ask because I feel like if I was in the same situation I would avoid submitting to the officer in any way.
You are citing the applicable statutes, but are misinterpreting them. Look of the word "or" contained therein.
-
If its in 28.425f, I can't find it. I don't see anything that hurts my analysis.
-
If its in 28.425f, I can't find it. I don't see anything that hurts my analysis.
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
You can argue the lawful part of the stop in court, if so inclined. Until then, if in a vehicle with a loaded firearm... disclose. There is no stipulation about OC in a vehicle and the statute does not call it concealed either.
On the other hand, your analysis is quite sound. Let us know how it works out for you. I'd be interested to see if a non-disclosure citation is or is not issued for possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle.
-
I'm sure I'll post my experience here. After the court case is over, of course.
-
This is my take, others disagee with me.
While it is true that the simple act of carrying a firearm isn't grounds for RS I don't believe that's the issue. The issue is carrying a firearm in an area/maner that is restricted/illegal. I will also agree that the law does not require you to provide a CPL or other proof of exemption to the Pistol Free Zone on the scene if you're not concealing, but lacking any evidence to the contrary a LEO will act with what evidence he has: 1) you are possessing a firearm in a place/manner that is illegal 2) you have not shown him any proof of an exemption from that illegality. I believe in that instance he would be justified in arresting you and I think his superiors would back him up on it.
Now all that being said there is a law that places the burden of proving any exemption to a firearms law squarely on the shoulders of the carrier during any prosecution:
[urlhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lzjyju45occv4t45lziaixe2))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-776-20]776.20[/url]
In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.
So while you may not specifically be required to show the officer your proof of exemption to a PFZ that action carries consequences, one of which is the real possibility of being arrested (remember he is operating on the info he has available to him 1) you have a gun 2) that gun is being carried in a place or manner that is illegal unless you meet the criteria for one of the exemptions 3) you have not shown him any proof that you meet any of the exemption criteria). Once arrested you may be prosecuted and during that prosecution you will have to show any proof of exemption....why not just show it to the officer on the scene and be done with it.
Just my take.
Bronson
-
:)+1 Good Luck Carry On.
-
Am I right in thinking the officer had no legal right to ask for your credentials? Yes you were in your car, but he still needs RS to detain you, right?
No, you are off a little. Anyone can ask you for anything anytime they choose. Whether an officer of the law can demand something of you is a different story however. Sometimes theycan and sometimes they can't; it is up to you to know the difference if and when the time comes.
In this case, there was no legal authority to demand the document and accordingly, Kryptonian stated the officer "asked" to see it.
And now I shall continue and share my personal reality on this situation...
I give praise to Kryptonian for honoring the request in this situation by the sounds of it all. After all, there is an organization that has been going around teaching multitudes of people about their right to OC. Seing as the officer was doing nothing (having just wrapped with another task) he thought he might just make sure the citizen was aware of this particular aspect of the law also.
Now, before you (yea you, the one who's blood pressure is now on the rise, whoever you are!) light me up, let's say this...
One possible suggestion for this situation would be to respond to the officers question with something like "Of course I have a CPL, MOC made it perfectly clear that it was necessary to transport. They also made it clear that without suspicion of a crime I am not obligated to show any papers. You are aware of that too right?" Proceed from there as the situation calls for.
-
Good addition. Carry On.
-
Am I right in thinking the officer had no legal right to ask for your credentials? Yes you were in your car, but he still needs RS to detain you, right?
No, you are off a little. Anyone can ask you for anything anytime they choose. Whether an officer of the law can demand something of you is a different story however. Sometimes theycan and sometimes they can't; it is up to you to know the difference if and when the time comes.
In this case, there was no legal authority to demand the document and accordingly, Kryptonian stated the officer "asked" to see it.
I guess I was just confirming the right to deny his request AND demand in this situation. But that is a good point to keep in mind, thank you. I agree that in many--maybe even most--cases it is much more appropriate to work with the officer. However, I never want to establish de facto law that lets officers stop us on their whim.
-
While I am generally ignored by Bronson, his point is spot on.
It is the transitional period that presents the officer the opportunity to inquire. It is at this point that the statute tells us that if we are in possession of a concealed pistol or transporting a loaded pistol, we must provide identification and a CPL if the officer requests it. I would expect that if I were carrying concealed and an officer was able to discern that I had a concealed pistol, that officer would be acting proper to ask for my CPL.
So what is the difference if he sees a pistol in a vehicle, whether on the person or in the vehicle? None. The statute provides for the requirement to produce documents when carrying concealed or transporting a loaded pistol. That seems pretty explicit.
You can go back to ignoring me, Bronson.
As you were.
-
You can go back to ignoring me, Bronson.
Did you guys hear something :P ;D
Bronson
-
So what is the difference if he sees a pistol in a vehicle, whether on the person or in the vehicle? None. The statute provides for the requirement to produce documents when carrying concealed or transporting a loaded pistol. That seems pretty explicit.
Forgive me if I am beating a dead horse, but I believe it was you that pointed out that this statement wasn't necessarily true. Transporting and concealing are two different things. You are required to disclose if concealing, but not if transporting...
Here, I think I have found the point in which we keep confusing each other:
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
I have interpreted this passage to indicate that a person is require to disclose his/her pistol in the instance the a pistol is concealed on their person or is concealed in their vehicle. I believe, and I may be wrong, that you have interpreted this passage to suggest that disclosure is required if the pistol is concealed on their person or in their vehicle, concealed or not.
At this point I'm so confused, I'm not sure what to think. :) thanks for enduring my inquiries, everybody.
-
Not just concealing, but if you are carrying the pistol on your person, concealed or not, or if it is within easy reach, then you are not transporting it. Under that condition, you need a CPL. And of course, you must disclose to the officer, if you are stopped. On the other hand, if the pistol is unloaded and being transported in the manner prescribed by law, you do not have to mention it at all.
-
So then... Put simply, If whatever you are doing requires a certain permit, an officer is within his right to request paperwork pertaining to the act.?
In this case having a gun in a car requires a CPL, so the LEO is within his/her right to request/demand to see your CPL. Just as carrying concealed requires a CPL, so if an LEO determines that you have a gun he/she may request/demand to see your permit for such.?
Daniel
-
I would like to say other thing. If u do not have a CPl and you have a gun in a car, just do what the law says. 1. have the gun unloaded in the trunk ,in a gun case, and the ammo in the glove dept. This happen to me once before i had a CPL, i was at the airport just sitting in car waiting to pickup someone and the Wayne County LEO> pulled up to me and others befor me just checking plates. He got out and came up to my car an ask me to clear up something for him i said yes, he asked me do i have my Ruger on me. I said no you must be talking about my son same name ,i have no gun what so ever. He said thanks and went on his way. They know before they come to your car that you have a cpl or not. Hope this helped. Carry On :).
-
Not just concealing, but if you are carrying the pistol on your person, concealed or not, or if it is within easy reach, then you are not transporting it. Under that condition, you need a CPL. And of course, you must disclose to the officer, if you are stopped. On the other hand, if the pistol is unloaded and being transported in the manner prescribed by law, you do not have to mention it at all.
Now that makes sense to me! Many thanks!
-
No need for the ammo to be in the glove compartment it can be in the same case with the gun as long as the mag is out of the gun and the chamber is empty... or the cylinder is empty in the case of a revolver.
Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
-
I have heard that same thing... "separate" can be interpreted in different manners... I just toss the mag in my pocket or the cup holder.
-
So then... Put simply, If whatever you are doing requires a certain permit, an officer is within his right to request paperwork pertaining to the act.?
In this case having a gun in a car requires a CPL, so the LEO is within his/her right to request/demand to see your CPL. Just as carrying concealed requires a CPL, so if an LEO determines that you have a gun he/she may request/demand to see your permit for such.?
Daniel
If you have a CPL, and you are carrying a pistol, and you are stopped by a LEO, you must disclose ASAP. In other words, don't wait for them to ask. IF you are not armed, there is no duty to disclose, but it is recommended you tell them anyway, since they will find out if/when they run your drivers license, and some have a tendency to get pissed off, if you don't tell them. Even when you don't have to. It will save YOU the inconvenience of having pissed off a LEO, which can save you all manner of other trouble.
-
True that Big Al. Carry On.
-
the premise of my inquiry was if the police already saw your weapon OC whats the point of disclosing to them if an unintended or intended (in my case) becomes a concealed situation?
-
New here so I apologize ahad of time if I am overstepping my pay grade but as I understand it, in order to carry a weapon, concealed or open in a vehicle requires you have avalid CPL. My step-son and I recently attended an open carry event. I carried mine the whole time as I have a CPL, he locked his up as he is still waiting to get his (in the system). As a valid CPL holder I can carry open in a vehicle. If I am seen open carrying and get into a vehicle without unloading and locking my handgun up I am in violation of the law. So a LEO asking to verify my license that I am legally allowed to openly carry a sidearm in a vehicle is not surprising to me. They are just doing their jobs.
-
the premise of my inquiry was if the police already saw your weapon OC whats the point of disclosing to them if an unintended or intended (in my case) becomes a concealed situation?
For no other reason than that the statute specifically states that you must. Sure he saw the OC part. But you were now in your car. That's the place where he can ask for it and you must comply.
For instance, when stopped in a vehicle you must immediately disclose. You do not have to produce the CPL. But if asked to, then you must.
So in your situation, he was asking for it. You had a statutory obligation to comply.
Outside the car OCing, nothing. Inside in possession of a loaded pistol, produce CPL upon request.
-
New here so I apologize ahad of time if I am overstepping my pay grade but as I understand it, in order to carry a weapon, concealed or open in a vehicle requires you have avalid CPL. My step-son and I recently attended an open carry event. I carried mine the whole time as I have a CPL, he locked his up as he is still waiting to get his (in the system). As a valid CPL holder I can carry open in a vehicle. If I am seen open carrying and get into a vehicle without unloading and locking my handgun up I am in violation of the law. So a LEO asking to verify my license that I am legally allowed to openly carry a sidearm in a vehicle is not surprising to me. They are just doing their jobs.
Quick tip: since you have a CPL, I believe you are allowed to be in possession of other people's weapons. THerefore, your step-son could just give his piece to you for the rides... Nothing says you can't have TWO guns with your CPL
-
:) Outstanding guys i think we all got it now. Also if you have some one else's gun it must be Reg. here in michigan. Then when you get out give it back to the Non CPL holder who's gun it is, Open Carry Safely. 8)
-
For no other reason than that the statute specifically states that you must. Sure he saw the OC part. But you were now in your car. That's the place where he can ask for it and you must comply.
For instance, when stopped in a vehicle you must immediately disclose. You do not have to produce the CPL. But if asked to, then you must.
So in your situation, he was asking for it. You had a statutory obligation to comply.
Outside the car OCing, nothing. Inside in possession of a loaded pistol, produce CPL upon request.
What I see is the 2 laws; (1) is 750.227 that says you can't have a pistol in a vehicle with out being licensed. It's a law in and of its self and I don't see it making a OC'ed pistol a CC pistol any more than sitting in a booth in a restaurant.
(2) is 28.425f that says you must disclose if stopped. I have to assume it would be a legal stop. Just because the LEO knew there was a gun in the car was no more reason for a stop then making a stop after he legally turned onto the street to check for a drivers license.
Of course I'm not talking about making it a friendly encounter, I'm specifically talking law.
When I'm pulled over while OC'ing I do disclose. I do believe I could refuse to show my drivers license if the LEO were to say "I stopped you for having a NRA sticker on your car".(but only if I have my recorder running) ;D
-
For no other reason than that the statute specifically states that you must. Sure he saw the OC part. But you were now in your car. That's the place where he can ask for it and you must comply.
For instance, when stopped in a vehicle you must immediately disclose. You do not have to produce the CPL. But if asked to, then you must.
So in your situation, he was asking for it. You had a statutory obligation to comply.
Outside the car OCing, nothing. Inside in possession of a loaded pistol, produce CPL upon request.
What I see is the 2 laws; (1) is 750.227 that says you can't have a pistol in a vehicle with out being licensed. It's a law in and of its self and I don't see it making a OC'ed pistol a CC pistol any more than sitting in a booth in a restaurant.
(2) is 28.425f that says you must disclose if stopped. I have to assume it would be a legal stop. Just because the LEO knew there was a gun in the car was no more reason for a stop then making a stop after he legally turned onto the street to check for a drivers license.
Of course I'm not talking about making it a friendly encounter, I'm specifically talking law.
When I'm pulled over while OC'ing I do disclose. I do believe I could refuse to show my drivers license if the LEO were to say "I stopped you for having a NRA sticker on your car".(but only if I have my recorder running) ;D
(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.
-
Actually, 750.227 (2) states the following:
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
(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.
And 750.231a lists the exceptions to the above: 750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a. (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence
except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
That implies that having a loaded pistol INSIDE a vehicle, on your person, or within easy reach is considered to be concealed by the state of Michigan.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once or twice. ;)
-
Actually, 750.227 (2) states the following:750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
(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.
And 750.231a lists the exceptions to the above: 750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a. (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence
except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
That implies that having a loaded pistol INSIDE a vehicle, on your person, or within easy reach is considered to be concealed by the state of Michigan.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once or twice. ;)
About a week ago someone on line made this point that 750.227 doesn't change a OC'ed gun to a concealed gun in a vehicle, just illegal in the vehicle and that looks to be true to me. If my car is license and insured and I'm doing 10 over the speed limit I'm guilty of speeding but that doesn't make my plate illegal.
So if a pistol isn't concealed you shouldn't (technically) need to disclose.
do you follow me? :-\
-
Actually, 750.227 (2) states the following:750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
(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.
And 750.231a lists the exceptions to the above: 750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a. (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence
except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
That implies that having a loaded pistol INSIDE a vehicle, on your person, or within easy reach is considered to be concealed by the state of Michigan.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once or twice. ;)
About a week ago someone on line made this point that 750.227 doesn't change a OC'ed gun to a concealed gun in a vehicle, just illegal in the vehicle and that looks to be true to me. If my car is license and insured and I'm doing 10 over the speed limit I'm guilty of speeding but that doesn't make my plate illegal.
So if a pistol isn't concealed you shouldn't (technically) need to disclose.
do you follow me? :-\
Oh, I know what you're saying, but if you read 750.227 (2) is says "or whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle...." I'm pretty sure the "or otherwise" covers OC. And I'd be more than willing to bet that there's a case out there somewhere that establishes that carrying in a vehicle is considered concealed, whether or not the pistol is concealed on your person. And I'd also be willing to say, most lawyers will tell you, if you need a CONCEALED pistol license to carry in a vehicle, the state considers that pistol to be concealed, whether you do or not.
In any event, if you do have a CPL, and you happen to get stopped, try not disclosing if you're OCing, and see how long it takes before you have a whole new set of problems. Your CPL is tied to your DL, and assuming they run your DL, they're gonna find out. I guess then you can be the test case for all of us. Not that I'd wish that on anyone.
In any event, good luck!
-
BGA is correct with the "or otherwise". And it is also that since the pistol was visible in the OP's interaction, and since the officer requested the CPL before the OP could disclose, the OP was obligated by statute to produce the CPL and DL.
The often used analogy of driving and being asked for a license for no reason is not applicable because there is a statutory requirement to produce the documents whenever asked to by a LEO while CC or in a vehicle with a loaded pistol.
-
OK you guys are ganging up on me but I'm not giving up! (http://herohog.com/images/icons/smileys/hmmm.gif)
Oh, I know what you're saying, but if you read 750.227 (2) is says "or whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle...." I'm pretty sure the "or otherwise" covers OC. And I'd be more than willing to bet that there's a case out there somewhere that establishes that carrying in a vehicle is considered concealed, whether or not the pistol is concealed on your person. And I'd also be willing to say, most lawyers will tell you, if you need a CONCEALED pistol license to carry in a vehicle, the state considers that pistol to be concealed, whether you do or not.
Yes I agree too that means OC. No where in this law does it make it concealed. There is nothing in 750.227 about disclosing.
In any event, if you do have a CPL, and you happen to get stopped, try not disclosing if you're OCing, and see how long it takes before you have a whole new set of problems. Your CPL is tied to your DL, and assuming they run your DL, they're gonna find out. I guess then you can be the test case for all of us. Not that I'd wish that on anyone.
In any event, good luck!
Show me the part of the law that says you must disclose in a car. ???
...and I'll say it again I will disclose in this situation but if I'm driving OC and forget to disclose this would be my defence.
BGA is correct with the "or otherwise". And it is also that since the pistol was visible in the OP's interaction, and since the officer requested the CPL before the OP could disclose, the OP was obligated by statute to produce the CPL and DL.
What statute? A person with a CPL doesn't need to disclose by law when OCing.
The often used analogy of driving and being asked for a license for no reason is not applicable because there is a statutory requirement to produce the documents whenever asked to by a LEO while CC or in a vehicle with a loaded pistol.
You just said "or otherwise" means OC... we don't need to disclose while OC. (http://herohog.com/images/icons/smileys/hideunderchair.gif)
-
Show me the part of the law that says you must disclose in a car. ???
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4htwlx4511yhh145s2s1g4m2))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425f
-
No we're not ganging up on you. We are trying to point out the intricacies of the statutes. I'll refrain from further input, to avoid the perception of gang mentality.
-
Show me the part of the law that says you must disclose in a car. ???
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4htwlx4511yhh145s2s1g4m2))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425f
Good question. Welcome!
I'm not sure what CV67PAT believes the "or" means. (pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle)
I believe that's a moot point because he is over looking the words "and". and who is carrying a concealed pistol and
He is also over looking the word "concealed".
-
No we're not ganging up on you. We are trying to point out the intricacies of the statutes. I'll refrain from further input, to avoid the perception of gang mentality.
I'm OK with it. This is fun.
If I'm open carrying in pistol free zone is my pistol considered concealed by the law?
-
No we're not ganging up on you. We are trying to point out the intricacies of the statutes. I'll refrain from further input, to avoid the perception of gang mentality.
I'm OK with it. This is fun.
If I'm open carrying in pistol free zone is my pistol considered concealed by the law?
I'm remaining mute because my replies are moot.
-
First, the law says that if you're carrying a concealed weapon, and you are stopped by law enforcement, you must disclose, without them asking, ASAP. If you're walking, and CCing, this applies. If you're driving and CCing or OCing, this applies as Michigan considers the weapon concealed when you're inside a vehicle. i.e., the weapon is not in plain sight. This part should be evident from the name of the section covering weapons in vehicles, i.e., "750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty."
There's never a lawyer around when you want one, and when you don't want one, they fall out of the sky. :)
-
No we're not ganging up on you. We are trying to point out the intricacies of the statutes. I'll refrain from further input, to avoid the perception of gang mentality.
I'm OK with it. This is fun.
If I'm open carrying in pistol free zone is my pistol considered concealed by the law?
No, but it's already been stated you need a CPL to carry in a PFZ, and so far, it's generally accepted that if asked to see your CPL, you should comply, unless you feel like going to jail. But the difference is, in a PFZ, if Ocing, your pistol is in plain sight. In a vehicle, not so much, unless of course you're wearing a shoulder holster. And I still bet you the LEO is gonna want to see your CPL.
-
Well, I found a lawyer, had to go to another site to do so, but I found one. :)
From MCRGO's FAQ/Ask the Lawyer (http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwfaq.asp) page:
Q: I don't have a CCW. How can I legally transport a pistol in a motor vehicle?
A: The law changed in March of 2002 from the old "to and from" rules. You may now transport a pistol for any lawful purpose as long as it is stored correctly. The new law defines "lawful purpose" to include the old "to and from" rules but those are only examples of lawful purposes and do not exclude other lawful purposes. Remember, a pistol carried in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, except under the circumstances below where there is no trunk, will be considered concealed, whether it is in plain view or not. The proper way to transport a pistol in a vehicle if you do not hold a CPL permit....
So, you don't have to take Pat's or my word for it. Do as you will.
-
:) Thanks Big Al, I feel that's why we (MOC) put out a hand booklet. New folks please read. It will help alot. Also check out some of the other treads that are on this site. Carry On Safely.
-
:) Thanks Big Al, I feel that's why we (MOC) put out a hand booklet. New folks please read. It will help alot. Also check out some of the other treads that are on this site. Carry On Safely.
I thought this was a good discussion like this one I found by Bronson a while back. http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,235.0.html
So far I think it's realy the meaning of "and" and "or".
Since I only have 12 posts I probably do appear to be just blowing smoke. :-\
-
Sometimes, the difference between "and" and "or" is the difference between going home, and going to jail. :)
Anyone I've ever talked with, in any manner of authority is of the opinion, that any firearm carried inside a vehicle is concealed, whether it's covered or not. It is too bad we don't have some of the laws I've seen from the South. Some southern states' laws are written in such a way that your vehicle is considered an extension of your home, so that no permit/license is needed to have a gun in your vehicle. Alas, that is not the case here.
-
That's right my friend from Ga. says the same.
-
Not to confuse the issue further... but oc in a car is NOT cc but it does require a cpl as any loaded pistol in a car does. It technically is carrying otherwise... which still requires a cpl and therefor in my opinion requires one to disclose as any carry form that requires a cpl in my opinion requires one to disclose....just to be on the safe side I would even do so if detained in a pfz while ocing under the authority of my cpl.
There you have it my 98 cents worth!
Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
-
Not to confuse the issue further... but oc in a car is NOT cc but it does require a cpl as any loaded pistol in a car does. It technically is carrying otherwise... which still requires a cpl and therefor in my opinion requires one to disclose as any carry form that requires a cpl in my opinion requires one to disclose....just to be on the safe side I would even do so if detained in a pfz while ocing under the authority of my cpl.
There you have it my 98 cents worth!
Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
Works for me! :)
-
I'm Good with that. Carry On
-
There is no MI case specifically on point about the transition from OC to CC in a vehicle, but MSP Legal Update 86 states the following advice for its officers:
"There is no way to “open carry” a pistol in a vehicle. An individual, without a CPL or otherwise exempted (e.g., a police officer), who transports a pistol in a vehicle to an area where he or she intends to “open carry” may be in violation of MCL 750.227."
"MCL 750.227(2) makes it a felony for a person to transport a pistol anywhere in a vehicle unless the person is licensed to carry a concealed pistol. Exceptions to the above statute are found in MCL 750.231a."
http://miopencarry.org/sites/default/files/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf
I read in a MI case, though, that "concealed" means "not easily seen upon casual observation." I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the point -- once I'm in my car, my otherwise OC'd pistol is no longer seen by casual observers and, thus, it's "concealed."
-
"There is no way to “open carry” a pistol in a vehicle. An individual, without a CPL or otherwise exempted (e.g., a police officer), who transports a pistol in a vehicle to an area where he or she intends to “open carry” may be in violation of MCL 750.227."
Whoa... now THAT is kinda scary to non-CPL people... I was under the impression that the list of legal purposes to transport "INCLUDE" the following, but the list was not ALL INCLUSIVE... as in any lawful purpose was ok. The above quote makes me think twice. I understand they say "MAY" be in violation... we "MAY" be charged with just about anything, but will get it sorted in court... still, I don't want to take that chance with my current financial situation!
-
So far as I know, no one has been bothered as long as they follow the rules for transporting without a CPL. In fact, I think the only ones who had any sort of problem came about due to an accidental discharge as they were preparing their weapons for lawful transport after an OC picnic.
-
I just don't want to be the first!!!
-
I just don't want to be the first!!! I"ve got that kind of luck!
-
In the end, it's your decision.