Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
Open Carry Specific => OC Experiences => Topic started by: SD40VE on June 23, 2014, 12:12:53 PM
-
was out fishing on cooke pond. im guessing some other boater saw i was OC my pistol and called the sheriff on me, they came to our fishing spot and started their investigation. once they confirmed i had a valid CPL they went on their way. first time i had sheriff pull up next to me while out fishing on a boat.
-
What was their reason for stopping you?
-
im assuming a man on a boat with a gun. he said they had a report of a suspicious person who was armed (because me fishing is super suspicious!). he said they had to investigate as is their SOP when it comes to reports of armed people and motor vehicles.. he said he has alot of issues with city people who dont know the rules of being on a boat on the water. he wanted to make sure everything was in order. im assuming since the boat is motorized the same rules apply as a motorcycle and car for carrying, must have a CPL to OC while on/in a motor vehicle. im hoping the same doesnt happen with DNR one day while out on the quads while i am OC. we had a discussion here on this prior to fishing season when i was seeking clarification on the rules of carrying while on a boat. he didnt ticket me or anything (honestly i was doing nothing wrong) and as soon as i saw them coming i pulled my wallet out and set on the boat seat so i wasnt reaching anywhere that would give them a reason to draw down on me or do something stupid. he pulled up, i declared i had a cpl he looked at it. made sure i had a valid fishing license and went on his way after apologizing for the encounter. i guess only thing i got out of it was my name in an iosco county encounter/investigation report for the sheriff.
-
I was wondering if he demanded to see your CPL. I don't think he had a legit reason to stop you, but I don't know if special rules apply while on a boat. IE, is it ok for them to just check to see if you are licensed (fishing), which gived them the authority to create a stop a will.
-
i can assume since one needs a CPL to carry ona boat. they would have the ability to make a stop to double check. like they do when they see someone on a motorcycle who is carrying. since its a motor vehicle i think there are special circumstances. either way all my paperwork is legit and nothing came of it so im ok with it. just thought id share the LEO encounter
-
I think Tom is wondering whether a boat qualifies as a CPL-required vehicle like a car does. Motorcycle is a grey area. Out of an abundance of caution we assume it is, but the MSP has stated their policy is a CPL is not required for OC on a motorcycle. Your local cop or sheriff might not agree, though.
-
I think Tom is wondering whether a boat qualifies as a CPL-required vehicle like a car does. Motorcycle is a grey area. Out of an abundance of caution we assume it is, but the MSP has stated their policy is a CPL is not required for OC on a motorcycle. Your local cop or sheriff might not agree, though.
which they didnt, lol, it appears they were under the assumption that any motor vehicle is a cpl designated area. boat, atv, motorcycle. where transport rules need to be followed if you dont have a cpl
-
How did you like the $26 license fee they (the state) imposed on you for fishing?
-
i paid $76 for mine
hunt/fish combo
i paid $28 for my all species last year so i saved $2 this year
still looking for that monster sturgeon though :( or even a nice muskie would be cool
-
I think Tom is wondering whether a boat qualifies as a CPL-required vehicle like a car does. Motorcycle is a grey area. Out of an abundance of caution we assume it is, but the MSP has stated their policy is a CPL is not required for OC on a motorcycle. Your local cop or sheriff might not agree, though.
No, that's not it. If it's a boat with a motor, then I would agree a CPL is required. IIRC, there is another statute outside of 750.227 that covers this. Yep, 750.227c (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227c). Note, 750.231 applies to 227c just as it applies to 227.
What I was asking about was the justification for the stop. We know an officer can't pull a vehicle over just to make sure the drive is licensed. We also know an officer can't stop someone on the street just to make sure their firearm is licensed.
Can an officer stop a vehicle to make sure the operator has a CPL?
Or, did the stop come about under the pretense of fishing regs?
-
im guessing it was a man with a gun. he didnt say exactly why he just said someone was concerned and called them about me and he wanted to make sure everything was in line id assume. i know when they dispatch someone they have their investigation to do. this kind of reminds me of the video where someone was OC and they saw cops in the parking lot.cops said something they said they were OC because its legal. then when he went to the truch they asked about his permit to conceal. since i was in a boat with a motor OC wouldnt that be justifiable in making sure i have a CPL since its a restricted area for only cpl holders?
-
im guessing it was a man with a gun. he didnt say exactly why he just said someone was concerned and called them about me and he wanted to make sure everything was in line id assume. i know when they dispatch someone they have their investigation to do. this kind of reminds me of the video where someone was OC and they saw cops in the parking lot.cops said something they said they were OC because its legal. then when he went to the truch they asked about his permit to conceal. since i was in a boat with a motor OC wouldnt that be justifiable in making sure i have a CPL since its a restricted area for only cpl holders?
It has been specifically ruled that the police CANNOT just check to see if you have a driver's license.
It has been specifically ruled that the police CANNOT just check to see if your firearm is licensed.
What has not been specifically ruled on yet is whether or not an officer can check to see if you have a CPL when acting under authority of that CPL.
-
It has been specifically ruled that the police CANNOT just check to see if you have a driver's license.
It has been specifically ruled that the police CANNOT just check to see if your firearm is licensed.
What has not been specifically ruled on yet is whether or not an officer can check to see if you have a CPL when acting under authority of that CPL.
so until we can get a law passed that doesnt allow a cop to verify a cpl when using a motorized vehicle they can do a stop and check. granted in a car it isnt as obvious as standing in a boat. its pretty much out there for all to see which i would assume the reason for them coming. now if i was shore fishing they would have been politely told to kick rocks
-
It's more than that. Under authority of your CPL means in or on a vehicle or motor boat, and/or while concealing. It also means in a PFZ.
Let's say you are OCing at Walmart (with a CPL). Can an officer detain you until you provide a valid CPL? I have seen people come down on both sides of this.
-
It's more than that. Under authority of your CPL means in or on a vehicle or motor boat, and/or while concealing. It also means in a PFZ.
Let's say you are OCing at Walmart (with a CPL). Can an officer detain you until you provide a valid CPL? I have seen people come down on both sides of this.
if its somewhere you MUST HAVE A CPL to oc i dont think its a problem, they should be able to confirm you are licensed and are not breaking the law. or else criminals will oc because they cant be stopped or asked about their firearms. its a loophole they will exploit to the best of their ability... some may not feel the same.
-
if its somewhere you MUST HAVE A CPL to oc i dont think its a problem, they should be able to confirm you are licensed and are not breaking the law. or else criminals will oc because they cant be stopped or asked about their firearms. its a loophole they will exploit to the best of their ability... some may not feel the same.
Well, in order to possess a pistol in public you MUST be licensed or exempt from licensure.
Similarly, in order to possess a pistol in a GFZ or PFZ, you MUST be licensed to carry a concealed pistol or exempt from licensure.
If they can't stop you to simply check for one, how can they stop you to simply check for the other? I maintain that they need a reason (RAS) to believe you are not licensed.
(ETA) This is not to say that what you did was wrong. It's just a discussion about what is required. You know, in case the officer wants to be a jerk and you feel like you need to protect yourself.
-
I feel they have no reason to suspect that you are not licensed and should not have the authority to demand your CPL to verify that you are.
-
(http://freedomandprosperity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/libertarian-chicken.jpg)
-
OK just so we can have this discussed correctly...
so until we can get a law passed that doesnt allow a cop to verify a cpl when using a motorized vehicle they can do a stop and check. granted in a car it isnt as obvious as standing in a boat. its pretty much out there for all to see which i would assume the reason for them coming. now if i was shore fishing they would have been politely told to kick rocks
The law for pistols just says vehicle, not motorized vehicle.
It's more than that. Under authority of your CPL...
The law also says ”and who is carrying a concealed pistol”...
28.425f (2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology 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.
... means in or on a vehicle or motor boat, and/or while concealing. It also means in a PFZ.
The law for pistols just says in a vehicle.
750.227 (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.
if its somewhere you MUST HAVE A CPL to oc i dont think its a problem, they should be able to confirm you are licensed and are not breaking the law. or else criminals will oc because they cant be stopped or asked about their firearms. its a loophole they will exploit to the best of their ability... some may not feel the same.
If this were true then criminals would have started OCing years ago, everywhere.
I do agree with the drivers license comparison. LEO's can't just stop people to see if their licensed.
Now I am not a lawyer so I will suggest showing all ID's in any vehicle until others agree with me.
Carry on. :D
-
The law for pistols just says in a vehicle.
Notice I cited MCL 750.227c (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227c)
(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
-
yes and my cpl permits me. but what i think the debate is if they are able to do a stop and check for cpl
-
On the water while fishing they can check you at any time.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
-
On the water while fishing they can check you at any time.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk
What for? Fishing license? That's what I was wondering.
I'm not a big fisher, so I don't know much about fishing regs.
-
Notice I cited MCL 750.227c (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227c)
I know and you over looked this:(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
This only applies to long guns that our CPL's don't cover anyway. I believe someone without a cpl could not be charged with the specific 750.227c but would be charged with 750.227.
I don't know DNR laws either. Question: If fishing do authority's have the right to check for more than just a fishing license? Say proof of auto insurance.
-
I know and you over looked this:(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
This only applies to long guns that our CPL's don't cover anyway. I believe someone without a cpl could not be charged with the specific 750.227c but would be charged with 750.227.
I don't know DNR laws either. Question: If fishing do authority's have the right to check for more than just a fishing license? Say proof of auto insurance.
ive had dnr check my boat regisitration numbers and tags. as well as my license and all the fish we had in the livewells and on stringers to ensure they were of legal size for keeping
-
Isn't TAYLOR, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL the case where it was decided the DNR is above the 4th amendment because you only have a 4th Amendment right if "harm" is done to you. I think the pig farmers in this case could agree "harm" was done: http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2012/04/michigan_dnr_responds_to_alleg.html (http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2012/04/michigan_dnr_responds_to_alleg.html) .
I also really liked the justification for the new licenses too, "the old fishing license was too hard to enforce" "every other state in the mid west has higher hunting prices other than Ohio (so raise prices)" These new taxes won't put deer in the fields or fish in the water but more CO's who think they don't need a warrant.
-
Autosurgeon beat me to it. But I will elaborate slightly.
Because SD40VE was fishing, he could be stopped.
It may also be argued, and I would anticipate successfully, that SD40VE was required to disclose because he was carrying in (upon) a vehicle. On the waterways the rules of engagement are a bit different than the roadways. A safety inspection can be performed at any time. This is a stop.
The deputy was being straight forward about his reason for the encounter. He could have utilized one of the other reasons to justify the stop.
Which way would you like it to be?
-
he was up front with why they came out. i can respect him for that, he could have been a mondo douche and beat around the bush trying to pry information out of me. it was quick and simple and he was on his way. could have gone alot worse
-
im guessing it was a man with a gun. he didnt say exactly why he just said someone was concerned and called them about me and he wanted to make sure everything was in line id assume. i know when they dispatch someone they have their investigation to do. this kind of reminds me of the video where someone was OC and they saw cops in the parking lot.cops said something they said they were OC because its legal. then when he went to the truch they asked about his permit to conceal. since i was in a boat with a motor OC wouldnt that be justifiable in making sure i have a CPL since its a restricted area for only cpl holders?
This is probably a "kinda old thread" but in the situation described I wonder--
Did the LIO call the 'complainer' back and say the "guy with the gun is OK?" Why not, if a no answer??
-
This is probably a "kinda old thread" but in the situation described I wonder--
Did the LIO call the 'complainer' back and say the "guy with the gun is OK?" Why not, if a no answer??
Probably not. Often times callers will tell the dispatcher that they do not want to be contacted.
-
Probably not. Often times callers will tell the dispatcher that they do not want to be contacted.
yeah if he did touch back with the inital caller it was after he left me
-
Probably not. Often times callers will tell the dispatcher that they do not want to be contacted.
When I would call the police on the drug dealer that lived below me, I always specified I didn't want contact. But that was for my safety.
On a side note, the resident is serving life in Marquette Michigan for parole violations, keeping a house of ill-fame, possession of 125 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Third time habitual offender. Ouch!
-
When I would call the police on the drug dealer that lived below me, I always specified I didn't want contact. But that was for my safety.
On a side note, the resident is serving life in Marquette Michigan for parole violations, keeping a house of ill-fame, possession of 125 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Third time habitual offender. Ouch!
Why call the cops on an otherwise honest entrepreneur? Were he and/or his customers/business associates loud?
-
Why call the cops on an otherwise honest entrepreneur? Were he and/or his customers/business associates loud?
because drugs are bad mmmkay
-
because drugs are bad mmmkay
Bad for whom?
-
Bad for whom?
its a line from south park lol. just being a smart ass
-
Bad for whom?
Bad for the people that overdose and die, bad for the people that are killed or injured in car accidents caused by people on drugs, bad for the people that are robbed by people that want money for drugs, bad for the school children that take drugs and have the chemicals changed in their developing brain, bad for the "otherwise honest entrepreneur" that gets gunned down by a not so honest competitor, bad for me and the value of my house because of all of the "drug houses" in my neighborhood, bad for the thousands of Mexicans that are kidnapped or murdered every year by the drug cartels......... This is just a quick list from the "top of my head". I would contend that drugs are bad for a whole lot of people.
-
I would contend that illegal drugs are bad for a whole lot of people.
FIFY
-
part deux, you don't need to fix it for me. I'm happy with how I worded it.
-
It's not as if banning or legalizing a substance magically makes it healthy or unhealthy.
-
It's not as if banning or legalizing a substance magically makes it healthy or unhealthy.
I agree. Properly used something may save your life .... improperly used the same thing can end your life. Could be food .... could be water ..... could be a drug .... could be a gun .....
-
Pretty sure most of the 'bad' comes from the so called 'war on drugs'. Prohibition has fueled the profits in the black markets, and flooded the streets with violence between competing suppliers, and products of widely varying potency and purity.
I'n not a user of currently illegal drugs, and not likely to become a user if they become legal, but I believe it's time we drag this travesty into the light of day- the best antiseptic. Too bad the trade props up 'allies' in South America; our government wouldn't want them to have to play by civilized rules.
-
At least the federal ban on alcohol was constitutional. They had to amend the constitution to give them the power to ban commerce in alcohol, and they did it. All subsequent drug bans were enacted without the extra step of making them constitutional before enacting them.
-
It's not as if banning or legalizing a substance magically makes it healthy or unhealthy.
http://rightmi.com/i-dont-smoke-pot-but-i-think-you-should-be-able-to/
6. Many of these drugs actually have valid medical uses
Study after study has shown something simple: Cannabis Can Cure Cancer. Guess what else, there is good evidence that shows MDMA AKA Molly AKA Ecstasy can be combined with therapy to cure PTSD unlike anything else. I’m not talking about treatment that makes life easier or helps people cope, I’m talking about a cure!
Of course, there isn’t many domestic studies on cancer or MDMA because both have been declared Schedule I by the US FDA. That means these drugs have been declared (by the Government) to have no legitimate medical use and therefore medicinal studies and use is prohibited.
But why stay on topic? ;)
-
as long as we're off topic... good friend of mine is a "provider" She's absolutely convinced cannabis is a great aid to cancer.
-
Bad for the people that overdose and die, bad for the people that are killed or injured in car accidents caused by people on drugs, bad for the people that are robbed by people that want money for drugs, bad for the school children that take drugs and have the chemicals changed in their developing brain, bad for the "otherwise honest entrepreneur" that gets gunned down by a not so honest competitor, bad for me and the value of my house because of all of the "drug houses" in my neighborhood, bad for the thousands of Mexicans that are kidnapped or murdered every year by the drug cartels......... This is just a quick list from the "top of my head". I would contend that drugs are bad for a whole lot of people.
Let's add the family members of the drug abusers to this list.
part deux, you don't need to fix it for me. I'm happy with how I worded it.
He's right you know. The most widely abused drug is the legal one... alcohol.
-
as long as we're off topic... good friend of mine is a "provider" She's absolutely convinced cannabis is a great aid to cancer.
We're off topic? When did that occur?
Hiram Walker is absolute (get it "absolute"?) convinced that alcohol has great medicinal purposes too.
-
Unfortunately no the most widely abused drugs are OTC Pain killers. They are also one of the largest causes of death and morbidity. Next comes nicotine, than caffeine (which has it's own issues). Alcohol has the rap due to the number of groups that still want to remove it from society and blame the item instead of the social and personal habits and issues of the persons involved. As far as Cannabis is concerned the data on risks or benefits is thin on the ground in both camps and should be a persons choice. I personally can't stand the stuff as it makes me sick to smell it burning at all. Not that this has anything to do with the OP and we really need to stop these wide tangents.
-
No, that's not it. If it's a boat with a motor, then I would agree a CPL is required. IIRC, there is another statute outside of 750.227 that covers this. Yep, 750.227c (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227c). Note, 750.231 applies to 227c just as it applies to 227.
What I was asking about was the justification for the stop. We know an officer can't pull a vehicle over just to make sure the drive is licensed. We also know an officer can't stop someone on the street just to make sure their firearm is licensed.
Can an officer stop a vehicle to make sure the operator has a CPL?
Or, did the stop come about under the pretense of fishing regs?
Kinda old post but was it CC or OC?? Interesting. Im watching this one.