got sheriff called me in iosco county this weekend

[SD40VE]

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

[autosurgeon]

On the water while fishing they can check you at any time.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[bigt8261]

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.

[Golden Eagle]

Notice I cited 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.

[SD40VE]

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

[doesch]

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 .

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.

[CV67PAT]

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?

[SD40VE]

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

[Langenc]

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??

[CV67PAT]

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.

[SD40VE]

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

[linux203]

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!

[TheQ]

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?

[SD40VE]

Why call the cops on an otherwise honest entrepreneur? Were he and/or his customers/business associates loud?

because drugs are bad mmmkay

[part deux]

because drugs are bad mmmkay

Bad for whom?

[SD40VE]

Bad for whom?

its a line from south park lol. just being a smart ass

[Pond Scum]

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.

[part deux]

I would contend that illegal drugs are bad for a whole lot of people.

FIFY

[Pond Scum]

part deux, you don't need to fix it for me.  I'm happy with how I worded it. 

[CitizensHaveRights]

It's not as if banning or legalizing a substance magically makes it healthy or unhealthy.