Michigan Man Arrested for Open Carry

[Solo Flyer]

Haven't seen this posted.Michigan has state preemption so this local ordinance probably won't fly.
Gun arrest made during festival Saturday

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/298738684615690.bsp

Mon, Aug 4, 2008


A man was arrested for carrying a gun in the open in the moments leading up to the Coast Guard Festival's fireworks display Saturday night.

The man was carrying a Glock 40 handgun in a holster at his side in downtown Grand Haven, said Lt. Mark Reiss of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety. The man was disarmed by the officers, arrested on a misdemeanor, issued a 90-day appearance ticket and allowed to leave, Reiss said. His weapon was also confiscated by police.

While Michigan law allows carrying concealed weapons with a permit, Grand Haven has a local ordinance prohibiting openly possessing and carrying dangerous weapons in public, Reiss said. People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, Reiss said.

"It is very dangerous and very frightening to spectators down there," Reiss said. "It simply isn't a place to have a gun."

Open Carry.Org take on Michigan:
http://www.opencarry.org/mi.html

 

[strat81]

People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, Reiss said.

"It is very dangerous and very frightening to spectators down there," Reiss said. "It simply isn't a place to have a gun."

Bald men with lots of tattoos and piercings can be scary too. Shall we ban them?

Oh well, hopefully the gentleman will be able to buy an arsenal of Glocks with the taxpayer-funded settlement he'll be getting.

 

[Templar223]

I saw a discussion over at Open Carry.org of OC activists trying to bring that municipality up to speed on MI's pre-emption law, but apparently they've decided to push the matter with the guy's arrest.

I'm guessing that someone's going to get sued over that arrest if apologies and expungements aren't forthcoming soon.

John

 

[highorder]

Ottawa County has a nasty record of over the top law enforcement. This looks like more of the same.

a few years back I knew a 4.0 college student that was arrested, charged and convicted of misdemenor possession of a controled substance.

His crime? the police walked by his parked car and noticed an empty, but used glass pot pipe in the passenger compartment. It belonged to the passenger, but hee was arrested as the owner/driver of the vehicle.

His sentence? He was forced to drop out of college at the University of Michigan to serve 90 days in the Ottawa County lock up.

After all, we can't have A students that did not posess any actual controled substance just wandering the streets, can we?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Were the police who made the arrest openly carrying guns? Armed men in uniform can be very frightening.

 

[ochmude]

He should have been arrested. Open your eyes people, don't you know how common it is for gang bangers to openly carry holstered Glock 40's (***?) while attending fireworks displays. I never trust someone openly carrying, ESPECIALLY if it's a custom leather holster. You show me a man that shells out over $100 and waits 6 months for a quality holster and I'll show you a man that is patiently waiting to commit an armed crime. Basically what I'm trying to say is.....:banghead:

 

[chieftain]

I don't know of any case, and none of my friends past or present in law enforcement have ever found a person with a quality holster, and of course gun, to be a criminal.

I am sure it has happened, but it is indeed rare.

Criminals need to get rid of any evidence of a gun quickly, in their line of work.

Oh one other little tid bit. Most criminals would much rather conceal their weapons.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[romma]

Gee, the Glock 40 is the most popular firearm that "never" existed.

 

[ochmude]

I don't know of any case, and none of my friends past or present in law enforcement have ever found a person with a quality holster, and of course gun, to be a criminal.

I am sure it has happened, but it is indeed rare.

Criminals need to get rid of any evidence of a gun quickly, in their line of work.

Oh one other little tid bit. Most criminals would much rather conceal their weapons.

Go figure.

Fred

I hope everyone realizes I was being sarcastic to try and point out how stupid this stuff is. Criminals don't open carry. Heck, criminals don't use holsters, at least not your common street thug. I can't understand why people fear someone who is open carrying.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Glock has a model 39, but I didn't realize they had a model 40 yet. I wonder if the guy had dreds and was wearing a vest that said DEA on the back?

Hopefully, he was charged with the municipal anti-open-carry ordinance rather than a vague "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct."

 

[Cougfan2]

This has been pretty well covered over on OpenCarry.org. I think this guy may end up with a sizeable settlement.

 

[Old Grump]

Michigan Firearm Preemption

We now turn our attention to the language of the Michigan firearms preemption statute:

(2) A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

(3) This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

(4) This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearm within the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.

Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in other preemption cases where municipalities thought they could make zoning laws not in step with state laws and the court ruled that they couldn't do it.
Like Wisconsin, Michigan is an open carry state except in cars, then a license must be obtained, I think the chief and his bosses are in trouble.

 

[Owen Sparks]

A properly holstered pistol or a slung or shouldered long gun is not a threat. It only becomes a threat when it is BRANDISHED. Brandishing means that it is displayed menacingly or pointed at others in a threatening manner or careless mishandled in such a way that is dangerous to bystanders. The same analogy could be made with an empty hand. Normally your hands are not considered threatening to others. If however, in the course of an argument you ball one of them up into a fist and cock it back as if you are about to throw a punch, that is an implied threat.

 

[freakshow10mm]

(2) A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

(3) This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

(a) Prohibiting or regulating conduct with a pistol or other firearm that is a criminal offense under state law.

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

(4) This act does not prohibit a city or a charter township from prohibiting the discharge of a pistol or other firearm within the jurisdiction of that city or charter township.

Bold are the key elements of the statute.

Note that the specifics are inclusive of the possession of firearms.

Note that if it's a criminal offense under state law, then it's permissible to regulate it. Open carry is legal in MI by state law and there is no state or federal law that makes it illegal.

This will go to court. It will get thrown out due to pre-emption. Hopefully the guy sues the living crap out of the department.

 

[sithanas]

According to the Michigan AG, open carry is not subject to MI preemption laws. Wait, what? The MI AG says that open carry is NOT legal everywhere in MI.

Why is this? Because open carry is not specifically legislated anywhere in the MCL. MI is an open carry state in the sense that it is not specifically prohibited but also not specifically allowed.

To my knowledge, there has not been a court decision as to whether or not open carry is protected under state preemption. This may prove to be an interesting test case - however, I don't think his prospects are all that good.

 

[rjohnson4405]

If it isn't prohibited by law then it's your right.

I do a lot of things not "specifically allowed" that are perfectly legal.

 

[Northern-Lights]

Interesting thread. Here is my question.

As an employee of the state....I am told I cannot carry or transport any firearm in my state issued vehicle. I travel 2-4 thousand miles a month in my job. Would the rule by civil service be a violation of state law?

Not specifically trying to hijack the thread....but would sure like to ask those who might know.

 

[freakshow10mm]

The MI AG says that open carry is NOT legal everywhere in MI.

I'd like to see where. If it is already a pistol free zone, yes.

Why is this? Because open carry is not specifically legislated anywhere in the MCL. MI is an open carry state in the sense that it is not specifically prohibited but also not specifically allowed.

Exactly the way American law works. It is either explicitly made illegal or legal. If it is not stated either way in statute, then it is legal.:banghead:

Northern Lights, no that is not a violation of the law. Read this part:

This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:
...
(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

Their prohibition on firearms and transporting in a state owned vehicle is legal. Also it is not limited to their vehicles but "in the course of their employment" covers your personal car too.

 

[sithanas]

(3) This act does not prohibit a local unit of government from doing either of the following:

. . .

(b) Prohibiting or regulating the transportation, carrying, or possession of pistols and other firearms by employees of that local unit of government in the course of their employment with that local unit of government.

Legal under the law - a government vehicle is in the course of employment.

 

[freakshow10mm]

Correct, but could also include your POV if you use that for your job.

 

[romma]

People in MI may not golf because nowhere in their State Constitution or statutes does it say it is legal...

 

[sithanas]

I'd like to see where. If it is already a pistol free zone, yes.

My apologies - it's not an AG opinion but was the opinion of the State Police. (Found it on an older version of the MSP Firearms FAQ.)

This should be interesting to see play out in the courts. I vividly remember the City of Ferndale receiving a firm smacking after trying to ban concealed weapons in their library and city hall.

 

[sithanas]

People in MI may not golf because nowhere in their State Constitution or statutes does it say it is legal...

Not what I said - using your analogy, because golf isn't specifically protected on a state level a local municipality could ban it. As I just said though, it's a gray area in state law and hopefully the courts will sort it out correctly (aka pro-open carry).

 

[RaspberrySurprise]

According to the Michigan AG, open carry is not subject to MI preemption laws. Wait, what? The MI AG says that open carry is NOT legal everywhere in MI.

Why is this? Because open carry is not specifically legislated anywhere in the MCL. MI is an open carry state in the sense that it is not specifically prohibited but also not specifically allowed.

To my knowledge, there has not been a court decision as to whether or not open carry is protected under state preemption. This may prove to be an interesting test case - however, I don't think his prospects are all that good.

"Amendment X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

 

[Poper]

I do a lot of things not "specifically allowed" that are perfectly legal.

<sarcasm>You mean, like, breathe? How dare you? <sarcasm/>

IMHO, you definitely have a point.

Poper