Michigan Duty to Inform

Status
Not open for further replies.

crazydaysorg

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
36
Location
Michigan
Yesterday I was selling at a outdoor craft fair at a public library parking lot while carrying. There were a regular patrol of a pair of officers who went through the show. At one point one of the pairs stopped at our table and he started talking to us while the other officer moved off to another table. We chatted about some of the pieces of work which we had for sale. While the officer was working it hardly seemed in an official capacity that we were talking.

That made me think about reviewing the law on the duty to inform. It didn't seem like a "stop" which is the word used in the law. I was not in a vehicle, but behind a table in our booth. What does the word "stop" mean in the law here? Is any interaction while the officer is on duty? It does not seem to apply to only to while in an automobile based on my reading of other sections around the law. And for cases when within a vehicle, does a passenger of a vehicle have a duty to inform?

Based on this document on Michigan firearm laws: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/Firearms.pdf

Search: "28.425f.amended"

Sec. 5f (3) An individual 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 and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
 
i was just in a car crash last month, drunk driver hit me from behind on interstate. Just so happens when the crash occurred the Highway Patrol was set up on side of road looking for a reckless driver that had been called in. Yeah it was the drunk reckless driver that hit me. i am required to disclose my ccw to law enforcement. When HP pulled up to crash i handed him my DL and CCW permit. He could have cared less. I later asked my friend who is another HP about it. He said 'we don't care, we assume everyone is armed"
 
That Michigan law specifies duty of a licensed carrier to inform if "stopped by a peace officer".
I believe that "stop" by a police officer in the line of duty is a special use of the verb "stop".
A police officer dropping by a flea market stall to idlely chat is not a "stop by a peace officer".

Originally Tennessee had a duty to inform on a traffic stop by LE.
After years of THCP holders being better behaved than the general public, the duty to inform became duty to inform if asked.
I also think informing a peace officer that you are armed in an informal setting could be very confusing.and frankly unnecessary.

I am not a lawyer, and if you really need legal advice consult a local attorney familiar with both the statutes as written, local police policy, and actual case law based on court rulings by local judges.
 
As above... "...and who is stopped by a peace officer ..." is the operative word in the phrase.
(But good manners/no surprises never hurts)
 
I don't think what occurred was a "stop".

Stop would be the officer is addressing you in an official capacity.
 
That wasn't even an FI, they were just talking. If they noticed you were carrying, (Hopefully they should be able to do so!) and didn't say anything about it, you have nothing to worry about.
 
You were not stopped by the officer in his official LE capacity, it is not necessary to inform in your case. Had he stopped by your booth while conducting some sort of investigation and was asking you questions pertaining to that investigation, then yes would need to inform.
 
The law is if you are contacted in "an official capacity". There is no duty to report if it is a casual contact as you describe.

My mother was from MI, and I still have family there and I visit anually. Even though I carry on HR218/LEOSA, I am bound to inform in an "official contact", but not a casual contact.

I got clarification from a MSP Trooper whom I have known for years.
 
The cop stopped to chat. He wasn't stopping you to chat about something you did. Getting stopped in a vehicle or the like is a different thing. The cop's partner would not have wandered off in that case.
 
The law is if you are contacted in "an official capacity". There is no duty to report if it is a casual contact as you describe.

My mother was from MI, and I still have family there and I visit anually. Even though I carry on HR218/LEOSA, I am bound to inform in an "official contact", but not a casual contact.

I got clarification from a MSP Trooper whom I have known for years.
that actually is not correct. The exceptions to the LEOSA law for concealed carry throughout the united states, territories and possessions does not include duty to inform. There is no duty to inform anywhere.
 
that actually is not correct. The exceptions to the LEOSA law for concealed carry throughout the united states, territories and possessions does not include duty to inform. There is no duty to inform anywhere.

Yes...I am retired now (I should have made that clear in my original post, but it didn't seem germane to the OPs question). The only exemption I am granted is to carry in 50, otherwise I must abide by all other laws i.e. I must inform, I must abide by local magazine capacity ordinances, etc.
 
The law is if you are contacted in "an official capacity". There is no duty to report if it is a casual contact as you describe.

My mother was from MI, and I still have family there and I visit anually. Even though I carry on HR218/LEOSA, I am bound to inform in an "official contact", but not a casual contact.

I got clarification from a MSP Trooper whom I have known for years.

ive never met a cop/trooper yet that understood the laws very well if at all. a state trooper clarifying it means not much. point being requires a lawyer who researches case law to get a true valid opinion on the subject. biggest mistake one can make is getting legal advice from a police officer.
 
ive never met a cop/trooper yet that understood the laws very well if at all. a state trooper clarifying it means not much. point being requires a lawyer who researches case law to get a true valid opinion on the subject. biggest mistake one can make is getting legal advice from a police officer.

Seriously dude? Do you even want to go to a cop bash? I mean, by all means if you want to change the nature of this conversation, feel free, but this is supposed to be The High Road and not "I hate cops, cops don't know the law and blah blah blah". Your snippy dig against cops is nothing more than an expression of your own lack of knowledge or training on the subject and a typical "nuh uh" statement lacking substance.

When I visit Michigan (or any other state under HR218/LEOSA) as a retired officer I am required to follow all the state's laws extant regarding concealed carry, where I can carry, or magazine capacity limits.

All LEOSA does is allow me to carry a concealed handgun in that state, it does NOT grant federal exemption to ANY other state law. I cannot carry high capacity magazines in New York for example because LEOSA does not contradict NYS SAFE Act for retired LEOs.

In fact, in New Jersey, I am prohibited from carrying or possessing JHP ammo in public as well, so I carry Glaser Safety Slugs loaded in my Glock 36, and my spare mags are loaded with Hornady 230gr Truncated Cone, which adheres to NJ law on ammo, and NYSs 7-round magazine capacity limit for non serving/retired out of state LEOs. I am bound by the laws regarding magazine capacity there for NON LE which is 15 rounds, but as I have family in Cape May NJ and in New York State, I make the best compromise available to carry in a manner that complies with the rules of the road on both sides of the state lines. I just carry

I have no special exemption under LEOSA to carry into a bar if it is otherwise prohibited in Maryland, for example. I cannot carry concealed, as a retired LEO, in a church in Nebraska or Louisiana...even with the permission of the pastor.

As for officers not knowing the law...please explain to me where you got your law degree? Can you name the academy where you taught the law classes (I can name the one where I did, focusing on 4th Amendment adherence and Lethal Force). When did you attend any of the FBI Academy extension courses for police officers, or FBI-LEEDA continuing law classes? Tell me when you took LFI-1 and LFI-2? I took my first LFI classes in 1994 and do you want to argue with Massad Ayoob?

Go ahead and call a lawyer in...pick a state...and ask "How is LEOSA as it applies to retired officers being enforced in your state?" or "Does a retired officer from Arizona have to inform a Michigan police officer that he is carrying under LEOSA?" or "Does LEOSA grant any special exemptions to retired cops carrying in your state?".

You know what answer you'll get? "Um...LEO-what? Let me get back to you on that." unless you get REALLY lucky and actually get an attorney who specializes in lethal force law, or is an enthusiastic member of the NRA. I bet they can wax on for hours about tort law, divorce, bankruptcy, and personal injury, or DUI defense in their state...but ask any attorney here how much time they spent on self defense, use of force, or firearms law in law school. Most of them will tell you that if you want to know how those laws are applied by LE and interpreted by a court in a given jurisdiction...they will tell you to ask a cop. Spats will probably agree with this one.

Michigan State Police is one of the most respected and highly thought of LE agencies in the country. MSP Troopers are the best of the best. The best educated, the most well trained, and the most widely trusted in the state. My friend, whom I have known for well over 20 years, is a court recognized SME in lethal force, ballistics, and an instructor at the Michigan State Police Academy in Lansing MI. So, yeah, I will take his word/opinion/interpretation of Michigan carry laws over anyone but the man in the raven suit on the bench.

The most recent and updated version of LEOSA regarding the privilege granted to retired LEOs is below. NOWHERE in the verbiage will you see any exemptions to state law other than "yeah, they can carry a gun". If it is not clearly spelled out...regarding "duty to inform" or "magazine capacity" or "any exemption it is "presumed NOT to exist".

######################################################################################

§ 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers


(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).


(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--


(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or


(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


(c) As used in this section, the term "qualified retired law enforcement officer" means an individual who--


(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;


(2) before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);


(3)(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or


(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;


(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;


(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or


(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);


(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and


(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.


(d) The identification required by this subsection is--


(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or


(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and


(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--

(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.


(e) As used in this section--


(1) the term "firearm"--

(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

(C) does not include--

(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and


(2) the term 'service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
 
Yes...I am retired now (I should have made that clear in my original post, but it didn't seem germane to the OPs question). The only exemption I am granted is to carry in 50, otherwise I must abide by all other laws i.e. I must inform, I must abide by local magazine capacity ordinances, etc.

I'm a retired LEO and certified by the state as a firearms instructor. I do qualifications for LEOSA and training and qualifications for carry permits. I have been a firearms/tactics instructor since 1976.

Read LEOSA. It starts out "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State...". Legally that means the only state laws that count are those we say do in this law. The only state laws that have any relavence are:

1. Leaving the right to restrict carry in state, county or local government buildings and facilities.

2. Leaving the right to restrict carry on private property to the property owner.

3. Establishing a qualification course for a LE agency which can be used for LEOSA qualification.

Read 926C (e) 1 (B). It allows you to carry any ammunition not prohibited by Federal law or the NFA. You can carry hollow points under LEOSA. State law cannot contradict Federal law.

LEOSA says nothing about duty to inform. Now as a rule I do as I would like an active or retired LEO to let me know if I was encountering them before I retired.

LEOSA says nothing about any state law prohibiting carry in a bar. It doesn't prohibit the owner from restricting carry on private property. There was a case in Sturgis a few years ago where some LEOs carrying under LEOSA got involved in a shooting. Good shoot but they were charged under state law for violating the state law prohibiting carry in a bar. This was eventually dismissed by a judge who after reading LEOSA said LEOSA only allows the state to prohibit carry on state property. The state doesn't own any bars.

The only place alcohol is mentioned in LEOSA is where it says you can't be under the influence. I don't know of any LEOSA case that defined that. My guess is the same standard as DUI.

Magazine capacity is not addressed in LEOSA. "Notwithstanding" should cover it. However, most people who carry under LEOSA just go along with whatever the state law is to my experience.

It's not a case of LEOSA contradicting state law. It's a case of state law contradicting a Federal law. It can't.

"Notwithstanding" means without regard to, in spite of etc.
 
I'm a retired LEO and certified by the state as a firearms instructor. I do qualifications for LEOSA and training and qualifications for carry permits. I have been a firearms/tactics instructor since 1976.

Read LEOSA. It starts out "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State...". Legally that means the only state laws that count are those we say do in this law. The only state laws that have any relavence are:

1. Leaving the right to restrict carry in state, county or local government buildings and facilities.

2. Leaving the right to restrict carry on private property to the property owner.

3. Establishing a qualification course for a LE agency which can be used for LEOSA qualification.

Read 926C (e) 1 (B). It allows you to carry any ammunition not prohibited by Federal law or the NFA. You can carry hollow points under LEOSA. State law cannot contradict Federal law.

LEOSA says nothing about duty to inform. Now as a rule I do as I would like an active or retired LEO to let me know if I was encountering them before I retired.

LEOSA says nothing about any state law prohibiting carry in a bar. It doesn't prohibit the owner from restricting carry on private property. There was a case in Sturgis a few years ago where some LEOs carrying under LEOSA got involved in a shooting. Good shoot but they were charged under state law for violating the state law prohibiting carry in a bar. This was eventually dismissed by a judge who after reading LEOSA said LEOSA only allows the state to prohibit carry on state property. The state doesn't own any bars.

The only place alcohol is mentioned in LEOSA is where it says you can't be under the influence. I don't know of any LEOSA case that defined that. My guess is the same standard as DUI.

Magazine capacity is not addressed in LEOSA. "Notwithstanding" should cover it. However, most people who carry under LEOSA just go along with whatever the state law is to my experience.

It's not a case of LEOSA contradicting state law. It's a case of state law contradicting a Federal law. It can't.

"Notwithstanding" means without regard to, in spite of etc.

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

Try being the test case for that. The first part does NOT modify or change the meaning of (b)

No, those items are not specifically mentioned, nor are they specifically provisioned by...and state law will prevail. Try arguing that to a New York Superior Court judge because you would be using the "Nuh uh!" argument based on your feelings about the issue.

Section (b) specifically mentioned that it shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that...

Tell me...what part of "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State" grants exemption? The answer would be "no part".

Yay...cool man...you "qualify" for LEOSA too. Happy Meal! I too am certified by AZ-POST as a police firearms/defensive tactics instructor, NRA (worth about as much as toilet paper in a Charmin factory), and several other sanctioning bodies as a firearms instructor, yippy, every plumber with fantasies of being a tacticool dood is too, and you can be too for $300 and a few hours in a room with a fat guy with a stack of books and handouts and a test booklet...but none of those things mean diddly as it applies to LEOSA or exemptions in other states. Heck, the NRA even cooked up a way to make more money with their new "Carry Guard" program. Yay for the NRA....but that still means nothing.

But...again...how is the meaning of "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State" affected in the least by ANY states certifications??? It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

Read the rest of that section. That deals with state laws regarding restrictions on carry on state or local government property (buildings and lands) or private property. That's it. Nothing to do with informing, hollowpoints, or anything else.
 
Read the rest of that section. That deals with state laws regarding restrictions on carry on state or local government property (buildings and lands) or private property. That's it. Nothing to do with informing, hollowpoints, or anything else.
Nor does it grant exemption. As I said...try your argument in front of a judge, or tell him/her all about how cool you are in your own state. I wouldn't tell him/her how cool I am in my own state. But again, I am not going to be the test case defending against it.
 
Nor does it grant exemption. As I said...try your argument in front of a judge, or tell him/her all about how cool you are in your own state. I wouldn't tell him/her how cool I am in my own state. But again, I am not going to be the test case defending against it.

"Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State..." is the exemption. Look up the definition of notwithstanding. Federal laws always trump state laws.

Most laws are written with what you can't do. If it's not written in the law you can do it. You are looking for LEOSA to tell you what you can do. That's not the way most laws work.

I don't see where I claimed "how cool I am". I quoted the law as written. I related the decision of a state judge in relation to people carrying under LEOSA. That judge's decision wasn't appealed so it has established case law in that state.

Most of the cases hears in state courts regarding LEOSA have to do with if the person is a "qualified law enforcement officer". Two I can recall right now deal with a constable from PA and a Coastie who worked in Port Security. Both were dismissed as they fit the description required by LEOSA.

You can follow any restrictions or requirements you want. I pointed out the ones LEOSA said you have to follow.
 
Well this turned not fun quickly. The original post asked about the time line in which non-law enforcment should tell an officer of a concealed weapon. You two feel free to talk to yourselves. Though perhaps you could do it privately.

As to the original question, without joking this time. If the cruiser lights are on, be polite and tell them where it is. If you are standing on the street and the conversation is serious and about you be curteous and tell them, but don't show them, it makes them understandably nervous.
Have a nice day all.
 
"Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State..." is the exemption. Look up the definition of notwithstanding. Federal laws always trump state laws.

Most laws are written with what you can't do. If it's not written in the law you can do it. You are looking for LEOSA to tell you what you can do. That's not the way most laws work.

I don't see where I claimed "how cool I am". I quoted the law as written. I related the decision of a state judge in relation to people carrying under LEOSA. That judge's decision wasn't appealed so it has established case law in that state.

Most of the cases hears in state courts regarding LEOSA have to do with if the person is a "qualified law enforcement officer". Two I can recall right now deal with a constable from PA and a Coastie who worked in Port Security. Both were dismissed as they fit the description required by LEOSA.

You can follow any restrictions or requirements you want. I pointed out the ones LEOSA said you have to follow.

Did you NOT see...repeatedly...NOT see "retired"? I have been specifically talking about RETIRED.

Read the section in YELLOW.
 

Attachments

  • HR218FAQ - Hlite.pdf
    46 KB · Views: 5
Creaky Old Cop, Griz 22 is correct in his reading of LEOSA. You are incorrect in yours. For an ex-copyou should be able to read and understand laws a little bit better than you are here.
 
....I related the decision of a state judge in relation to people carrying under LEOSA. That judge's decision wasn't appealed so it has established case law in that state.....
Hogwash -- another example of an LEO (or retired LEO) not fully understanding the technicalities of the law.

A decision of a trial court is not "case law." It is not precedent and is not binding in other cases. "Case law" is (emphasis added):
...reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. ....

You might be confusing "case law" with a different principle, "law of the case." "Law of the case" means (emphasis added):
the term applied to the doctrine that states that when a point of law is decided by a court, then the decision is binding in all subsequent stages of the case....

So case law consists of decisions of courts of appeals binding in other cases, and law of the case consists of decisions on points of law binding in further proceeding of the same case.

So the trial court's ruling in the Sturgis case you alluded to in post 17 doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to other cases.

Note also: If you are going to refer to a court decision to support an argument, you need to provide a proper citation. The rest of us need to be able to find the decision and read it for ourselves. We need to have the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether it means what you say it means.

Seriously dude? Do you even want to go to a cop bash? I mean, by all means if you want to change the nature of this conversation, feel free, but this is supposed to be The High Road and not "I hate cops, cops don't know the law and blah blah blah". Your snippy dig against cops is nothing more than an expression of your own lack of knowledge or training on the subject...
Perhaps you'd care to take me on regarding this point.
.
In any case, LEOs are not a good source of legal advice. I've just demonstrated that. And apropos of that, I certainly have a lot more experience practicing law than you do.

....When I visit Michigan (or any other state under HR218/LEOSA) as a retired officer I am required to follow all the state's laws extant regarding concealed carry, where I can carry, or magazine capacity limits....
That is probably the best advice for reasons discussed below.

....All LEOSA does is allow me to carry a concealed handgun in that state, it does NOT grant federal exemption to ANY other state law. I cannot carry high capacity magazines in New York for example because LEOSA does not contradict NYS SAFE Act for retired LEOs.....
That is a possible interpretation and application of LEOSA. Based on the language of the federal statutes I can conceive of a judge so ruling.

But the interpretation urged by GRIZ22 is also possible.

The problem is that without definitive rulings by courts of appeal we have little reliable guidance. I personally don't know if there are such ruling. If anyone knows of some please let me know by Private Message (we've wasted enough time in this thread).

So assuming the lack of clarifiying case law, your conservative approach is probably the best idea.

...do you want to argue with Massad Ayoob?....
I generally have no reason to argue with Mas, but I was one of his assistant instructors for a MAG-40 class of his in Arizona a few years ago.

Creaky Old Cop, Griz 22 is correct in his reading of LEOSA. You are incorrect in yours. For an ex-copyou should be able to read and understand laws a little bit better than you are here.
How would you know? Let's see citation to appellate court decisions confirming you opinion.
 
Hogwash -- another example of an LEO (or retired LEO) not fully understanding the technicalities of the law.

A decision of a trial court is not "case law." It is not precedent and is not binding in other cases. "Case law" is (emphasis added):

You might be confusing "case law" with a different principle, "law of the case." "Law of the case" means (emphasis added):

So case law consists of decisions of courts of appeals binding in other cases, and law of the case consists of decisions on points of law binding in further proceeding of the same case.

So the trial court's ruling in the Sturgis case you alluded to in post 17 doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to other cases.

Note also: If you are going to refer to a court decision to support an argument, you need to provide a proper citation. The rest of us need to be able to find the decision and read it for ourselves. We need to have the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether it means what you say it means.

Perhaps you'd care to take me on regarding this point.
.
In any case, LEOs are not a good source of legal advice. I've just demonstrated that. And apropos of that, I certainly have a lot more experience practicing law than you do.

That is probably the best advice for reasons discussed below.

That is a possible interpretation and application of LEOSA. Based on the language of the federal statutes I can conceive of a judge so ruling.

But the interpretation urged by GRIZ22 is also possible.

The problem is that without definitive rulings by courts of appeal we have little reliable guidance. I personally don't know if there are such ruling. If anyone knows of some please let me know by Private Message (we've wasted enough time in this thread).

So assuming the lack of clarifiying case law, your conservative approach is probably the best idea.

I generally have no reason to argue with Mas, but I was one of his assistant instructors for a MAG-40 class of his in Arizona a few years ago.

How would you know? Let's see citation to appellate court decisions confirming you opinion.

Thank you for correcting my use of terminology. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and have no problem admitting it.

I also agree with your assessment of the issue being discussed.

If Creaky Old Cop feels the need to discuss this with me further we should do it by PM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top