Michigan Man Arrested for Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bald men with lots of tattoos and piercings can be scary too. Shall we ban them?
Click to expand...

Oh let's not please, my hair looks silly when I let it grow out.
 
I'm an attorney and these laws are non-sensical, illogical, and frankly a confusing maze of legaleese.

If I were king for a day I would declare that half of the laws be striken from the books and the other half be reworded. If you can't clearly state a law in one short sentence, then it doesn't exist. None of this "If this, then that" garbage and refereces to six other laws that you have to refer to in order to figure it out.

Laws should make sense and be user friendly.
 
I wonder if, in light of Heller, which was predicated on a "civil rights" argument, and the current suit by Heller's attorneys for expenses (also based on the right to be reimbursed for"civil rights" cases), there is not going to be sufficient basis to bring suit against INDIVIDUAL police officers who abbrogate our civil rights. I don't remember the Chapter and verse, but there is a section in the US Code that addresses threats "under color of law".
 
wonder if, in light of Heller, which was predicated on a "civil rights" argument, and the current suit by Heller's attorneys for expenses (also based on the right to be reimbursed for"civil rights" cases), there is not going to be sufficient basis to bring suit against INDIVIDUAL police officers who abbrogate our civil rights. I don't remember the Chapter and verse, but there is a section in the US Code that addresses threats "under color of law".
Click to expand...

You could try. However Heller didn't specifically find that carry is a right. Yes I know everyone on THR believes it is but as a fact of law Heller found the right to OWN a functional weapon in the home is a right, a civil right at that.

To win the courts would need to extend on Heller to find that the intent of SCOTUS was that both keeping and bearing is a RIGHT. Most courts would likely to make that jump. It may take going all the way back to SCOTUS to get exact clarification.

Until the courts (either by your suit or someone elses) find that carrying is a civil right you would have no ability to sue the officers involved.
 
Wow, I am pretty surprised. I had no ideal Michigan was open carry. I guess I will have to learn more about this topic.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It will affect you. You gave up you rights by accepting the employment but by law the most that should happen is you are FIRED.

Giving up your rights however should be specified but IMHO as it stands, good luck.
 
Glad the arrest was overturned. On a side note, all you Michigan Gun Owners should be aware of http://www.mcrgo.org (Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners). There is a lot of nice information on the site.
Here is one of the posts from their site under CPL FAQs:

Q: You were quoted as saying 'open-carry' was still legal in Michigan. I am in possession of a CPL, now but I cannot find any reference to open-carry in my copy of the Michigan Firearms Laws. Please clarify. What is open-carry? When does it apply as compared to my CPL?

A: In the 19th century, Michigan outlawed the carry of concealed weapons. The rational was that a person could use a concealed pistol in a fight and surprise his or her opponent. That is, a person had a right to know if the other person was armed before getting in a dispute. Michigan has forbidden the carrying of a pistol without a license in a motor vehicle, whether concealed or not, for much the same reason. Poachers who would hunt from cars may very well be the reason that we can only carry our long guns cased or in the truck of an automobile (MCL 324.43513). There are other laws that forbid the carrying of pistols with an unlawful intent (MCL 750.226), and the brandishing of a firearm (MCL 750.234e). Since there are no laws that forbid it, the open carrying of a pistol or other firearm, without unlawful intent and without brandishing, outside of a vehicle is legal.

They also currently have a poll on the front page about open carry and a link to an article "Open Carry - Is Michigan Ready?"
2008/07/31
By Skip Coryell here: http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=3428&zoneid=6
I thought it was a good read .
 
Officers'Wife

Officers'Wife said:
Interesting, if I remember right concealed carry was outlawed because it was believed if a person felt the need to hide their weapon they must have nefarious intent. Now Michigan is saying if you hide the weapon you are being considerate to the sensibilities of others and if not concealing must be assumed to have nefarious intent.

I wish these people would make up their minds!

Selena
Click to expand...
Mrs. Selena,

MIchigan is saying no such thing. The States AG, as well as the Michigan State Police are both on record as saying that OC is legal. It's the city of Grand Haven that did this, and they have dropped charges because they discovered they had absolutely no legal leg to stand on.

Somebody on another forum quoted the Grand Haven Tribune reporting the dismissing of charges, and comment by a captain in Grand Haven's Department of Public Safety stating to the effect that the local ordinance is unenforceable. Look to see a OC picnic there sometime soon I'd expect.

Funny thing, but I can't verify the veracity of the article because the Tribune website seems to be down. Happened before about the same time this whole thing initially went down.
 
Yep, Poor Richard has it nailed. I have the paper at work, and noticed the same online article this afternoon.

Th GH Tribune site is pretty doggy and is slow enough at the noon hour, let alone when a story is linked from a national website.

I'll try to link it as soon as I can.

ADDED LINK TO ARTICLE IN LOCAL PAPER

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/292488794122261.bsp

(Cut and Paste from http://www.migunowners.org)

Charges to be dropped in Coast Guard Fest gun case

Wed, Aug 27, 2008
BY BRIAN KEILEN


Grand Haven is dismissing charges against a man accused of carrying a gun downtown during this summer's Coast Guard Festival.

The 21-year-old Freeport man was arrested under a city ordinance that prohibits possessing and carrying firearms and dangerous weapons in public — but it appears that ordinance is unenforceable under Michigan law, said Capt. Rick Yonker of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety.

"In most cases, a city ordinance can be more restrictive than state law," Yonker said. "But in this case, that does not apply."

It appears state statute regarding openly carrying firearms pre-empts local ordinances, he said. The charges will be dismissed without prejudice and arrangements are being made for the man to get his gun back, Yonker said.

The decision to drop the charge came after research of case law by the city's attorney suggested the ordinance would not hold up in court, Yonker said.

The officers acted in good faith and were enforcing the ordinance, Yonker said, but the city decided not to continue with the case.

"We found it was in the best interest of the city to dismiss this case," he said.
__________________
 
Last edited:
It appears state statute regarding openly carrying firearms pre-empts local ordinances, he said. The charges will be dismissed without prejudice and arrangements are being made for the man to get his gun back, Yonker said.
Click to expand...

Why reserve the right to file at a later date?

Is this a thinly veiled threat against a civil suite?
 
Opportunity to make things better. Not opportunity to get money.

In all of these threads, our members say that he'll get rich on the settlement.

But we don't really want monetary settlements. Dick Heller didn't get a settlement from DC. In fact, I believe we are being too small to see it in terms of monetary settlements.

Instead, we should see this in terms of correcting unreasonable laws. We must take each of these unqualified arrests as an opportunity to get the United States back on course, not an opportunity to get money.
 
First time i saw this thread. there have been a few people here that have been arrested for open carry most recent was in santa monica. it was a long story but the bottom line is the guy got out of it. Its sad that in this day of age police think that its ok to open carry as long as you have a badge
 
ants said:
In all of these threads, our members say that he'll get rich on the settlement.

But we don't really want monetary settlements. Dick Heller didn't get a settlement from DC. In fact, I believe we are being too small to see it in terms of monetary settlements.

Instead, we should see this in terms of correcting unreasonable laws. We must take each of these unqualified arrests as an opportunity to get the United States back on course, not an opportunity to get money.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's the way our system works. If the city of Grand Haven looses a big lawsuit for violating state law (and in turn a citizen's rights), then it discourages other local units of government from doing the same. If a City can arrest someone for exercising their rights (forcing them to put out money for legal fees to fight a malicious prosecution), and all they suffer is having to drop or dismiss charges, then it demonstrates to other cities that they don't have to be held accountable to the law. Loosing a lawsuit puts them and any other city on notice that the people's rights are not to be trampled on. Money matter in this world, and unfortunately it also matters if you win in court.

BTW: Mr. Fetters has pledged to donate any monetary award to a fund to be set up for defending such freedoms in the future.
 
The officers acted in good faith and were enforcing the ordinance, Yonker said, but the city decided not to continue with the case.
Click to expand...


BS! The officers DID NOT act in good faith. They are not entitled to mistakes of law. They knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN as part of their professional responsibilty, that their actions were illegal. THE ONLY proper course of action is to seek indictment of the officers for felony deprivation of rights. In addition, they need to be sued personally under 1983. Trying to force politicians into respecting your rights with lawsuits that only cost tax dollars doesn't really work. They don't respect that. Like cats that claw your furniture, what works best is tearing their claws out.

So long as the frontline officers feel free to hide behind the nuremburg defense we will continue to suffer these abuses. Law Enforcement is the only profession that can get away with such unethical behavior without personal responsibilty. They could have called the city attorney first, they didn't. They could've called the AG's office first, they didn't. There are numerous things that could have been done to prevent this but none were done. The officers made a personal decision to "enforce" a law that the knew to be impoper and unlawful.

I don't want to inhibit good police officers. Likewise I don't want to unjustly punish what are actually good faith mistakes, but that is not the case here. Anyone wishing to sell that line of BS can try somewhere else, I'm not buying. Some will be along shortly to call this "Cop Bashing" or whatever cliche that they choose to use to avoid acknowledging this situation for what it is. This is about a few cops who swore an oath to the constitution the then proceeded to wipe their backsides with it. Frankly it disgusts me. It should disgust you too.


I.C.
 
I.C.,

If you've got proof of your accusations, then provide it. Otherwise it is cop bashing:eek:.

I doubt a call to the city, or prosecuting attorney would have done much since they waited until the day before going to court to dismiss the charges. The head of their Department of Public Safety has allegedly stated that the officers did seek guidance on the incident.

Contrary to what you believe, my personal speculation is that it is the city officials who are liable for this. I guessing it would have gone down the same no matter who the individual officers contacted that night.


My guess is that the PA was busy trying to find some way to make the charges stick. :banghead:
That is of course excepting the MSP officer who was allegedly quoted as stating that OC is illegal in MI. No excuse for him. NONE.
 
Poor Richard,

The proof has already been posted. Links to MSP faq's. A link to the state AG's opinion on the matter for god's sake. The AG is the top state law enforcement official! His opinion was available for all to see prior to this incident. I don't expect police officers to know what the AG's opinion is on the selling of hogs with swine flu at the sale barn, but then that really isn't an explicitly protected right that was the subject of a recent supreme court case now is it? I do expect them to know EXPLICITLY what they can and can't do with respect to the bill of rights in a streetside stop. It's basic, it's fundamental, and they have a professional and ethical responsibility to undertand the basic foundation of their job. I can't wait to hear you defend though....


I.C.
 
I agree with you on that I.C.

Unfortunately that just isn't the way it works. I think the immunity they get is wrong, because IMHO it is too easily led to corruption.

But there is still no proof that these individual officers were aware of the things you mention. Yes, the should be accountable to them, but that's not the same as saying that they knew when there is no proof of such knowledge.
 
My apologies Duke Junior. I must have clicked on the wrong button when I initially responded to your statement in post #68.

Just realized my mistake, as my post didn't go through.

Of course I'm grateful for you or anyone who chooses to contribute to that particular fund. As for being appropriate, well... that's for you to decide, but I it's a case that needs hearing, so I donated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Michigan Police Become Educated on Open Carry
Replies
2
Views
558
Dean Weingarten
D
L
  • Locked
Man Arrested With Weapons at Pelosi’s Denver Hotel
Replies
5
Views
815
geekWithA.45
G
C
  • Locked
Michigan Open Carry Civil Rights Suit
Replies
2
Views
449
RDak
R
B
  • Locked
Victory: Michigan Open Carry & Arts, Beats & Eats Festival
Replies
8
Views
1K
zoom6zoom
Z
D
  • Locked
Man arrested with weapons at Pelosi hotel
Replies
4
Views
532
Justin
Justin
Back
Top