Michigan Man Arrested for Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.)

Right, that was MSP's position according to an older version of their FAQ.

Did you see there was a newer version of their FAQ that corrected the older version to explicity state that open carry was legal and covered by the preemption law after all? I don't have a link handy, but it's out there.
 
I just went to the FAQ - it does say it's legal but doesn't specifically cover the preemption law. Should be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts - they've been pretty good to MI residents so far. Might also be worth seeking an AG opinion on as well.
 
They have pulled this same garbage recently in OTHER states to OC people.

MI
OH
ME = Maine
ETC.

Catherine
 
There aren't affirmative laws in the United States. If it isn't forbidden, it is allowed.
Dictators and tyrants declare that the subjects need permission to do things, not a supposedly free country.
 
Well, good, a test case. We are taught in classes in MI, that even though open carry is not illegal in MI, don't try it.:mad: Of course that's just your instructor pulling out all the stops to make sure you get your CPL. It doesn't take into consideration the idiots that want to scream and whine about it or arrest you for it. I'd love to see a lot more of it, maybe then people would get used to it, and either be alright with it, or stay the hell in their homes!:mad:

I hope this guy wins a big lawsuit and buys himself a lot of firearms.
 
it's a gray area in state law and hopefully the courts will sort it out correctly (aka pro-open carry).

This shouldn't be a gray area at all. If it is not forbidden under state statute, and is already recognized a a common law right, then it is perfectly legal.

The so-called gray area is between the ears of the cops and prosecutors, who attempt to charge and convict citizens of misdemeanors, just because they want to be the "only ones".

In other words, you serfs should know your place!
 
Check updates 54, 55,& 66

55 corrects where #54 states local law may disallow open carry

Fine work,thumbody.
Thank you for getting us the correct answers.
 
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

Usually, but sometimes I breath really fast so I take up more oxygen than I need just becaues I can. :neener:
 
Solo Flyer said:
People carrying weapons can be frightening and the department received several verbal complaints about the man, Reiss said.

Any time I've seen a person carrying openly, I've always assumed they were security or a plainclothes police officer.

I would suspect a person's manner of dress would strongly affect how people react to an openly-carried gun. If they were dressed professionally, probably no complaints. If they look like a member of Hell's Angels, probably complaints.
 
sithanas said:
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.

I would imagine section 3a of the Michigan code which states a lesser authority may not regulate firearms any more than is already done by the federal or state authority would apply.

Only that which is forbidden need be expressly stated in a free society. That which is not forbidden need not be expressly granted permission.
 
QUOTE:


Quote:
it's a gray area in state law and hopefully the courts will sort it out correctly (aka pro-open carry).

This shouldn't be a gray area at all. If it is not forbidden under state statute, and is already recognized a a common law right, then it is perfectly legal.

The so-called gray area is between the ears of the cops and prosecutors, who attempt to charge and convict citizens of misdemeanors, just because they want to be the "only ones".

In other words, you serfs should know your place!

~~~~~

Bingo! Thank you.

Catherine
 
55 corrects where #54 states local law may disallow open carry

Aha! I knew it was there before. Glad to see that they've put up a new interpretation — having this out there should light up the city ordinance but good.
 
Sithanas mentioned the Ferndale case. Yes, it most certainly applies, along with the state preemption law (Michgian Act 319 of 1990).

Here’s some excerpts from the case:

In the present case, it is readily apparent that the Ferndale ordinance regulates areas that §
1102 expressly prohibits. Section 1102 provides that a local unit of government shall not enact
an ordinance pertaining to the transportation or possession of firearms, but the city of Ferndale
does just that. Despite the clear language of the Legislature, amicus curiae contends in a
conclusory fashion that § 1102 should not preempt ordinances like the Ferndale ordinance
because the statute "is not clearly aimed at municipal control of activities within the confines of
its own public buildings." However, the language of § 1102 is broad and all-encompassing. A
state statute that prohibits a local unit of government from enacting "any ordinance or regulation"
or regulating "in any other manner" the transportation or possession of firearms cannot
reasonably be interpreted to exclude local ordinances that address the carrying of firearms in
municipal buildings. Indeed, in their brief defendants concede that under § 1102 local units of
government are prohibited "from enacting laws that concern ownership or possession of
firearms, 'except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.'" In sum, the
Ferndale ordinance is preempted by § 1102 unless it can be shown that such regulation is
permitted under under the language "except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state"
in § 1102.13


Thus, our analysis turns to whether a law of this state otherwise permits a local unit of
government to regulate an area encompassed by § 1102.14 Defendants contend that § 5c of MCL
28.421 et seq. is "a law of this state" that does just that. Defendants argue, in essence, that § 5c,
which is part of the amendments of MCL 28.421 et seq. enacted in 2000, returns to local units of
government the power to enact and enforce an ordinance or regulation concerning the possession
and transportation of pistols or other firearms. In other words, defendants argue that what § 1102
prohibited, § 5c now permits by virtue of the language "except as otherwise provided by law."
We disagree.



IV. Conclusion​
In sum, we conclude that § 1102 is a statute that specifically prohibits local units of
government from enacting and enforcing any ordinances or regulations pertaining to the
transportation and possession of firearms, and thus preempts any ordinance or regulation of a
local unit of government concerning these areas. …
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/doc...OA/20030429_C242237_47_85O.242237.OPN.COA.PDF


freakshow said:
Open carry of firearms
Subject to MCL 750.234d, it is legal to carry a visible pistol in public.
That's the pertinent info. Link works on my end.
That’s probably why both the congressional liason for the MSP, and one of the senators from MI both agree that CPL holders are exempt in those zones (see subsection (2)c of MCL 750.234d).
 
Update!

Mr. Fetters court date was scheduled for Augest 27. We received news today that the charges were dismissed, and that he plans to file suite in federal court.

Score one for the good guys.
 
Definitely good news. Now, did they return his pistol? Be willing to bet they drag their heels as much as possible.

Jay
 
We've been told that the pistol is going to be returned.

PS.
I should add that there is a way people can contribute to the funding for the legal fees for this. If anyone is interested they may PM me.

My understanding is the he is an active duty service member.
 
Based on a similar case here in Louisiana it may be years before he sees the end of this case. It took a Louisiana OCer 2 years of legal wrangling to get the local police to settle for an undisclosed amount. I wish this guy luck with his case.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top