You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

michagan teen arrested for legal open carry


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2012, 01:25 AM   #181
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,852
Liked 3946 Times on 1769 Posts
Likes Given: 3569

Default

kycol you need to actually read the constitution.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

See that part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means that you are carrying the weapon on your person. It can't get any more clear than that. What is your malfunction man? What good would it do to own a weapon that you can't carry with you? Are you just supposed to put it on a rack and stare at it?
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 01:34 AM   #182
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
kycol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,506
Liked 246 Times on 180 Posts

Default

Hang one in your back glass and lay one one the dash and drive through Illinois see how far you get. Open carry and concealed carry is done state by state. Is that not correct. Can you carry any way you want in any state you want answer me that.
kycol is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 01:54 AM   #183
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
kycol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,506
Liked 246 Times on 180 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282
kycol you need to actually read the constitution.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

See that part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means that you are carrying the weapon on your person. It can't get any more clear than that. What is your malfunction man? What good would it do to own a weapon that you can't carry with you? Are you just supposed to put it on a rack and stare at it?
Yet in six states open carry is prohibited
kycol is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 03:22 AM   #184
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,456
Liked 755 Times on 439 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
+100 ^^^^ Me 2.

I believe there was no real need for the kid to create a situation where none existed. The officer puts his life on the line every day that he works, simply by putting on the uniform. Show him some respect by showing him your ID when asked.
If he continues to harass you without justification, make an issue of that. Remember that this situation was entirely recorded. Your cooperation would also have been recorded. That strengthens the case against some hard-a$$ LEO with an agenda AND demonstrates reasonable respect to the much more common LEO that's just trying to stay safe.

Either way you would have come out ahead of the game. If the LEO was really a BG with a badge, the resulting recording would have been even more devastating in court. If the LEO was on the fence, your level-headed behavior could help convince him that not all open carry folks are fanatics. If the LEO was already on your side, you would have walked away with no problems.
HOG WASH! He puts on that uniform to make a PAYCHECK, it HIS (or her) choice to do so. This in and of itself is nothing deserving of respect more than a man (or woman) putting on their uniform to go to a welding job. Respect is EARNED and its high time the Govt. lackies learn they work for ME (us) and NOT the other way around.

Cold hard fact of this case is the kid was within his legal rights...the cop was ignorant of the laws and overstepped his bounds. The cop was dead wrong!



[quote=Shade;786894]You are correct, but unfortunately that is not an excuse.

"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
Is an often quoted line in court rooms.[/
QUOTE]

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

If i am expected to know the law (and this young man did) i would expect those charged with enforcing said law to know it at least as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kycol View Post
Hang one in your back glass and lay one one the dash and drive through Illinois see how far you get. Open carry and concealed carry is done state by state. Is that not correct. Can you carry any way you want in any state you want answer me that.
We are discussing the state of MI and not the Socialist republic of Sillinoise! Each state has there own constitution and bill of rights. I KNOW MI and IN (IN moreso than MI sinc the liberal panty wetting populace (like yourself) have allowed many unconstitutional laws to be placed on the books) have a strong 2nd amendment in their states constitution.

The cop was WRONG the kid was RIGHT! Period!

We see ever increasing instances where cops (and Govt officials) overstep the legal boundries. When the Govt and those charged with enforcing the law no longer feel they have to follow the laws governing them, WHY good sir, should we the people feel the need to follow the laws governing us!?!?
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 04:49 AM   #185
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wake, NC
Posts: 1,155
Liked 116 Times on 81 Posts
Likes Given: 89

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kycol View Post
Hang one in your back glass and lay one one the dash and drive through Illinois see how far you get. Open carry and concealed carry is done state by state. Is that not correct. Can you carry any way you want in any state you want answer me that.
Initially, the bill of rights applied only at the federal level. However, this is no longer the case. It has been held that every citizen is guaranteed equal protection under the law. That means that every person has equal opportunity to bear arms.

So to answer your question: No the issue of whether or not you can bear arms is not a state issue. It's a constitutionally protected right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kycol View Post
Yet in six states open carry is prohibited
I will concede that there is some wiggle room when it comes to how you bear those arms. Although it is not my position, it is conceivable that a state could ban open carry, or it could ban concealed carry. But not both.

Just so long as any permits and requirements of those states are not excessive to the point of impinging on the ability to bear and that all necessary documentation is granted readily to all persons without bias or exception.
__________________
[Remington 870 12GA][Stoeger Model 3500 12GA][Savage 116 .30-06][Savage Model 10 Bull Barrel .223][Marlin 336SS .30-30][Marlin 39A .22][Marlin 795 22LR][Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm][Ruger MkIII 22LR]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Terry V Ohio Commentary
tCan is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 05:05 AM   #186
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tCan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wake, NC
Posts: 1,155
Liked 116 Times on 81 Posts
Likes Given: 89

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
Let's look at the conditions for detaining a person. A police officer can detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are (1) about to commit a crime, (2) you have committed a crime, or (3) you are in the act of committing a crime. I'll address these in order with overly simplified examples.

(1) You're on patrol. You see a guy outside your wife's bedroom window at 3:00 am. He is dressed in black, he is wearing a ski mask, and he is carrying two condoms and a crowbar. Any reasonable person would deduce he is not there to deliver your paper, but is instead about to commit a criminal act.

(2) You see a man walking down the street at 3:00 AM. He is dressed in black, covered with broken glass shards and carrying a 60 inch LCD television. Chances are he is not taking the TV in for repair at this time of the morning since the local repair shops don't open until 9 AM. Any reasonable person would suspect he has stolen the TV.

(3) You see what looks like a young kid carrying an M1 Garand downtown on a Friday night.

In all three of these cases the police have an obligation to determine what is going on. In all three of these cases the police have every right to detain the person by temporarily removing their liberty to proceed with what they are doing in order to determine whether or not their actions are lawful. In all three of these cases, yes, even in Michigan, the person detained is then obligated to show ID upon request.

So, this kid will be arraigned today on charges of disturbing the peace, brandishing a weapon and obstructing an investigation. In my opinion the only charge that should stick is the last one. He did in fact obstruct the investigation by not showing ID after he was detained. The disturbing the peace appears to be bogus since no story mentions any calls to the police to report this kids actions. Brandishing should also go away since the kid did have a legal right under Michigan law to do what he was doing. Too bad he was wrong about his rights concerning the ID thing.
Sir, you are incorrect in your third example. Had you expanded your example to include that the guy with the M1 was looking into a shop window, then ducking into an alley and repeating this once or twice more, you'd have grounds for detainment. This was the situation with Terry vs Ohio. It was the activity of the men that provided for probable cause and NOT the fact that they were african american or that were dressed in baggy clothes.

Do not disseminate half truths and lies and expect not to be called on them. Your 3rd example differed quite highly from the first two because you provided extra in formation in the first two..

Had you described a man in a black shirt and jeans walking down the street with a crowbar, probable cause would not exist to detain him. Suspicion alone does not constitute guilt. It's frustrating running into these ignoramous over and over again...
__________________
[Remington 870 12GA][Stoeger Model 3500 12GA][Savage 116 .30-06][Savage Model 10 Bull Barrel .223][Marlin 336SS .30-30][Marlin 39A .22][Marlin 795 22LR][Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm][Ruger MkIII 22LR]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Terry V Ohio Commentary
tCan is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 11:08 AM   #187
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1769 Times on 990 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
kycol you need to actually read the constitution.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

See that part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means that you are carrying the weapon on your person. It can't get any more clear than that. What is your malfunction man? What good would it do to own a weapon that you can't carry with you? Are you just supposed to put it on a rack and stare at it?
You might want to read the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It's the part that gives the states or the people the right to decide issues not explicitly covered or prohibited in other parts of The Constitution. Please note that the amendment states ?the people? and not the individual.

If there is something you don't like about your local gun laws, start a petition, acquire enough signatures, get it placed on a ballot, and let the people vote on it. If you firmly believe what you are saying, and if you believe enough people feel the same way you do, step away from the keyboard and get to work.
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 11:09 AM   #188
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,852
Liked 3946 Times on 1769 Posts
Likes Given: 3569

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kycol View Post
Yet in six states open carry is prohibited


The statement you made was "the second amendment does not give us the right to carry" but it clearly does. Those six states are in violation of the constitution. The fact that these six states are treading on our constitutional rights does not negate what the second amendment clearly states. What really bothers me is that people like you don't seem to understand this and you seem to be ok with it. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm just trying to educate you but that doesn't seem to be possible. Facts mean nothing to you. You claim to love your guns but you aren't willing to stand up for your rights and you ridicule those that are willing.

I know you are not a young person and neither am I. You are old school when it comes to respecting police officers and so am I. Times are changing, things aren't the same as they were when you and I were kids. I remember when every policeman I met was not only respectful but kind and brave. That isn't the case anymore. Why do the police need to dress in black masks? Why do they need to throw people on the ground when they have already clearly surrendered? Why did the FBI feel the need to sniper shoot a woman holding a baby after they killed her 14 year old son? (Ruby Ridge) Why did they burn nearly 100 people to death many of them children over a lousy 200 dollar tax on a full auto gun? (Waco) These are only two examples. Old school or not this is not the America I grew up in. Please Mr. Kycol wake up open your eyes and see what is happening.
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 11:33 AM   #189
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 3,852
Liked 3946 Times on 1769 Posts
Likes Given: 3569

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402 View Post
You might want to read the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It's the part that gives the states or the people the right to decide issues not explicitly covered or prohibited in other parts of The Constitution. Please note that the amendment states ?the people? and not the individual.

If there is something you don't like about your local gun laws, start a petition, acquire enough signatures, get it placed on a ballot, and let the people vote on it. If you firmly believe what you are saying, and if you believe enough people feel the same way you do, step away from the keyboard and get to work.

Your statement about the 10th amendment proves my point not yours.
The second amendment is an issue that is explicitly covered in the constitution. Is an individual not a person/people? I think you and kycol have a reading comprehension problem. You and kycol seem to have a hard time understanding what this thread was about. We are talking about the laws in the state of Michigan. The young man wasn't violating any local or federal laws.

You both "feel" he should have cooperated more but your feelings are irrelevant. It's the laws we are talking about not feelings. If it was you or I we would have shown the cop our ID. But the fact is he was not required to show his ID. If that bothers you maybe you should start a petition get the signatures and put it on the ballot. Step away from the keyboard and get to work. After all you are the one that thinks the law needs to be changed.
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Old 05-03-2012, 12:06 PM   #190
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 562
Liked 84 Times on 60 Posts

Default

Defining being detained is a tricky thing. The SCOTUS has ruled that a traffic stop is not detention, hence no Miranda warnings when the officer asks you why he/she pulled you over.
I also work with a Detective who interviews people at his PD conference room without any Miranda warnings. How? He tells the person that the door to the room is unlocked as is the exit from the PD. the person is free to leave the interview at any time.
Arrest and detention are two different things but there has so be something to indicate to the accused that they are not free to go. If the officer felt that this was a crime about to occur and detained the suspect to investigate and that detention was clear, this kid has a problem. But that officer had better be able to clearly articulate why there was probable cause to detain him.
If the officer just made contact with him and the suspect left, not wishing to speak to the officer which then prompts more officers arriving, detainment and probable cause still have to be clear to ask for ID or arresting him. The info we currently have is too limited to establish any conclusions. If he lives in a liberal area, don't expect a Judge to look at the facts correctly nor the jury.
I agree and have been given the same advice from may police officers. If there is any question in your mind, ask if you are being detained or are free to go.
msup752 is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Legal responsibilities with no carry signs? MattMac27 Legal and Activism 22 06-26-2012 11:58 AM
South Carolina Teen Arrested for Alleged High School Bomb Plot sculker The Club House 18 06-04-2012 02:27 PM
Is it legal to shoot in open areas felix1904 Legal and Activism 4 04-17-2012 03:15 AM
Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry Debate Tony Soprano The Club House 31 08-06-2009 05:23 AM