PDA

View Full Version : OPEN CARRY FEDERAL LAWSUIT: Michigander sues over 2nd, 4th, & 14th A. Violations


Liberty1
05-12-2009, 7:52 PM
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/25746.html

Michigan Open Carry Civil Rights Suit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC announces federal civil rights suit against City of Grand Haven and Ottawa County over open-carry ordinance.

The suit, brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, was filed on behalf of Christopher Fetters, an off-duty Air Force Security Officer who was attending the Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven last year. Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to firearms, (MCL 123.1102.) The public policy goal of the statute is to provide a uniform system of gun laws statewide so that citizens do not have to guess regarding what local rules might exist as they move from one locality to the next.

The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters’ civil rights under the 2nd , 4th, and 14th, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which reads, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” when he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.

Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney’s Office, after being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance. No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest. He is demanding damages for violation of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States and of Michigan.

The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.

Theseus
05-12-2009, 8:39 PM
:sorcerer: I grant you $1 million!

wilit
05-12-2009, 8:48 PM
Lets hope he wins big.

Kid Stanislaus
05-12-2009, 8:52 PM
Liberty1 wrote: ".....he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel."

So much for professionalism of the police.

bobbarker
05-12-2009, 8:52 PM
This is awesome! I really hope he wins this one. (Also from MI, but stationed here, with a similar Bee in my bonnet, so to speak.)

Rascal
05-12-2009, 8:54 PM
What are the chances of getting incorporation in the 6th circuit court?

DDT
05-12-2009, 9:01 PM
What are the chances of getting incorporation in the 6th circuit court?

85.7%

freakshow10mm
05-12-2009, 9:09 PM
MI is pretty protective of our open carry. A local unit of government cannot prohibit it in any way, including renaming it some other offense like disturbance, etc. In fact they cannot prohibit or regulate any carrying of any firearm that is stricter than state law.

Also according to MCRGO v Ferndale, this state preemption has been upheld and upheld ever since. Furthermore, a person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. It is your option to provide ID/CPL.

Lastly, if you are openly carrying a firearm in MI you cannot be stopped solely for that reason. If the officer wants to stop you, do so, then ask if the reason you are stopped is for lawful open carry. If you are not free to go, get a supervisor. Or you can be like my range buddy, get arrested, then sue the PD for unlawful arrest and settle out of court for $50,000 and buy a couple guns to open carry around town.

Ottawa County/Grand Haven have paid thousands in court settlements to people openly carrying firearms. They just don't learn.:rolleyes:

DRM6000
05-12-2009, 9:17 PM
as a native michigander, WOOHOO!

MP301
05-12-2009, 9:26 PM
The ball seems to be rolling all over the place. This is fun....

Rascal
05-12-2009, 9:27 PM
Will incorporation be mentioned in this case?

TheBundo
05-12-2009, 9:27 PM
What are the chances of getting incorporation in the 6th circuit court?

Two weeks

swhatb
05-12-2009, 9:30 PM
Could someone :thumbsup: sue in CA on the same issue when the county enacts a policy of no firearms in county parks?

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/25746.html

Michigan Open Carry Civil Rights Suit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC announces federal civil rights suit against City of Grand Haven and Ottawa County over open-carry ordinance.

The suit, brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, was filed on behalf of Christopher Fetters, an off-duty Air Force Security Officer who was attending the Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven last year. Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to firearms, (MCL 123.1102.) The public policy goal of the statute is to provide a uniform system of gun laws statewide so that citizens do not have to guess regarding what local rules might exist as they move from one locality to the next.

The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters’ civil rights under the 2nd , 4th, and 14th, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which reads, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” when he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.

Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney’s Office, after being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance. No allegations were ever made that Mr. Fetters ever threatened anyone, or in any other way disturbed the peace on the day of his arrest. He is demanding damages for violation of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States and of Michigan.

The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.

Canute
05-12-2009, 10:01 PM
Also according to MCRGO v Ferndale, this state preemption has been upheld and upheld ever since. Furthermore, a person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. It is your option to provide ID/CPL.

I guess that's better than nothing. I'm planning on traveling the country by bicycle in a couple of months, including Michigan, and live in a no-issue county of California.
I guess I get an open carry holster for Michigan.
Damn, I'm a native and my parents still hold residence there and I'm SOL on CC.

freakshow10mm
05-12-2009, 10:09 PM
are all the counties in MI this stubborn?
No. There's a few out there that are morons. Fortunately our LE up here in the northern part of the UP are well informed of the laws.

I guess that's better than nothing. I'm planning on traveling the country by bicycle in a couple of months, including Michigan, and live in a no-issue county of California.
I guess I get an open carry holster for Michigan.
Damn, I'm a native and my parents still hold residence there and I'm SOL on CC.
No, no no. Do NOT enter Michigan with a pistol unless you have a carry permit from your state of residence. It is a felony. FOPA is a gray area on this because it states "traveling through" and I don't think there is any case law regarding overnight stops. Due to the geographic position of MI (being out of the way off to the side, there is very little reason to enter it on a cross country journey. Just warning you about the law here. If you have a carry permit in your home state, you can bring your pistol and carry it on you.

Canute
05-12-2009, 10:13 PM
No, no no. Do NOT enter Michigan with a pistol unless you have a carry permit from your state of residence. It is a felony. FOPA is a gray area on this because it states "traveling through" and I don't think there is any case law regarding overnight stops. Due to the geographic position of MI (being out of the way off to the side, there is very little reason to enter it on a cross country journey. Just warning you about the law here. If you have a carry permit in your home state, you can bring your pistol and carry it on you.

Wow, so not even in a locked container? That's screwed up...

sgtlmj
05-12-2009, 10:15 PM
No. There's a few out there that are morons. Fortunately our LE up here in the northern part of the UP are well informed of the laws.


No, no no. Do NOT enter Michigan with a pistol unless you have a carry permit from your state of residence. It is a felony. FOPA is a gray area on this because it states "traveling through" and I don't think there is any case law regarding overnight stops. Due to the geographic position of MI (being out of the way off to the side, there is very little reason to enter it on a cross country journey. Just warning you about the law here. If you have a carry permit in your home state, you can bring your pistol and carry it on you.

This law has changed as of Jan 7th of this year. Out of state residents can now possess handguns in MI without a CPL. There are a few conditions, but it's been opened up.

A lot of us, myself included, contacted our legislators and informed them that for decades folks coming in to hunt and shoot in handgun matches were essentially instant criminals. Our laws are gradually opening up, starting with going from may-issue to shall-issue several years ago. Keep the faith!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hd1ne555iimjaezgchxk4wbe))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-422

MCL 28.422
(8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:
(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.
(b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).
(c) The individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports.
(d) The individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
(e) The individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in this state.

Joe
05-12-2009, 10:17 PM
awesome

69Mach1
05-12-2009, 10:18 PM
MI is pretty protective of our open carry. A local unit of government cannot prohibit it in any way, including renaming it some other offense like disturbance, etc. In fact they cannot prohibit or regulate any carrying of any firearm that is stricter than state law.

Also according to MCRGO v Ferndale, this state preemption has been upheld and upheld ever since. Furthermore, a person openly carrying a firearm on foot in a legal manner when approached by a police officer and questioned where the only reason for the questioning is because of the openly carried firearm need not give that officer their name and address. No license or ID is required to openly carry a firearm. It is your option to provide ID/CPL.

Lastly, if you are openly carrying a firearm in MI you cannot be stopped solely for that reason. If the officer wants to stop you, do so, then ask if the reason you are stopped is for lawful open carry. If you are not free to go, get a supervisor. Or you can be like my range buddy, get arrested, then sue the PD for unlawful arrest and settle out of court for $50,000 and buy a couple guns to open carry around town.

Ottawa County/Grand Haven have paid thousands in court settlements to people openly carrying firearms. They just don't learn.:rolleyes:

Ha ha, that is awesome.

Canute
05-12-2009, 10:23 PM
Thank you very much, Sir! It looks like item (a) is still a bit of a gray area. I'm legally able to purchase and transport (but perhaps not carry, depending on how that's defined) but there's no license for the first two for me to possess, at least in this state.

sgtlmj
05-12-2009, 10:32 PM
Thank you very much, Sir! It looks like item (a) is still a bit of a gray area. I'm legally able to purchase and transport (but perhaps not carry, depending on how that's defined) but there's no license for the first two for me to possess, at least in this state.

Right, (a) is a bit vague, since there are many states that do not require a license to purchase like MI does. It should probably read, "The individual is permitted in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol." I would think that even without a specific license, if your state allows you to purchase a pistol then you would be fine.

Canute
05-12-2009, 10:53 PM
Anyway, good luck to the guy :thumbsup:!

freakshow10mm
05-13-2009, 3:53 AM
Thanks for that. I didn't know the law was changed. There was a bunch of stuff that went into effect January 9th but I missed that one.

When you guys get a green light after DROS, is their a receipt or proof you have showing you passed? That would suffice for a license. In the opinion regarding machine guns, the state law specifies "license", previously meant only for FFL/SOTs but the current (pro gun) AG stated that a tax stamp is something you get which then allows something and as such has all the functions of a license. Since that opinion came out we can now own fully transferrable machine guns. I think the same opinion of licenses would apply. We use the term license or permit simple because that's the state term.

In MI, if you don't have a CPL, you need a purchase permit, which is essentially a receipt showing you went to your LE station and passed a background check and can buy a pistol.

In WI, where I'm from, the FFL calls the state DOJ and it's a one page form for a handgun.

ilbob
05-13-2009, 5:21 AM
I guess that's better than nothing. I'm planning on traveling the country by bicycle in a couple of months, including Michigan, and live in a no-issue county of California.
I guess I get an open carry holster for Michigan.
Damn, I'm a native and my parents still hold residence there and I'm SOL on CC.

MI has some odd rules about non-residents even having an unloaded and encased handgun. IIRC, you can't even bring your handgun to MI w/o a permit because of the registration requirements that are only waived for permit holders.

Its a convoluted mess of a law.

Remember, IANAL but I think it works this way.

1. Non-residents with a permit from their home state can carry.

2. Non-residents without a permit from their home state but with a NR permit from another state can bring an unloaded and encased handgun with them, but it can only be loaded under certain cases.

3. Non-residents with no permit are out of luck completely.

Ezekiel2000
05-13-2009, 5:38 AM
Thank you very much, Sir! It looks like item (a) is still a bit of a gray area. I'm legally able to purchase and transport (but perhaps not carry, depending on how that's defined) but there's no license for the first two for me to possess, at least in this state.

Wouldn't the HSC qualify as a license for purchases, therefore making you good on section a?
(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.

scc1909
05-13-2009, 5:49 AM
Ottawa County/Grand Haven have paid thousands in court settlements to people openly carrying firearms. They just don't learn.:rolleyes:
The problem with this is that it is the good citizens of Ottawa County/Grand Haven who end up footing the bill for irresponsible LEOs. If the individual officers were personally financially responsible for their actions, this sh*t would stop in less time than it takes to pull off a car-jacking at a Detroit traffic light! :rolleyes:

Kishfisser
05-13-2009, 5:51 AM
This law has changed as of Jan 7th of this year. Out of state residents can now possess handguns in MI without a CPL. There are a few conditions, but it's been opened up.

A lot of us, myself included, contacted our legislators and informed them that for decades folks coming in to hunt and shoot in handgun matches were essentially instant criminals. Our laws are gradually opening up, starting with going from may-issue to shall-issue several years ago. Keep the faith!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hd1ne555iimjaezgchxk4wbe))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-422

Forgive me if I am wrong, but reading this:
(8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:

(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.

(b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).

Would California have an acceptable form of a liscense?

sgtlmj
05-13-2009, 6:30 AM
MI has some odd rules about non-residents even having an unloaded and encased handgun. IIRC, you can't even bring your handgun to MI w/o a permit because of the registration requirements that are only waived for permit holders.

Its a convoluted mess of a law.

Remember, IANAL but I think it works this way.

1. Non-residents with a permit from their home state can carry.

2. Non-residents without a permit from their home state but with a NR permit from another state can bring an unloaded and encased handgun with them, but it can only be loaded under certain cases.

3. Non-residents with no permit are out of luck completely.

Incorrect. Read my post above.

freakshow10mm
05-13-2009, 6:34 AM
MI has some odd rules about non-residents even having an unloaded and encased handgun. IIRC, you can't even bring your handgun to MI w/o a permit because of the registration requirements that are only waived for permit holders.

Its a convoluted mess of a law.

Remember, IANAL but I think it works this way.

1. Non-residents with a permit from their home state can carry.

2. Non-residents without a permit from their home state but with a NR permit from another state can bring an unloaded and encased handgun with them, but it can only be loaded under certain cases.

3. Non-residents with no permit are out of luck completely.

Under the old law, no resident carry permit means no possession in MI.

Now with a license to purchase in their state of residence, etc they may possess but not carry.

sgtlmj
05-13-2009, 6:51 AM
Under the old law, no resident carry permit means no possession in MI.

Now with a license to purchase in their state of residence, etc they may possess but not carry.

Correct. The crux was that MI used to require a purchase permit/safety inspection certificate to possess a handgun, and you could only get one of those if you were a resident. The change this year exempts non-residents from the purchase permit (for 180 days), and eliminates the safety inspection for residents.

I have written my reps about the fact that not all states issue a license and asked them to clarify. I'll shoot a letter off to the AG as well.

We've probably sidetracked this thread enough though. :thumbsup:

freakshow10mm
05-13-2009, 7:04 AM
And this all started in 1925 with the KKK leading the charge.

bulgron
05-13-2009, 7:05 AM
Now with a license to purchase in their state of residence, etc they may possess but not carry.

What about states that don't require a license to purchase?

And in CA, can I point to my HSC and say that this is good enough?

With the crappy mess that is Michigan's economy, I have no desire to visit there anytime soon. But it is interesting to see how convoluted and screwed up gun laws are in other states. Makes me feel a wee-bit better about living in CA.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 7:27 AM
The problem with this is that it is the good citizens of Ottawa County/Grand Haven who end up footing the bill for irresponsible LEOs. If the individual officers were personally financially responsible for their actions, this sh*t would stop in less time than it takes to pull off a car-jacking at a Detroit traffic light! :rolleyes:

I concur! The residents of those counties need to be made aware of how their county officials are wasting tax dollars for the purpose of violating citizens rights. And they need to inform those officials that if it continues they can kiss the next election good bye!

Could someone like the state AG, or the Feds come in and file criminal charges against officals who keep engaging in knowing violations of law and then buying their way out with taxpayer funds?

freakshow10mm
05-13-2009, 8:01 AM
What about states that don't require a license to purchase?
No license no possession.

And in CA, can I point to my HSC and say that this is good enough?
In my opinion I think it would but it's up to the court to decide. There will be a test case or opinion shortly.

But it is interesting to see how convoluted and screwed up gun laws are in other states. Makes me feel a wee-bit better about living in CA.
Some stuff we are very good at but other stuff leaves me scratching my head.

Shall issue concealed carry.
Open carry on foot no permit or ID required for 18yo or older.
Open carry on vehicle other than motor vehicle permitted (ie you can sling a loaded AR15 on your back and ride your pedal bicycle around).
Open carry in pistol free zones if you have a CPL. Go figure.
Carrying of arms and other things like taxing, ammunition, etc are preempted and tons of case law support it. Even liberal judges in liberal districts uphold it without question.

Weird stuff is the nonresident pistol deal. All firearms 30" or less are pistols and must be registered as such. However this means a Mini 14 with folding stock is a pistol and can be carried loaded in your vehicle or concealed on your person. SBR and SBS only for C&R guns on a C&R FFL, but as a Class 2 SOT having gone through miles of red tape, I cannot. No suppressors but everything else goes, SOTs are exempt.

Purchase permit (receipt showing you passed a background check) for pistols is required if you don't have a CPL (concealed pistol license). CPLs after 11/25/05 are a NICS exemption (of course I got mine 2 months before that).

No other nonsense that I can think of.

Canute
05-13-2009, 9:17 AM
I have written my reps about the fact that not all states issue a license and asked them to clarify. I'll shoot a letter off to the AG as well.

Straight up Utah reciprocity would be nice. What a morass of rules.

We've probably sidetracked this thread enough though. :thumbsup:

Oh, but it's turned into a fascinating and informative discussion :).

sgtlmj
05-13-2009, 10:20 AM
No license no possession.


In my opinion I think it would but it's up to the court to decide. There will be a test case or opinion shortly.


Some stuff we are very good at but other stuff leaves me scratching my head.

Shall issue concealed carry.
Open carry on foot no permit or ID required for 18yo or older.
Open carry on vehicle other than motor vehicle permitted (ie you can sling a loaded AR15 on your back and ride your pedal bicycle around).
Open carry in pistol free zones if you have a CPL. Go figure.
Carrying of arms and other things like taxing, ammunition, etc are preempted and tons of case law support it. Even liberal judges in liberal districts uphold it without question.

Weird stuff is the nonresident pistol deal. All firearms 30" or less are pistols and must be registered as such. However this means a Mini 14 with folding stock is a pistol and can be carried loaded in your vehicle or concealed on your person. SBR and SBS only for C&R guns on a C&R FFL, but as a Class 2 SOT having gone through miles of red tape, I cannot. No suppressors but everything else goes, SOTs are exempt.

Purchase permit (receipt showing you passed a background check) for pistols is required if you don't have a CPL (concealed pistol license). CPLs after 11/25/05 are a NICS exemption (of course I got mine 2 months before that).

No other nonsense that I can think of.

Good summary. Also, there are no restrictions on AW or mag capacities. No waiting periods. No registration of long-guns.

One strangeness is that retired LEO's can get a CPL without taking a class, but active LEO's still have to. CPL holders are exempt from purchase permits, but LEO's still must have them. (Which is why I'm an LEO and also have a CPL :D)

It's gradually improved over the years. We have a few powerful gun rights orgs in state (MCRGO, MGO, SAFR) who keep up the fight. Even though our governor is Canadian-born and grew up in CA (She was Miss San Carlos), she has signed plenty of pro-gun legislation. We now have shall-issue, have gotten rid of our handgun "safety inspection", and there is leg. in the works to remove gun-free zones.

Soon, there won't be anyone left in MI though, so this is all academic. :thumbsup:

Publius
05-13-2009, 10:25 AM
85.7%

FUD! You're full of %$#! The chances are actually 86.3%.
:D

7x57
05-13-2009, 10:54 AM
The complaint alleges, among other issues, violations of Mr. Fetters’ civil rights under the 2nd , 4th, and 14th, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, which reads, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” when he was physically restrained, disarmed, and subjected to verbal harassment and ridicule by law enforcement personnel.


I guess I'm getting jumpy, but at this point whenever I hear of a lawsuit with a 2nd amendment claim that isn't announced by one of the Right People (nationally), I automatically worry it is one of the Stupid Cases that could screw up everything.

But...


Mr. Fetters was openly carrying a holstered pistol, which is legal under Michigan law, as in most states. He was arrested and detained and charged with a violation of a Grand Haven city ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms. His gun was initially seized, although it was later returned.

Michigan law prohibits local units of government from making any law with respect to firearms, (MCL 123.1102.)


This all sounds better--clear violation of state preemption. My remaining worry is that the case wins but the court insists the 2nd isn't incorporated or that the LEO behavior was Constitutional.


Criminal charges were later dropped by the Grand Haven City Attorney’s Office, after being informed of the unenforceability of their ordinance.


This is a good sign, at least for the state law claims.


The case has been filed in the U.S. Court, Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids and has been assigned Case Number 1:09-CV-00190.

Michigan is in the sixth circuit. We don't have an incorporation case in the 6th, do we? Naturally I'd be very happy to have another circuit weigh in in favor of incorporation, but as always I worry about which case brings it before the circuit. This case smells nothing like Maloney, but still....

7x57

DDT
05-13-2009, 12:30 PM
This all sounds better--clear violation of state preemption. My remaining worry is that the case wins but the court insists the 2nd isn't incorporated or that the LEO behavior was Constitutional.

You can't exactly ask the guy to just "take one for the team" when he's arrested for doing something specifically defined as within his rights according to state law.


Michigan is in the sixth circuit. We don't have an incorporation case in the 6th, do we? Naturally I'd be very happy to have another circuit weigh in in favor of incorporation, but as always I worry about which case brings it before the circuit. This case smells nothing like Maloney, but still....


It is a disservice to the second amendment to only fight for the right of those who are "good guys" to have the RKBA. Anyone who has not lost the right through due process should be able to count on someone standing up for their second amendment rights. It seems this guy is a very clean case but there is no reason that we shouldn't be also standing up for people in criminal court.

7x57
05-13-2009, 12:55 PM
You can't exactly ask the guy to just "take one for the team" when he's arrested for doing something specifically defined as within his rights according to state law.


Since it seems like an entirely righteous case, he indeed shouldn't be "thrown under the bus." But there are options.

Since the state law seems to be very settled, it's reasonable for a citizen to rely on it and to sue for it's application when necessary. Absolutely he should be in court with a claim under preemption. If the state RKBA has a good case history of being applied, so that there isn't a worry about establishing precedent, then a claim under the state Constitution's RKBA clause would be fine too.

But the federal 2A is not settled law--we're just a year after Heller's starting gun into the slow process that defines it. Therefore a citizen should not immediately go out and rely on it for personal safety--that doesn't work any more than a black man in 1930 should go about his personal life relying on the Constitution. In such a situation, bringing a case is a matter of activism, and of course *some* case should be brought. But it should be the best possible one, and people who are less than ideal plaintiffs for whatever reason should sit on their hands.

Is that fair? Absolutely not, but then only liberals and children believe fairness is a political or legal principle. It is good strategy for securing the rights of your children, and that's what matters.

So what is questionable is whether there should be a 2A claim in the lawsuit. His 2A rights have been violated, no question, but if this *is* the wrong case (and I have no reason to think it is, I just brought up the possibility) then he should not be asserting that in court *at this time.*

Harsh? Yeah. All games played for keeps with people's lives are harsh.


It is a disservice to the second amendment to only fight for the right of those who are "good guys" to have the RKBA.


It is a greater disservice to fight to establish what the 2A means(*) in a way that will nullify the legal protection of the RKBA not only for the plaintiff but everyone else too.

* Just to be clear: we know what it means historically--but then we know what the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities clause mean too, and they are unrecognizably mangled in court. We are fighting to establish a *legal* meaning which approximates the historical meaning as much as possible and avoid the kind of debacle that destroyed the P&I clause.


Anyone who has not lost the right through due process should be able to count on someone standing up for their second amendment rights. It seems this guy is a very clean case but there is no reason that we shouldn't be also standing up for people in criminal court.

Nope. That would all be true if the 2A were settled law. What you are missing is that we are still engaged in a struggle to *define* what the 2A means. We must not lose the war in order to win a satisfying battle.

Gunnies want to live their lives as though the courts will respect their rights, much like Americans created a good government and then let it decay into a not-so-good government because they believed (against all the advice of the founders) that the job was done and they could go to sleep. We're the same way. We have to man up and realize we're in a war and fight like it.

7x57

Librarian
05-13-2009, 1:41 PM
This law has changed as of Jan 7th of this year. Out of state residents can now possess handguns in MI without a CPL. There are a few conditions, but it's been opened up.

A lot of us, myself included, contacted our legislators and informed them that for decades folks coming in to hunt and shoot in handgun matches were essentially instant criminals. Our laws are gradually opening up, starting with going from may-issue to shall-issue several years ago. Keep the faith!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hd1ne555iimjaezgchxk4wbe))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-422
MCL 28.422
(8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:

(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.
(b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).
(c) The individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports.
(d) The individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
(e) The individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in this state.
I also think it looks like the legislature did not take into account that some places do not require a license to purchase or transport.

I don't think the HSC qualifies - it doesn't require a background check to be issued.

So, I just hit the MSP site and sent them the question.

Librarian
05-20-2009, 9:15 AM
And, a nice Trooper from MSP sent a reply yesterday:

Mr [Librarian],

The non-resident exception to the registration requirement found in MCL 28.422 requires individuals to be licensed in their home state and to have that license on their person while possessing a pistol in Michigan. If your state does not offer a license to purchase/transport/possess a pistol and you do not have a CCW, you would be required to obtain a Michigan license prior to possessing a pistol in Michigan.

Sincerely,

Tpr. Chris Hawkins
Michigan State Police
Executive Division
714 S. Harrison Rd
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517)336-6241

vrand
05-20-2009, 9:44 AM
The ball seems to be rolling all over the place. This is fun....

Nice :thumbsup:

jasilva
05-20-2009, 9:45 AM
So does a CA HSC card count?:rolleyes:

Also does Michigan honor Utah non-resident CCW permits?

sgtlmj
05-20-2009, 9:48 AM
And, a nice Trooper from MSP sent a reply yesterday:


I wonder what kind of license he's referring to? A non-res can't obtain a CPL or purchase permit, so he must be talking about a driver's license?

28.422(3) The commissioner or chief of police of a city, township, or village police department that issues licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols... shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols to qualified applicants residing within the city, village, township, or county... An applicant is qualified if all of the following circumstances exist:

(c) The person is a citizen of the United States and is a legal resident of this state...


I got a response from the MI AG's office yesterday acknowledging that they got my query. My reps haven't responded yet. If I were back in MI, I'd just stroll into one of their offices because I know them pretty well.

Canute
05-20-2009, 12:44 PM
I wonder if the legislators could be convinced that the Mi requirement is redundant because of the fed check?