CPL changes passed Michigan Senate (SB59)

There was a lot of talk about reforming some of Michigan's gun laws. Snyder (and Michigan State Police) was behind the scenes pushing back against a lot of it. He's not a real friend of gun owners, although he's not Gretchen Whitmer or Joe Schwarz on this issue either from what I hear.  Probably similar to Granholm or Engler who won't oppose it if it is politically expedient. Granholm was awful as AG on this issue (tied too much with Duggan), not bad on this issue as governor (thanks to Cherry), and now back to her AG views with her talk show (ie Stand your ground comments after she signed a similar bill in MI). I was hoping to get rid of registration/licensing completely. That didn't happen.

I was hoping this would go further than it did. It's still much more good than bad. The two bads are the OC loophole in CEZ's by CPL holders is officially closed, and hearing notices are now first class mail instead of certified. The rest are improvements, including exemptions for "special" CPLS (rather repeal completely), and sheriffs doing all the gun board work (rather be gone completely, but it's better). This reminds me a bit of the original CPL bill. Some good steps, but it isn't perfect.

A compromise bill, SB 59, passed the Michigan Senate that did I think more good than bad. Mlive gives a brief run down. 

LANSING, MI - County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated and sheriffs would take over their duties under a bill approved Thursday by the Michigan Senate.
The legislation – passed 27-11 in the Republican-led chamber – next goes to the Republican-led House for its consideration in the final weeks of the 2011-12 legislative session.
Some of the changes contained in the proposal, according to an analysis provided by Republicans:
• Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
• County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated, and county sheriffs would assume their duties. County clerks and state police would continue to have roles in the process. Sheriffs would continue to consult with prosecutors and police on applicants.
• A license decision would have to be made within 45 days of application – one of the provisions aimed at streamlining the permit process.

Some of it I like. Some of it I wish goes further. I like the boards being eliminated period with the police out out of the equation completely (sorry Murph), but I'd much rather have the sheriffs there than the prosecutors and especially MSP. MSP out of the equation is a huge win and reduces gamesmanship. They are no friends of freedom.

One of the best aspects of this bill is that an applicant may no longer be required to meet with the sheriff's rep (formerly board) unless the sheriff's dept believes the applicant may not be qualified for a CPL. That's eliminates a major inconvenience in some counties. 

The bill prohibited licensing authorities from requiring other documents (Doctor's notes were a problem in Kent County) and extra fees outside what is legislated.

Stalling by counties on fingerprints does not affect the 45 day window for temporary licenses.

An exemption is required allowing CPL holders to carry in some CEZ's (criminal empowerment zones). Exemption requests that are denied can be appealed.

The training now requires firing at least 98 rounds of ammo, not 30.

The new exemption covers this:

k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption

from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is

eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual

requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or

more of the following apply:

     (i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial

or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who

provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual

has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the

training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all

of the following conditions:

     (A) It includes both classroom and range time.

     (B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94

rounds.

     (C) It focuses on the training principles described in section

5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in

subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).

     (D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national

or state firearms training organization.

     (E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms

instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms

training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide

training under section 5b(7)(c).

     (F) The training is completed not more than 5 years

immediately preceding the date of application for an original or

renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.

     (ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by

this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training

under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the

individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if

the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor

issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

     (6) The licensing authority may delegate the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under subsection

(5)(k) to the clerk of the licensing authority for current

licensees only.

     (7) The licensing authority or the clerk under subsection (6),

as applicable, shall within 10 days after receiving an application

for an exemption, either issue or deny issuance of the exemption

and send by first-class mail in a sealed envelope a replacement

license to the applicant with the exemption indorsement or, if the

exemption is denied, a notice of denial. If the exemption is

denied, the notice of denial shall specifically state the statutory

authority for the denial. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the

licensing authority or the clerk, as applicable, from making a

determination regarding the exemption at the time the application

is submitted and immediately either issuing a replacement license

to the applicant that contains the exemption indorsement or denying

the exemption and immediately providing the written notice of the

denial, including the statement of the statutory authority for the

denial, to the applicant.

     (8) If the licensing authority delegates the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under section 5o to

the clerk of the licensing authority, the entire fee paid for the

exemption and the replacement license shall be deposited in the

concealed pistol licensing fund and credited to the account

established for the clerk of the licensing authority.

     (9) If the applicant is licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol at the time he or she is granted an exemption

under section 5o, the applicant shall surrender his or her license

to the licensing authority by mail or in person immediately upon

receiving his or her replacement license containing the exemption

indorsement.

     (10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section

12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol

on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the

individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is

employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control

over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of

the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is

otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the

individual is acting with the express written consent of the ownerof the premises or an agent of the owner of the premis

Why does this always have to be so convoluted? I need to give Mike Green's office a call and see what is defined as a "state or national firearms training organization." At first glance, my gut tells me likely NRA, as they are the usual standard, but I'd like to rely on more than that. What is going to piss off some people is the subtle open carry ban by cpl holders in those CEZ's. Depending on some technicalities, one is possibly allowed to open carry in some cez's if that individual is a cpl holder. This is no longer the case without the exemption. Violations of carrying in criminal empowerment zones are the same. Civil infraction and CPL suspension for 1st offense. Misdeamenor and revoke for 2nd offense. Felony for 3rd offense and CPL revoked.

I don't like at all the certified mail being replaced by first class mail for hearing notices. I don't trust first class mail very much unless it's certified.

There's added projection for the "village idiot" clause. If there is "clear and present" danger, an applicant or CPL holder is a danger to the public, the applicant is entitled to legal council at the hearing to help make sure this actually is the case and not gamesmanship.

Interestingly, the Michigan Senate on guns is probably more partisan now than ever. Part of that is probably 2010 election results by location.

Roll Call No. 791 Yeas—27

Booher Green Kowall Proos
Brandenburg Hansen Marleau Richardville
Casperson Hildenbrand Meekhof Robertson
Caswell Hune Moolenaar Rocca
Colbeck Jansen Nofs Schuitmaker
Emmons Jones Pappageorge Walker
Gleason Kahn Pavlov

Nays—11

Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
Gregory Hunter Warren

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Hansen

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

Anderson's vote surprised me a little. The rest did not. Gleason's the lone dem voting for this bill. Back in the original CPL days, about 1/3 of the dems supported it and 1/4 of the republicans opposed. Now no republicans opposed it, and only one dem supported it. It'll be interesting to see what the house does.  

 

Birmingham Open Carry Case - NOT GUILTY!

There was no crime committed here at all. Frankly, this shouldn't even have gone to trial, and I hope Sean and his attorneys look at appropiate legal measures in response to overzealous law enforcement and an overzealous city attorney. This was a travesty, and a firearm carried over the shoulder is not brandishing.

From the Detroit News

A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle in downtown Birmingham.
A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.
Judge Marc Barron on Wednesday had issued a directed verdict dismissing a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer after Combs' attorney, James Makowski, argued that city attorney Mary Kucharek had not proven that offense.
"I think they came up with the right verdict," Combs said after his acquittal. "It took them a while, but at the end of the day, I think it was the right decision."
Outside the courtroom, Combs was all smiles as he hugged his mother, Pam Mytnik. His older brothers, Chris and Patrick Combs, and girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, also were present.
Mytnik said she hopes the case encourages people to learn the law. "I just think everyone needs to know the laws before we make arrests, and I would like to see that in the future," she said.
Combs' attorney said he was pleased with the verdict.
"I've said from the beginning this is not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case," Makowski said. Kucharek declined to comment on the verdict.

Throwing in the catch-all bullshit made it worse. I second this quote 100%. 

Certainly his choice to open carry and his understanding of the law and the validity of the law have all been vindicated," said John Pierce, co-founder and spokesman for OpenCarry.org. "But what this was really a victory for is the fact that you can't use these nebulous provisions such as disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct as a way of chilling behavior that is otherwise legal."

Notice who didn't prosecute this case. It wasn't the county prosecutor. This was a city attorney who prosecuted this case. County didn't touch it.

I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist when it comes to rights and laws against it although I personally choose not to open carry. Open carry is however legal, and should continue to be legal. Period. However, I personally believe in using appropriate discretion. Sometimes, things that are legal are bad tactics. While open carry of a long gun is legal and should be legal, I question the judgment of long gun open carry in an urban or suburban setting. I've seen open carry of long guns quite often and have open carried them myself during hunting season. I would not open carry my shotgun in downtown Brighton. In parts of the Brighton Rec Area nearby, it'd hardly raise an eyebrow. Most people would assume that it was a hunter. 

I think someone who open carries should get a belt holster, get a pistol, and carry it on the side. It's not going to draw the same attention as long-gun carry does. I've seen that much more often, and I haven't seen anyone comment about it.

Whether you agree or disagree though with the judgment that Combs used, the bottom line here that there was a shady prosecution for a legal behavior that violates a social norm in Birmingham, long known as a very anti-gun area. Just because you may not like the behavior, doesn't mean it's okay to try and toss someone into jail and give a record over it. Using catchall and creative technicalities is an evil technique that needs to be slapped down hard. Certain law enforcement agencies and city attorneys need to be held accountable for this and face consequences. This prosecution is ten times more criminal than anything Sean Combs did. 

Open Carry and preemption court fight in Lansing

I'm going to start out with this. I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist when it comes to firearms laws. I support open carry as well from a RIGHTS standpoint - as in government shouldn't ban it. On the same note, we need to be smart and look at reality when it comes to public opinion on firearms and make sure our tactics are sound. Be smart.

Public opinion with gun laws is generally this. 25-30% are die hard pro-2nd Amendment supporters. They are on our side no matter what. 10-20% are die hard antis no matter what. 50-65% slightly lean one way or the other, but it's not a big issue with them. Mostly they don't want the boat rocked. That's why major gun legislation usually does not pass and why we have incremental pieces of gun control repeals.

In other words, when you represent firearms owners, you better make sure you don't piss off the independents.

The most divisive issue right now in the movement is open carry. It's a big one in Michigan, California, and Virginia, along with other places. I support open carry as a rights issue. We do not have the bill of needs. We have the Bill of Rights. If somebody wants to open carry, I personally have no problem with it despite my own choice not to open carry (I prefer concealed). I don't care if someone has no "so called need" to open carry. That's not my judgment call to make.

Open carry is legal in Michigan. Anyone who legally owns a firearm and passes the Federal NICS check or Michigan's pistol background check can carry openly in Michigan. It is legal. There is no law against it, only brandishing.

A different law on firearms is the preemption act. That's to avoid a patchwork of gun laws in Michigan so that one isn't unknowingly breaking the law, which is quite easy to do. The preemption act passed in 1990. Public Act 319 of 1990

In short, public act 319 disallows in most cases a "local unit of government" from being more stringent than state law. The statute defines “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county. That's a big issue right now with open carry issue, because it's now in the news.

From The Lansing State Journal

A court order that bars people from openly carrying a firearm onto Capital Area District Library property will stand until at least June.

Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina on Tuesday broadened a Feb. 16 ruling to now keep anyone from openly toting firearms on the library's grounds. Her previous restraining order had applied only to members of Michigan Open Carry or associated people.

"I wish I could say that you could all carry weapons wherever you wanted, but I can't say that," Aquilina said during a hearing attended by gun rights advocates and library officials. "I do believe the library can regulate whether weapons come in or don't come in the library."

Library officials requested an injunction to bar people from openly carrying firearms on the premises in February, after four incidents since December where people believed to be members of Michigan Open Carry brought firearms into the building.

Aquilina said because the library is an "authority," it does not fall within a jurisdiction - city, township, village or county - where state law requires open carry to be allowed. She set a June 6-7 evidentiary hearing to more thoroughly go through evidence and make a declarative ruling on the issue.

I don't agree with the rules and have a lot of procedural concerns with it as the individual who caused the clustermuck by all accounts was not a member of Michigan Open Carry (and was not allowed to join). That's a side issue though that can be sorted out at the next hearing.

Now other statutes, including Michigan Constitution has "authorities" as local units of government. Both sides agree that the library is an "authority." The preemption statute does not specifically say authorities are local units of government, but other statutes do. While Michigan Open Carry had a great argument in their brief, there was just enough room for interpretation. We now have a court fight.

What's the point besides rights issues? Don't be a dumbass. Don't be a test case when you don't have to be one. That's the point. This whole fight, and the definition of what constitutes "local unit of government" in statute, was avoidable. While we as gun owners may win in the end, we did not have to put ourselves in a position to lose when we don't have to do so.

Open Carry in of itself isn't the problem. If I carried my pistol, in a side holster, exposed for all to see, it probably would not get much reaction. If I wore brown khakis and a button down shirt like I sometimes do, you'd probably think I was a cop or security.

If I walked in open carrying a shotgun or rifle outside of hunting season in a rural area, I'm going to have a lot of eyes on me and people wondering what the Hell I'm doing. If I saw someone open carrying a long gun, I would have one hand near my concealed gun while I look to get the Hell out of there. An open carry pistol in a holster, no big deal.

The Lansing area isn't known to be a friendly city in the first place to the 2nd Amendment. This is the area that gave us a lot of people who didn't even support the non controversial Vear Bill. Laura Baird, Lynne Martinez, Mike Murphy, Joan Bauer, Lingg Brewer, Virg Bernero, Gretchen Whitmer, and Mark Meadows have long records opposing firearms rights in the state legislature. All represented either Lansing, East Lansing, or both. Stuart Dunnings and Gene Wriggelsworth are two of the most anti 2a prosecutors and sheriffs in the state. It is what it is when it comes to that area.

So what caused this fight? An individual decided to open carry a shotgun to the Capitol Area District Library in Lansing. This alarmed people, and he was asked to leave. Others open carried there afterward and the CADL pushed for an injunction banning open carry there and got it. The judge considered "authorities" which the library is, not to be a unit of local government as it pertains to the preemption act. There will be another hearing on this in the future.

In my opinion (not a legal sense or political one), the individual open carried a shotgun there in the same way we have Jerry Springer shows. Shock value intended to inflame people, be in your face, and draw attention. It does not help the firearms movement. It is a bad tactic. While gun control is viewed as a big loser of an issue these days, our rights were in extreme danger of major bans back in 1999 and 2000 under Clinton/Gore, and no CPLs. I remember those days well. While open carry is legal, it won't be if this crap continues to happen. As gun owners, we need to exercise our rights, and do so in a responsible way. I doubt a pistol in a holster would garner the same reaction as a OCed shotgun. This created a bad test case which gave the antis an opening.

What's my biggest concern with this besides more gun control in general? Authorities cover a lot of aspects of local government. If the final decision in this is adverse, this can be expanded to a lot of other areas, most concerning to me being parking lots, and hence carrying in your car in those areas. This can be real bad news for us if the decision stands and holds up on appeals.

At best, this is going to cost a lot of money to defend. For those who don't like open carry, keep in mind that this case affects concealed carry and all gun control, as the challenge affects the preemption act, not specifically limited to open carry. While we as gun owners may not like what caused the fight and not want to be a part of it, the legal issues affect all of us, even those who do not open carry.

Stay tuned. This story isn't going away anytime soon. They'll be another hearing on this, and one side is going to appeal this no matter what happens.

Militias, the Argus, Tea Parties, Open Carry, and stirring up crap

I have to say that I haven't been impressed with the quality of work from the Argus in awhile. It's gone downhill over the past few years with more and more bias to its agenda. It's coming from management, too. The Argus's bias isn't just ideology. It's bias is simply trying to stir up crap to sell papers.

Recently there was a comparison of Hartland's township to Hamburg, where the situation was uncalled for and had nothing to do with it. The reporter in that case didn't even put the Hamburg part in. That came from the editors.

The other day, what used to be the Ole Gray Nash Auction building in downtown Howell was sold. That building had several incarnations, but the Argus had to bring up one infamous auction as it loves the ghost of one infamous New York City transplant to the county. That wasn't needed.

Then after the stirring up of crap, Rich Perlberg writes some sneering editorial lecturing everyone about how mainstream he is, while he's in charge of the stirring up of crap. 

Now we have a militia story in the paper, and the Argus labels it a tea party.

Livingston County residents will get a chance to learn what the Michigan Militia is all about Saturday when it hosts its Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party at Island Lake Recreation Area in Green Oak Township.
The slogan for this year's annual Michigan Militia meeting is "Show, shoot, shout, then sip some tea with us," and Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia Livingston County team leader Mike Lackomar said the event is all about showing people who the militia is and what members do.

Here's the problem. The militias and the tea parties aren't the same. They are different organizations, with different people, and different emphasis. In the comments section there, Lackomar said he wasn't tea party. (although the flier advertised and posted on the Open Carry message boards proclaimed it a tea party. Lackomar did that to get attention.

So why was there no differentiation between this and the tea party organizations? One phone call from one of the Argus people could have taken care of that. I think the Argus wants a turnout there, people repulsed, and a new controversy to stir up crap and sell papers. They called Murph and Judy, but nobody with a tea party group?

As to the militia groups, and I'm referring to groups like the "Michigan Militia" and not the constitutional militia which covers all men in the general populace 17 to 45 which is referred to by the 2nd Amendment, there's a large difference between the membership, one wing of which keeps me more than an arms length away.

Assuming the Argus has this part right.

Lackomar said the entire Michigan Militia is trying to distance itself from the FBI's recent arrest and subsequent indictment of nine members of what the FBI called an "extremist anti-government militia" based in Clayton, a village in Lenawee County. The FBI contends the Christian Hutaree group had planned to kill law enforcement officers with explosive devices."I want it to be perfectly clear," Lackomar said. "(The Hutaree) are not us, and we are not them, and we did not agree with their philosophy."

One gun store I frequent has a "Michigan Militia" member there. I won't say which one or who it is. If all of the militia members I met were similar to that guy, I wouldn't be concerned. He's a regular gun rights activist who supports all gun groups. Some others would have me run to the hills. Norm Olsen and Mark Koernke are poison. I don't know Lackomar and can't comment on his Livingston branch. I have had a run in with the crazies in the past. At one 2nd Amendment rally I attended back in 2001, the event was crashed a crazy "militia" branch, one of which was literally wearing a tinfoil hat, and going on about McVeigh was innocent. I wasn't too happy about that, and I have a sour taste from the damage the Olsens, Koernkes, and similar types have done to the entire 2nd Amendment movement, down to the mainstream like GOA and SAFR.

As for Hutare, I've heard from a couple sources the same thing that militia groups in the area wanted nothing to do with Hutare. While we are innocent till proven guilty, that gets my guard up that something wasn't right.

Now, Open Carry. I've written about it in the past. I support the right to do so, and personally don't have a problem with it, as long as people are smart about it. It's not something I would do, but it shouldn't be outlawed. I've spoken to Murph a couple of times on this issue. He's not a fan of it and supports concealed carry. I think his opinion may change on this if people are smart about open carry and how they use it. Murph's a reasonable guy. Open Carry is still yet to be mainstream, and that will take a gradual presence. Concealed Carry took 15 years. The best way to advance that cause to be smart when open carrying.

I'll skip the event Saturday. I hope the event is a good one. By that, I mean don't give the Argus ammo to write a hit piece and Rich Perlberg editorial to go with it. They are looking for trouble and want to stir up crap. Anyone that attends that event better have their guard up with the Argus. The best thing possible for the entire 2nd Amendment movement, including open carry, concealed carry, and those who are members of the militia groups, and those who aren't members of the militia groups, is for this to simply be just another day at the range. That's the best that can happen at this upcoming event.

Hamburg update and Open Carry clash in Lansing

I've been tied up in a bunch of stuff, so I haven't updated this.

First, Hamburg had an election. It was surprisingly fairly uneventful, and that's a good thing. Jim Neilson won in a low turnout 1700 to 1000 to 650. Jim's done a good job staying out of the news, so that probably made things much easier than I expected. Hopefully things stay quiet in Hamburg. It's in Livingston County, not the democrat run city of Detroit. We expect better in Livingston County.

The other issue comes from earlier this month. I know I'm going to get some flack from both sides for this, so let me get this out of the way. I'm not speaking for SAFR-PAC. I'm speaking for only myself. I also support the current legality of open carry in Michigan, even though I personally do not open carry. I support the right to own AR-15s, also known as "evil black rifles" in some books.  Laws and bills outlawing this need to be fought until they are destroyed for good. Open carry isn't my thing personally, because I don't want you, or more importantly, the bad guys, to know if I am carrying or not. It's nobody's business. Sometimes I carry. Sometimes I don't. There are two things important for everybody who supports freedom and the 2nd Amendment. First, we either all hang together or we lose it all. Secondly, fight smart.

I've been active in the 2nd Amendment movement for 12 years and have followed this issue for 18 years. I remember when it wasn't cool to be pro-gun. Now politicians try to tell us they are. Some are pro-gun. Some are pro-gun when it is convenient. Some are anti and want to hide it. Some are anti. Some don't care about the issue at all, outside of votes. That last group is probably the largest in Lansing. It's not personal for most politicians, but they want the votes.  I remember when it was us against the whole establishment. I remember how close we were to losing our rights in the mid 90's, and once again after Columbine. That gives me a different perspective than much of the new generation and new areas of fight on firearms issues. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.

Open Carry is a relatively new matter in Michigan. People, including cops, are being educated on this issue. It's a work in progress. Many people, otherwise pro-gun are uncomfortable with open carry. This was shown in Lansing. There was a planned open carry meeting at the Lansing Ponderosa. It's being heavily discussed on MGO and other websites. Apparently, it was not controversial...until someone walked in with an AR-15, an "evil black rifle." While I give this an A for enthusiasm, I give it an F- for tactics. It was really f'ing stupid, and hope this does not cost us big. I know for a fact this isn't going over well in the legislature with even friendly staffers and reps giving a "What the hell's going on?" type of phone calls. I haven't talked to our county reps on this yet, but I will soon. I can't speak for them, but I think I know them well enough where I doubt they were impressed by this (at least tactically), and they aren't anti-gun individuals. I wouldn't be shocked if there is fallout for this. There is discussion on some gun bills at least behind the scenes and I think our odds of getting them passed is lower today than it was then.That's from two different sources which I trust. No, I'm not revealing them.  

Right now, I'd say if there was a straight up national vote in the house or senate on outlawing AR's and other "evil black rifles" (EBR's) altogether, it would be real close. As recently as 2003-2004, a ban passed the senate as an amendment to the reduction of frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. People forget that. I don't. That's just for EBR's in the home, let alone someone carrying one on the streets. I'm Irish by blood, and inherited their long memories. Six months is an eternity in politics, let alone six or seven years, let alone 12.

As far as open carry, if I decide to carry my pistol openly in Brighton, I may get a couple of looks, or may get no reaction whatsoever.With my hair and look, I could also probably pass for a cop outside of uniform depending on what I wear. I do know if I carry my shotgun, let alone an EBR, I'll bet money that I'm going to be having a run in from Brighton PD, make the front page of the Argus, and not be painted in a favorable light, and this is in a generally pro-gun county. Some things are for the home. Lansing is a very anti-2a area. If I was at this Lansing Ponderosa, was unaware of the open carry meeting, and saw the EBR, I'd be nervous, have my guard up in a major way, keeping a close eye on that entire room, and would be making my way to the exit (Pistol no, Shotgun, rifle outside of hunting season - yeah). If it was the firing range, I wouldn't have my guard up. If I was at the owner's home, same deal. If it was hunting season and in the area, I wouldn't blink an eye depending on what was being hunted (.223 good for varmints, too weak for deer).This got a WTF reaction from me followed by "oh shit". I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination, and don't think that this should be banned, strictly on what I call "lawcreep" grounds. We have too many laws in this state and country, and giving this up will open the door for giving up more in laws later. That's unacceptable. Period, and I opposes ANY new anti rights legislation for that reason. That aside, it's not me you are trying to convince.


Yes, Open Carry is legal, but is that going to be still the case with more events like this? I highly doubt it. In fact it would not surprise me to see something like that as a cost for new otherwise pro-gun legislation. SAFR's been steadfast at opposing rights for some, not for all legislation, but other groups are much more quicker to support a bargaining chip, the same ones who would endorse a Joe Schwarz if you get my drift.

Don't give them the opening.

The rise of the Open Carry of firearms

I caught this in the Argus today. Open Carry made the news today.

From the Argus

An Ohio man was ordered at gunpoint to lie on the ground in July after someone called 911 to report that he was walking down the street with a handgun, which was holstered. One of the responding officers told him, "You cannot just walk down the street with a weapon."

The Constitution says otherwise.

"If one chooses to carry a weapon in Michigan, one can do so without a license," Brian Jeffs, president of Michigan Open Carry Inc., said. "There's no law that says it's illegal."

Livingston County Prosecutor David Morse agreed, saying, "You're granted the right through the Constitution."

Michigan Open Carry, a nonprofit organization that promotes the lawful carrying of a handgun, recently participated in a luncheon sponsored by the Christian motorcycle club In God We Trust M/C in the hopes of educating the public about openly carrying handguns. It's a movement that has grown nationwide since 2004, Jeffs said.

However, there are numerous incidents — some of which have led to lawsuits — in which police officers and the general public misunderstand or just plain don't know about the right to carry a weapon openly.

Any law-abiding citizen of Michigan who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry that firearm in a holster in all places not explicitly exempt by law without a concealed pistol license. Those exempt places — where weapons cannot be carried — include banks, churches, courts, theaters, sports arenas, day-care centers, hospitals and establishments under the Liquor Control Act, which would include bars and stores that sell alcohol.

A person may not, however, brandish the weapon. A Michigan attorney general opinion from 2002 states that to brandish is to "waive or flourish menacingly" or "to display ostentatiously." A person also may not openly carry a weapon in a vehicle unless that individual has a concealed pistol license.

Personally, I don't care to participate in open carry, although I understand it. I don't want the attention on me. I prefer concealed carry. I can understand why someone would open carry. It does not have the same restrictions as concealed carry.

County GOP chair and Undersheriff Mike Murphy's comments here made the paper.

Murphy said as an officer he has no problem with individuals exercising their right to openly carry a gun. However, he believes doing so should be a concern for everyone in the community.

"Everyone should be concerned for reasons such as, you don't know if they are mental or have ill intent," he explained.

Murph and I briefly discussed this issue before. He's supports concealed carry, but isn't a fan of open carry. That aside, everyone who buys a firearm from a dealer has to go through the background check. All pistol buyers also need to get registration. He knows that. I think the big reason is that his department gets a few calls over it, and that becomes a hassle. There aren't calls over concealed carry. To use an old CPL saying, concealed means concealed.

The calls to the police over this are from ignorance and uninformed citizens. That's expected. Most people don't know that open carry is legal. Many cops don't know it is legal. Many attorneys don't know that it is legal. Even I did not know until last year that it was legal. I thought it was considered brandishing. It's not, and an AG opinion clarified that.

I wrote about Open Carry last year. The open carry movement has come a long way since that time with their activism. That's not bad. Right now, open carry does not look like it will be a test case in court. That's a good thing.

However while I support it as a right, you won't see me open carry. I don't like drawing attention to myself, especially if I'm armed. I don't want the bad guys to know I'm armed. I don't have a problem with those who do open carry. I assume, as I do of most people until proven otherwise, that those who open carry are law abiding citizens. That's their decision, and I support that.

The Open Carry debate in Michigan

Barry County has had its share of 2a political battles over the years before CPL's were approved. Now things are heating up again. This is the latest one here. from the Free Press

HASTINGS -- Most of us probably don't know it, but Michigan is among the 44 states where it's legal to carry a gun in public without a permit.

To make that point, about 40 gun advocates walked out of Richie's Koffee Shop Inc. late Thursday afternoon with handguns holstered at their sides, part of a small but growing national movement to stand up for the constitutional right to bear arms. They strolled down this tidy west Michigan town's main street, barely causing a stir among passing motorists and pedestrians.

When they finished, the group -- mostly white men -- gathered around a fountain at the Barry County Courthouse and heard a red-meat, pro-Second Amendment speech by organizer Skip Coryell, 50, who wore his .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun openly for the first time and extolled the virtues of carrying a weapon.

"Look at all the people around you carrying guns and not a criminal in sight," said Coryell, a gun instructor and self-styled publisher who lives near Holland. "Quite frankly, I don't feel criminals would feel comfortable among us right now." He said educating people about their right to carry guns openly is the "next wave of the Second Amendment."

The event, tinged with local gun politics, was the latest statement from gun advocates around the country to promote and defend the open toting of handguns.

Personally, I'm not a fan of open carry. Do I think it should be illegal? No. Do I think it's smart? Depends on the circumstance. Will you see me do it in the middle of Brighton? Not going to happen. The reason I won't do it is that I don't want to draw attention to myself. I don't want to scare people, and have to deal with the police. Open carry is no longer an popular custom in this state.

I can see an originalist argument for the 2nd Amendment allowing OPEN carry (not concealed.) This is based on the old custom of the 1700's and 1800's that it was acceptable for a man to carry his firearm in public. Back then, it was also considered very unacceptable to carry concealed. Law abiding citizens then open carried, and the criminals carried concealed. Today, open carry is much more frowned upon these days, while concealed carry is much more accepted.

Now I'm not 100% sure open carry is legal. That's based on a couple of pro-2a lawyers I know who drilled a few of us against open carry. Sometimed it translates to "Brandishing" (state law) and/or "Disturbing the peace." (usually a city/township ordinance) That goes along with another saying among many gun owners - "Concealed means concealed."

Now I need to wait about a month to get my full Westlaw access back to see any case law history on this, but these are current laws.

It's a midemeanor to brandish a firearm in public. I couldn't find in the two minutes I took to look it what the definition of "brandish" is by statute (outside of being defined as brandishing) The Free Press's Chris Christoff said "defined as waving or pointing menacingly." That's the dictionary definition. I don't know if legalese is the same or not.

FEDERAL LAW defines Brandishing (during a drug offense) as

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``brandish'' means,
with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or
otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in
order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is
directly visible to that person.

Is open carry "Brandishing?" That depends if it is menacing or intimidating. In this Barry County case, these were activists out to make a point. Cops knew what was going on. They aren't going to arrest them. Too much paperwork, and too much of a headache. Many of them there probably wanted to be an open carry test case. My concern is that some well intentioned but uninformed pro-gun individual now going out and open carrying based on this article. If I open carried out in most parts of this state, I would not be shocked if at some point I would be stopped by the police. Someone unfamiliar with guns, gun laws, and some gun subcultures would be scared and call the cops. Even if you did nothing wrong, you may still be charged with something like brandishing or disturbing the peace, and be shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars to lawyers trying to defend yourself in court - a headache most people want to avoid.

All in all, be very careful with this and be prepared if you want to go through with this.