Carrying an unregistered pistol

[Small_Arms_Collector]

Please provide Michigan case law upholding registration of firearms, Section 28.422a, as constitutional.

I agree it’s not but never the less it is there and I don’t recommend being a test case. The question is about staying within the law as written, not the constitutionality of the law. If we were strictly talking Constitutionality I would be drilling some extra holes, there is not a single gun law on the books that is Constitutional. The question though is about staying legal within the law as written and what happens if a violation occurs.

Until we have case law correctly labeling it as unconstitutional we are stuck with it.

 

[KBCraig]

It is clear that you have no intention of actually answering the question and instead would rather be obtuse for no reason.

Welcome to the world of our resident troll, who will argue with himself if no one else is available.

 

[solus]

Welcome to the world of our resident troll, who will argue with himself if no one else is available.

KB always the provocateur with the childish elementary school taunts....

And here you are hurling them while providing absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion...

you might review merriam-webster's for a valid definition of the word 'troll'.

"a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content Internet trolls In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word "troll" to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities."

let's see now,
posting inflammatory, irrelevant or offensive comments - - check... yepper KB has and did!

intentionally disrupts - - check...yepper KB has and did!

ya know KB, it appears you shouldn't cast stones as M-W's definition fits your actions to a capital T as you again prove the adage - better be thought, as you previously posted where your legislative peer stated "how I was a F***** idiot.." then here you go and post to once again prove it!

 

[color of law]

I agree it’s not but never the less it is there and I don’t recommend being a test case. The question is about staying within the law as written, not the constitutionality of the law. If we were strictly talking Constitutionality I would be drilling some extra holes, there is not a single gun law on the books that is Constitutional. The question though is about staying legal within the law as written and what happens if a violation occurs.

Until we have case law correctly labeling it as unconstitutional we are stuck with it.

You are a good example of why people and groups in all these different states spin their wheels and never get to first base.

How about reading People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012.

People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

[H]eller stated that concealed weapons may be banned, but made no such statement regarding openly carried arms. Id. at 626-627, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Indeed, Heller cited with approval two state cases that struck down laws prohibiting the public carrying of handguns. Id. at 629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to "carry" as well as the right to "keep" arms. Likewise, the Michigan Constitution specifically allows citizens to "bear" arms for self-defense. We therefore conclude that a total prohibition of the open carrying of protected arms such as a Taser or stun gun is unconstitutional.

In other words, tasers and stun guns are lawful weapons under the Second Amendment and the open carrying of tasers and stun guns/ WEAPONS is constitutional under the federal and state constitution.

So, requiring a conceal carry license to open carry is unconstitutional.

Now your stupid legislators (eleven years later) are trying to pass a law making the carrying of tasers and stun guns illegal unless you have a CC license.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/billintroduced/House/pdf/2021-HIB-4029.pdf

I am done screwing with this; Open carry in your state is perfectly legal without a license, and the state demanding you notify them that you are selling your personal property is also unconstitutional.

So, just keep on kissing governor Whitmer's buttocks. You all deserve her.

 

[color of law]

Additionally to the above; see Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) in regards to stun guns.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

You are a good example of why people and groups in all these different states spin their wheels and never get to first base.

How about reading People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012.

People v. Yanna, 824 NW 2d 241 - Mich: Court of Appeals 2012 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

In other words, tasers and stun guns are lawful weapons under the Second Amendment and the open carrying of tasers and stun guns/ WEAPONS is constitutional under the federal and state constitution.

So, requiring a conceal carry license to open carry is unconstitutional.

Now your stupid legislators (eleven years later) are trying to pass a law making the carrying of tasers and stun guns illegal unless you have a CC license.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/billintroduced/House/pdf/2021-HIB-4029.pdf

I am done screwing with this; Open carry in your state is perfectly legal without a license, and the state demanding you notify them that you are selling your personal property is also unconstitutional.

So, just keep on kissing governor Whitmer's buttocks. You all deserve her.

I wasn’t arguing any of that wasn’t true and never even mentioned it so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Open carry is legal. I never said it wasn’t.
Concealed carriers should not be required to conceal. I never said they should.
I also never said anything about tasers.
I never mentioned any of that.

Did you reply to the wrong thread?

 

[color of law]

I wasn’t arguing any of that wasn’t true and never even mentioned it so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Open carry is legal. I never said it wasn’t.
Concealed carriers should not be required to conceal. I never said they should.
I also never said anything about tasers.
I never mentioned any of that.

Did you reply to the wrong thread?

You just don't get it. A thumbs-up from KB shows his ignorance too.

To open carry you must register your firearm. That, in of itself, denies you a constitutional right. Michigan law makes it a crime if you don't register your firearm. That is a violation of your Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination.
Go read Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85 - Supreme Court 1968.

Haynes v. United States, 390 US 85 - Supreme Court 1968 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Make sure you read the footnotes.