• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man Arrested For Carrying Gun into South Lansing Meijer

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Looks like someone open carrying without a CPL got "tripped up" carrying in a Meijers (which has a Liquor License) under MCL 750.234d.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/..._Gun_into_South_Lansing_Meijer_147510175.html

Was it scary becaused he waltzed in... :rolleyes: who writes this crap. Another example of why the law should be changed to allow non cpl carry. A good compromise would be to allow carry but forbid alcohol purchases without the cpl. Problem solved assuming our lawmakers want to solve problems :rolleyes:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Was it scary becaused he waltzed in... :rolleyes:

Oh, come on. Everybody knows you can only waltz in high-end joints that actually have a ballroom. Now, if he was swing dancing, that would be different. No charges. :p:)



I agree about poorly written article. The word waltz is a giveaway. So is the lack of information as to whether the gun was carried in the hand or a holster.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
If rights can be granted or denied by a meijers manager making 8 bucks an hour, what have they been reduced to?

To date, private property rights apply and we should simply take our business elsewhere (IMO).

Unless other information has surfaced that the Meijers Manager effected a Citizen's Arrest, I believe animus would be more appropriately directed at the Legislators who authored and voted for MCL 750.234d.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I wasnt talking about private property rights, but the emasculation of our second amendment rights.

The difference in losing private property rights, and the RKBA, is that no ones life is in danger by ignoring private property rights, but there is a danger in ignoring the RKBA. The laws should be reconstructed to reflect this inescapable truth.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
If he would have refused to talk to the police, they would have nothing to arrest him for. He must have voluntarily provided ID/or admitted to not having a CPL. NO talkie/no arrestee. DO NOT CARRY A FIREARM WITHOUT A CLEAR KNOWLEDGE OF FIREARM LAWS..OR YOU DESERVE TO BE ARRESTED WHEN YOU BREAK THE LAW.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I wasnt talking about private property rights, but the emasculation of our second amendment rights.

The difference in losing private property rights, and the RKBA, is that no ones life is in danger by ignoring private property rights, but there is a danger in ignoring the RKBA. The laws should be reconstructed to reflect this inescapable truth.
The inescapable truth is that there are other rights that are equally as valid as the right to keep and bear arms... and a good example of that is private property rights.

Now I'll be blunt...

No matter what excuses, rationalizations, or mental masturbations, are engaged in to justify it...............................

To expect, or demand, one right to be respected while disrespecting another right is... hypocritical.

And now... actually on topic...

I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
What Im doing isnt hypocritical, although I get where you are coming from, and all things being equal I would wholeheartedly agree.

There are two levels upon which I see the rights themselves as being unequal. First, the RKBA should not be so weak that it can be granted or denied by a person working at the local store, probably making a shade above the minimum wage. It's disgraceful An second, since denying a persons private property rights in a place open to the public, doesn't hurt anyone, but denying someones RKBA could, then the choice is clear, you err on the side of safety.

Private property home/car and private property open to the publc are completely different animals, and the law needs to be brought in line with that fact.

THe .gov should not be allowed to hand over control our rights as they do in 425o and 234d. They also should not be protecting the private property rights in how it relates to guns, if they are going to turn around and enforce a ban on smoking for example in those same places of business.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.

In this, we agree.

As activists, it is our voluntary "job" to do what we can to get these and other unconstitutional laws removed, so that we can protect people from both the .gov and the criminal.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
The inescapable truth is that there are other rights that are equally as valid as the right to keep and bear arms... and a good example of that is private property rights.
Now I'll be blunt...
No matter what excuses, rationalizations, or mental masturbations, are engaged in to justify it...............................
To expect, or demand, one right to be respected while disrespecting another right is... hypocritical.
And now... actually on topic...

I believe there will be more incidents like this where people get arrested because a person hears about open carry through the media's less than factual coverage and, without doing any research into the laws, just jumps into it with both feet. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very careful to make sure anyone I talk to has a copy of the pertinent laws in hand before they walk away.

This is why I tell people to study the law and know the ins and outs BEFORE open carrying. I like the round number of 6 months of study.

I've been admonished by some of the radicals here for suggesting people not carry until they're better acquainted with the law. I guess they don't care if people get their freedoms taken away.

I'm sure this will turn out to be a perfect example.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
If he would have refused to talk to the police, they would have nothing to arrest him for.

Cite? It would appear that PC to arrest would come from MCL 750.234d. By NOT speaking during a stop predicated by RAS, then it would seem logical to me that PC is developed.
In Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983), SCOTUS ruled that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause (PC). A better-than-even chance is not required.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
What Im doing isnt hypocritical, although I get where you are coming from, and all things being equal I would wholeheartedly agree.

There are two levels upon which I see the rights themselves as being unequal. First, the RKBA should not be so weak that it can be granted or denied by a person working at the local store, probably making a shade above the minimum wage. It's disgraceful An second, since denying a persons private property rights in a place open to the public, doesn't hurt anyone, but denying someones RKBA could, then the choice is clear, you err on the side of safety.

Private property home/car and private property open to the publc are completely different animals, and the law needs to be brought in line with that fact.

THe .gov should not be allowed to hand over control our rights as they do in 425o and 234d. They also should not be protecting the private property rights in how it relates to guns, if they are going to turn around and enforce a ban on smoking for example in those same places of business.
Look... it's quite simple..

Private property rights are equally as valid as the RKBA. A right is a right is a right. And that means that some minimum wage employee who has been given the authority by the owner certainly can exercise private property rights and ban guns on that property.

The argument that property open to the public isn't really "private" property is bogus because the name on the deed is NOT "the public".

And the .gov is who the Bill of Rights is directed at... NOT the individual.

Now... for folks to demand that one right be respected over another equally as valid right IS hypocritical regardless of what manner of mental masturbation is used to justify it.

And THEN! to expect the .gov.... who the Bill of Rights is intended to keep the .gov from interfering with rights to begin with.... to intervene and force one group of individuals who happen to open their property to the public to give up their property rights in favor of a different group's RKBA rights when they patronize that property is.... I don't even have a word to describe the utter idiocy of such thinking.

But enough! The fact that folks are getting into trouble by jumping into OC without enough knowledge is very important so therefor I'll not discuss this stuff in this thread and derail it any further.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I believe animus would be more appropriately directed at the Legislators who authored and voted for MCL 750.234d.

MCL 750.234d is also known as Public Act 328 of 1931... I bet most, if not all are dead. No sense in being angry with them. Our "animus" should be directed for any current legislators who are allowing this to stay on the books.
 
Last edited:
Top