TheQ
Regular Member
So has prosecution for OC in a 28.425o zone. People v Watkins. I've cited mine, can you cite yours?
Guess not?
So has prosecution for OC in a 28.425o zone. People v Watkins. I've cited mine, can you cite yours?
DanM said:It HAS happened. *shrugs*
So has prosecution for OC in a 28.425o zone. People v Watkins. I've cited mine, can you cite yours?
Guess not?
yes... but who will moderate the moderators?
Sorry, had some things to take care of this evening. I Googled "accidental gun exposure prosecution" about half an hour ago.
Norman v. State
"Norman v. State (FL) is the case of a law abiding concealed carry licensee who was arrested and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking."
http://floridacarry.org/litigation
http://www.allnineyards.com/2012/06...idental-exposure-of-lawfully-carried-handgun/
On 6/5/2012: "Second case in the last 6mos." (Thread "Arrested, prosecuted for accidental, 'brief' exposure.")
http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Fo...sted-prosecuted-for-accidental-brief-exposure
Florida Carry documents the relevant case of Hueris Mora, as well as:
--"Last year, when 2011 SB 234 was debated in the State Legislature, our elected leaders were told about law abiding gun owners being arrested and thrown in jail for even accidental or incidental exposure of lawfully carried firearms."
--"Every month we are contacted by other law-abiding people who have been confronted, detained, and threatened with arrest because they were lawfully carrying a firearm in Florida and it “printed” through clothing or became unconcealed."
http://floridacarry.org/flcinews/54...prosecution-for-innocent-exposure-of-handguns
Texas, 4/18/2011: "there was a story posted here a few weeks ago about one of the members who was arrested when his weapon printed against his shirt."
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44318#p536260
Also in Texas, they worry about such ridiculous things as:
"Accidental gun exposure due to sweat at youth football game"
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58972
Phil, I've been generally aware of such wrongful prosecutions or other abuses of authority, using anti-exposure or anti-OC laws as pretext, for a while. But I have not gone into in-depth searches of individual cases or the documentation of our brother gun-rights organizations in these other affected states, until you expressed an interest in citations.
This is eye-opening, for being just a half-hour's effort on the internet. Please note, I am one guy who spent a half hour gathering this for you. It is not a complete record of abuses, I'm sure. I would recommend to you to get into direct contact with, at least, Florida and Texas gun organizations for more documentation. I think we have much to be concerned about when it comes to acquiescing to OC, display, or exposure bans!
Wouldn't you agree?
Sorry, had some things to take care of this evening. I Googled "accidental gun exposure prosecution" about half an hour ago.
Norman v. State
"Norman v. State (FL) is the case of a law abiding concealed carry licensee who was arrested and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking."
http://floridacarry.org/litigation
http://www.allnineyards.com/2012/06...idental-exposure-of-lawfully-carried-handgun/
Welcome to Michigan, this was in Florida, where printing was illegal and the statutory language was different.
On 6/5/2012: "Second case in the last 6mos." (Thread "Arrested, prosecuted for accidental, 'brief' exposure.")
http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Fo...sted-prosecuted-for-accidental-brief-exposure
Hi -- Florida
Florida Carry documents the relevant case of Hueris Mora, as well as:
--"Last year, when 2011 SB 234 was debated in the State Legislature, our elected leaders were told about law abiding gun owners being arrested and thrown in jail for even accidental or incidental exposure of lawfully carried firearms."
--"Every month we are contacted by other law-abiding people who have been confronted, detained, and threatened with arrest because they were lawfully carrying a firearm in Florida and it “printed” through clothing or became unconcealed."
http://floridacarry.org/flcinews/54...prosecution-for-innocent-exposure-of-handguns
Got anything in Michigan?
Texas, 4/18/2011: "there was a story posted here a few weeks ago about one of the members who was arrested when his weapon printed against his shirt."
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44318#p536260
Texas' law says "fails to conceal". That's a bit different than "intentionally exposes"
Also in Texas, they worry about such ridiculous things as:
"Accidental gun exposure due to sweat at youth football game"
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58972
Phil, I've been generally aware of such wrongful prosecutions or other abuses of authority, using anti-exposure or anti-OC laws as pretext, for a while. But I have not gone into in-depth searches of individual cases or the documentation of our brother gun-rights organizations in these other affected states, until you expressed an interest in citations.
This is eye-opening, for being just a half-hour's effort on the internet. Please note, I am one guy who spent a half hour gathering this for you. It is not a complete record of abuses, I'm sure. I would recommend to you to get into direct contact with, at least, Florida and Texas gun organizations for more documentation. I think we have much to be concerned about when it comes to acquiescing to OC, display, or exposure bans!
Wouldn't you agree?
Phil, I get an adversarial sense from you posting "Guess not?" toward me. I hold you as my friend, not an adversary. Although I question the OC ban in SB59 and its highly possible consequences, and also the characterization of OC in PFZ's as a "gray area", I do not question your integrity or sincerity to advance OC.
I just want that to be clear, and that I am your friend.
Florida revised the language around 'printing' because of some abuse. You'll note that the language is similar to SB59's proposed language.
The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS
View Entire Chapter
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
Florida revised the language around 'printing' because of some abuse.
Shadow Bear said:You'll note that the language is similar to SB59's proposed language.
Shadow Bear said:The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS
View Entire Chapter
790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device.
Shadow Bear said:It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display
Shadow Bear said:the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person[/B], unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
Likewise, I consider you mine.
TheQ said:That being said, using Florida and Texas law (which CLEARLY ban OC/printing) to back up your printing will be prosecuted argument is weak (nothing personal).
It's amazing to me how people act as if this is going to be the last gun law ever passed, and this is what we will have to deal with for the rest of eternity and this is the best we can ever get...
Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step.
...
+1Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected under Pistol Registration and the inability to get one due to the "May Issue" language of the Law, which is still there today and has stopped people from obtaining a pistol for self-protection (unless they have the extra $$$$ to mount a legal challenge). Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected with the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License due to the "May Issue" language of the Law until just a little over a decade ago and many still suffer with delays due to inequalities of the 83 county gun boards' responsiveness. Please consider the thousands of 18-20 year old persons living unprotected in PFZ's today (RE: College Campuses for example) due to the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License and the ability of Colleges to make their own ordinances/rules about carrying on campus.
While their is merit to your supposition that we will continue to move forward with reclaiming Firearm Rights, I believe that could change and we end up with Legal Language like this for some time to come (how many generations will then have to live with it). While the MI Legislature is willing to "tackle firearm laws", I believe we fight hard now to reclaim that which is already ours to begin with (READ: Rights Recognized Not Granted). IIRC, the current Concealed PFZ's did not exist prior to the new CPL Laws taking affect a little over a decade ago, which is the very "trade-off" for obtaining a "Shall Issue" CPL we are now debating being removed for extra training and a check mark on a permission slip.
For the record, I believe SB59 trades RIGHTS FOR PRIVILEGES whether or not people decide to exercise said Rights. I fully understand the trade-off and reasons it may be attractive, but cannot support the bill in it's current form as I sincerely believe it further erodes Rights not restores them.
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.It's amazing to me how people act as if this is going to be the last gun law ever passed, and this is what we will have to deal with for the rest of eternity and this is the best we can ever get...
Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step. Don't like the way we have to "prove ourselves" as safe and what-not? Sorry, but that's REALITY. There's a AWFUL lot of soccer mom's out there that think you don't need a gun FOR ANY REASON.... so they're out there screaming in the law maker's ears too.. and they don't have anything else to do but bitch and take care of their precious snow flakes... we all have jobs... So take a reality check. This law is a GOOD thing and a step in the RIGHT direction for ALL of the firearms community. Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want. Stop thinking ONLY OF YOURSELF and realize that this is the one of the steps of many that have come and many to come in order to get us to Con Carry.
Please. All this infighting is RE-G.D.-DICULOUS.
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say. Stop acting as if MOC controls the michigan legislature and has so much pull what they say will instantaneously add or subtract from the bill. MOC is one of MANY players on this wagon and can either be on the wagon or off, alone, all by themselves.
Instead they elected to be ON THE SAME TEAM, even to their own detriment in order to TAKE ONE FOR THE -TEAM- and do something that was good for EVERYONE ELSE but maybe not the best for THEM. Part of being a big boy and acting like an ADULT. Making hard and sometimes self sacrificial decisions.
We need to be united on these fronts. Discussion is great... talking about things and even disagreeing is great... but people are taking it too far.
For the record, I believe SB59 trades RIGHTS FOR PRIVILEGES whether or not people decide to exercise said Rights. I fully understand the trade-off and reasons it may be attractive, but cannot support the bill in it's current form as I sincerely believe it further erodes Rights not restores them.
More like a privilege for a different privilege.Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected under Pistol Registration and the inability to get one due to the "May Issue" language of the Law, which is still there today and has stopped people from obtaining a pistol for self-protection (unless they have the extra $$$$ to mount a legal challenge). Please consider how many generations of people have had to live unprotected with the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License due to the "May Issue" language of the Law until just a little over a decade ago and many still suffer with delays due to inequalities of the 83 county gun boards' responsiveness. Please consider the thousands of 18-20 year old persons living unprotected in PFZ's today (RE: College Campuses for example) due to the inability to get a Concealed Pistol License and the ability of Colleges to make their own ordinances/rules about carrying on campus.
While their is merit to your supposition that we will continue to move forward with reclaiming Firearm Rights, I believe that could change and we end up with Legal Language like this for some time to come (how many generations will then have to live with it). While the MI Legislature is willing to "tackle firearm laws", I believe we fight hard now to reclaim that which is already ours to begin with (READ: Rights Recognized Not Granted). IIRC, the current Concealed PFZ's did not exist prior to the new CPL Laws taking affect a little over a decade ago, which is the very "trade-off" for obtaining a "Shall Issue" CPL we are now debating being removed for extra training and a check mark on a permission slip.
For the record, I believe SB59 trades RIGHTS FOR PRIVILEGES whether or not people decide to exercise said Rights. I fully understand the trade-off and reasons it may be attractive, but cannot support the bill in it's current form as I sincerely believe it further erodes Rights not restores them.
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.
Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.
Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.
Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.
Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....