The new 750.227

[stainless1911]

I already have previously. I don't like the "any other weapons" disclosure. For that matter, I don't like disclosure, period. Indiana doesn't have it. It's not needed.

I think the way you addressed "hood rats" was poor. Also, bringing age into it unnecessarily muddies the issue. Keep it as simple as possible. Someone is either a law-abiding citizen or they are not.

From a personal issue, although discussing the overly-long list of disqualifying misdemeanors was good, you should not have mentioned your reckless driving conviction.

I would not have mentioned poor CPL training. That will just make lawmakers want to make it stricter. I think we should be moving toward constitutional carry, not away from it.

The letter should have been one-third the length. Keep it simple while addressing the issues succinctly and clearly. It needs to be "executive summary" in style.

I tried to use several different terms for ghetto critters to avoid redundancy and to avoid the overuse of "hoodlums".

Mentioning my reckless conviction was done to show an example of someone screwed out of a right by the law. She has asked me in the past for examples of people who were convicted of things as opposed to us claiming that someone might someday be convicted of this or that. Now she has a person she is familiar with, who carries daily even in her presence, someone she knows to be educated, who shoots often, a non criminal who has had a CPL, been through the courts, and has lost the "right" for reasons more political than criminal.

She has, on a few occasions, and within discussion of several firearms laws eluded to the training that CPL holders have, and that this training is a comfort to her, the public, lawmakers and the police representatives she has been in contact with. IMO she would like to see all OCers get some training prior to being able to carry in public. I was trying to nip that one early.

I know you're trying...but this letter is full of FAIL. Especially the quoted portion. CPL holders have to disclose, so everyone else should too? Did you pull that quote off the Brady Campaign website??? It's awful that you want everyone held to the same crappy standard of disclosure rather than working to remove it for CPL holders. But that's not something you will care about for the next 8 years, is it? If you want the 350,000+ MI CPL holders to help you pass this bill, you may want to reconsider this tactic. Plus with this bill I need to remember my softball gear is in the trunk so I can disclose my softball bat?! FAIL.

As I have said before, I am not a big fan of disclosure. Earlier in the thread, before Eileens response was posted, I had claimed that nothing will pass muster in Lansing without a rubber stamp from the police. That claim was proven in her response irrefutably. Yance addressed my position on abolishing disclosure permanently for everyone someday, but if something like this is going to pass, including it is vital. That is an unfortunate fact of doing business with the Michigan government.

The only problem I have with this understanding is that we are bound strictly by what the law says. MCL 750.234d says that possession of a firearm on the premises is prohibited, premises extending all the way through the parking lot, the grass, to the edge of the property they lease. Like stainless said, the defense of how premises is defined in the Liquor Control Commission Admin Rules may only be relevant in court since the law itself makes no specific exception or definition to the premises being strictly the building.

Excellent post.

Not strictly true. If we were solely bound by MCL 750.234d, then possession in the parking lot of a church, theater, hospital, or even courts would also be illegal, but it's not, because MCL 28.425o(4) states that parking lots are not considered part of the premises.

Posession for non CPL holders in those places is illegal for non CPL holders. I didnt mention those places in the letter, as it was running necessarily long.

 

[griffin]

Posession for non CPL holders in those places is illegal for non CPL holders.

I understand. But as far as using the laws and definitions we have, it is my position (for whatever that's worth) that a Meijer parking lot is a non-issue for the reasons I stated above.

I guess I don't have to worry about it since I have a CPL, but if I didn't, my position is I would still be legal.

Really, it would be nice if our firearms laws were to be rewritten. Other states don't have all the carry exemptions we do. You have to look in several disparate places and merge those laws together to figure out what's legal and what's not. No wonder Q's favorite judge argues "that's not what the legislators meant."

 

[stainless1911]

I understand. But as far as using the laws and definitions we have, it is my position (for whatever that's worth) that a Meijer parking lot is a non-issue for the reasons I stated above.

I guess I don't have to worry about it since I have a CPL, but if I didn't, my position is I would still be legal.

Really, it would be nice if our firearms laws were to be rewritten. Other states don't have all the carry exemptions we do. You have to look in several disparate places and merge those laws together to figure out what's legal and what's not. No wonder Q's favorite judge argues "that's not what the legislators meant."

Don't get me wrong griffin, I agree with you, I think that if you were the lawyer arguing the defense for someone charged with 234d, that you would come out on top of it. However, we all know that few LEOs know the law they swore to uphold, and fewer understand the constitution they swore to protect with their lives. As a result, the person in violation would have to go through the courts before the facts that you pointed out would come to light and maybe, that person would be set free.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

How many folks in Michigan have been cited --absent any other violation -- for possessing a firearm, or firearms, on/in the parking lot of a business licensed to sell alcohol, during the deer hunting season? Since March 28, 1991, when both 750.234d and Michigan's Preemption Law of 1990 became effective, I've heard of no one being cited for such a violation......again, absent any other violation? I have to believe --absent any violations by non-CPL holders -- the legislative intent was not to include parking lots. It has always been a non-issue.

 

[stainless1911]

How many folks in Michigan have been cited --absent any other violation -- for possessing a firearm, or firearms, on/in the parking lot of a business licensed to sell alcohol, during the deer hunting season? Since March 28, 1991, when both 750.234d and Michigan's Preemption Law of 1990 became effective, I've heard of no one being cited for such a violation......again, absent any other violation? I have to believe --absent any violations by non-CPL holders -- the legislative intent was not to include parking lots. It has always been a non-issue.

That isn't the point. It is the wrong way of looking at this though.

I don't know of any citizens being detained indefinitely without hope of a trial either, but it could happen.

 

[griffin]

How many folks in Michigan have been cited --absent any other violation

Not even that. How many have been cited for parking lot possession, period? Zero?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

That isn't the point. It is the wrong way of looking at this though.

I don't know of any citizens being detained indefinitely without hope of a trial either, but it could happen.

No it's not. I gave an opinion that it was my belief the legislative intent was not to include the parking lots. What other possibility could there be to explain the lack of citations if in fact "premises" includes the parking lots?

 

[stainless1911]

So nobody can be charged then? I maintain that they could be. I think they could beat the charge, but what I have seen people charged and convicted with or plead to, over the years doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling of trust and confidence in our public servants.

 

[griffin]

it could happen.

It can't happen (in theory). You cannot be convicted of this because it's not the law.

Could some LEO try to jam you up? I suppose, same as he could jam you up for walking down Van Dyke while open carrying. Or while OCing a rifle in Birmingham. Or prevent you from voting. Or any number of things you can imagine. LEOs can abuse their authority all over the place with little repercussion. None of that is the law, though.

The only way to stop what you are talking about is to make both LEOs and public employees civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for their wrong actions or trying to enforce unlawful things. Give them personal $5K fines, or subject them to losing their job, or jail (or even prison) time. That's the ONLY way to stop this. It'll be nigh impossible to do that to LEOs because they will "be afraid to act" if they always have to worry if their actions are lawful and correct (at least that's the argument). Some states have enacted penalties for other public officials, though.

An OCer was charged in another state, and he is now suing the police. They (unlawfully) demanded he not OC. When he declined, they realized they couldn't charge him with OC or brandishing or anything, so they charged him with disorderly conduct for disobeying their order.

So, yeah, any LEO can jam you up without regard to what the law actually states. But you probably already knew that.

 

[stainless1911]

Couldn't agree with you more sir. And yes, I know how they work.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

So nobody can be charged then? I maintain that they could be. I think they could beat the charge, but what I have seen people charged and convicted with or plead to, over the years doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling of trust and confidence in our public servants.

One case I suspect you're referring to is where the non-CPL holder was carrying IWB and was subsequently charged with CCW. He, as you may already know, was given an offer and pleaded to a lesser charge, IIRC, of disorderly conduct. There was, I believe, a fine, forfeiture of the firearm, and a bit of probation. But, at least, it was better than the 5-year felony he faced in the beginning. Point being, he was not charged with any 234d violation as this took place, again IIRC, at a business licensed to sell alcohol (gas station).

For the blue....

Not what I said at all. How many folks in camo, hunters orange hats & coats, with Remington, Winchester, federal, Etc, patches over every square inch are noticed in October and November every year by Roscoe and Enos going in and out of the local gas stations and party stores on their way north stocking up on gas, cases of beer and Pepto Bismol that are licensed to sell alcohol? Do you really think Roscoe and Enos suspect no firearms are possessed by these folks?

 

[stainless1911]

Not what I said at all. How many folks in camo, hunters orange hats & coats, with Remington, Winchester, federal, Etc, patches over every square inch are noticed in October and November every year by Roscoe and Enos going in and out of the local gas stations and party stores on their way north stocking up on gas, cases of beer and Pepto Bismol that are licensed to sell alcohol? Do you really think Roscoe and Enos suspect no firearms are possessed by these folks?

No, but as has been pointed out, they could jam you up if they wished. My hope would be that Boss Hogg knows that the law is BS and has asked Roscoe and Enos to lay off the Duke boys until they can cuff 'em and stuff 'em on something bigger. :lol:

 

[Yance]

How many folks in Michigan have been cited --absent any other violation -- for possessing a firearm, or firearms, on/in the parking lot of a business licensed to sell alcohol, during the deer hunting season? Since March 28, 1991, when both 750.234d and Michigan's Preemption Law of 1990 became effective, I've heard of no one being cited for such a violation......again, absent any other violation? I have to believe --absent any violations by non-CPL holders -- the legislative intent was not to include parking lots. It has always been a non-issue.

The problem I have with statements like this is purely the fact that its what the law says. So what if there are no documented cases of it happening, no one coming forth and saying "yeah it happened to me" or anything of the sort, the fact is the law is in place, it has to be obeyed or you risk the consequences for violating it. Just because no one has been convicted doesnt mean someone wont be.

We need to stop having this attitude of "no one has been convicted, ever, so it obviously doesnt matter" because not only will we find ourselves getting caught up but we are then giving terrible information to someone new who doesnt know any better. The fact remains, the law is in place.

In regards to 750.234d and 28.425o, 28.425o makes specific mention that the premises DOES NOT include the parking lots, whereas 750.234d makes no such mention when describing premises. Both laws state "premises where..is prohibited" or something similar to that effect. The laws both mention premises, which includes parking lots when mentioning what falls under premises, 28.425o exempts parking lots specifically, 750.234d does not, so its safe to assume parking lots are included in that law absent a specific exemption stated within the statute.

Also, I would like to touch on "legislative intent" please, please, please do not try to figure out what the "intent" of a law is, first of all the laws are not written so we would try to figure out what the intent is. As the laws are written the intent of the law is going to be exactly what the law states, theres no secret meaning, theres no special code to figure out, the laws are exactly what they mean as they are written. Trying to figure out the "intent" will not only lead you astray but you will probably be wrong all together. Laws are not to be followed based on the "intent" when they were written by the people who wrote them, the laws are supposed to be followed as written, plain and simple.

 

[DrTodd]

The problem I have with statements like this is purely the fact that its what the law says. So what if there are no documented cases of it happening, no one coming forth and saying "yeah it happened to me" or anything of the sort, the fact is the law is in place, it has to be obeyed or you risk the consequences for violating it. Just because no one has been convicted doesnt mean someone wont be.

We need to stop having this attitude of "no one has been convicted, ever, so it obviously doesnt matter" because not only will we find ourselves getting caught up but we are then giving terrible information to someone new who doesnt know any better. The fact remains, the law is in place.

In regards to 750.234d and 28.425o, 28.425o makes specific mention that the premises DOES NOT include the parking lots, whereas 750.234d makes no such mention when describing premises. Both laws state "premises where..is prohibited" or something similar to that effect. The laws both mention premises, which includes parking lots when mentioning what falls under premises, 28.425o exempts parking lots specifically, 750.234d does not, so its safe to assume parking lots are included in that law absent a specific exemption stated within the statute.

Also, I would like to touch on "legislative intent" please, please, please do not try to figure out what the "intent" of a law is, first of all the laws are not written so we would try to figure out what the intent is. As the laws are written the intent of the law is going to be exactly what the law states, theres no secret meaning, theres no special code to figure out, the laws are exactly what they mean as they are written. Trying to figure out the "intent" will not only lead you astray but you will probably be wrong all together. Laws are not to be followed based on the "intent" when they were written by the people who wrote them, the laws are supposed to be followed as written, plain and simple.

I agree. The absences of cases, when the law plainly read would prohibit possession in parking lots, does not "prove" anything at all. In fact, at the level that most of these proceedings would be conducted, there would be no centrally located website the general public could access to see how many cases actually were prosecuted.

 

[stainless1911]

Congrats on your promotion doc.

 

[Raggs]

And now you admit publicly you are stainless1911? :banghead: ok then
Also I hope you spell checked it.

Hello Eileen, Neil again. Last year I, and Adam Yancer met with you to discuss Michigans unconstitutional restrictions against keeping a handgun for self defense in a vehicle, and I was hoping you could let me know when this type of proposal could be introduced? I was approaching this from one of two ways. Preferably, rewrite 750.227 so that it comes into compliance with the MI Constitution and recognizes the rights of private property owners, or secondly, to make a quick strike through of a couple sentences in 750.231a, which would eliminate the trunk storage requirement when transporting a firearm. That change would allow a person in lawful posession to have the gun unloaded, and cased, yet in the passenger compartment.

The changes that were presented to you regarding 227 would solve the most problems, and constitutional violations the most efficiently. There is no real controversy in this, as everyone understands private property as a basic right, we aren't talking about schools, churches, hospitals, or open carry at all. The changes to 231a aren't as good for the protection of private property or self defense, but it would give the citizen a chance to defend themselves.

Every time I get into, or out of my car, I think about my rights being violated as I put my safety equipment back in a so called "safe", where the only ones it keeps "safe" is the one I might have to use it against ! There is no other person who is in danger of getting shot by my gun, not me, you, my daughter, a citizen, a cop, not a single person, except the one person whom I bought the gun for. Sometimes, I have to go to certain areas where I do have my gun on me, illegally, for my safety. What goes through my mind, is the constant threat of arrest, 5 years of imprisonment, getting gang raped, loss of voting and gun rights for life, financial ruin through loss of job and government benefits, loss of home and property, and most importantly, loss of my daughter. All this, because I want to exercise a right that the legislature foolishly squandered away because of an irrational fear, all this, because the police, courts, and lawmakers broke the solemn oath of office they took when we elected them, and paid them lavishly, sometimes treating them like a star. All this, because I recognize that there are people in this world dangerous enough to design organize and maintain the strongest police force and prison system in the entire world, who are running around on the streets daily.

Please introduce and fight for the restoration of rights in this mater quickly, as this is a matter of personal and public safety.

 

[xmanhockey7]

Hello Eileen, Neil again. Last year I, and Adam Yancer met with you to discuss Michigans unconstitutional restrictions against keeping a handgun for self defense in a vehicle, and I was hoping you could let me know when this type of proposal could be introduced? I was approaching this from one of two ways. Preferably, rewrite 750.227 so that it comes into compliance with the MI Constitution and recognizes the rights of private property owners, or secondly, to make a quick strike through of a couple sentences in 750.231a, which would eliminate the trunk storage requirement when transporting a firearm. That change would allow a person in lawful posession to have the gun unloaded, and cased, yet in the passenger compartment.

The changes that were presented to you regarding 227 would solve the most problems, and constitutional violations the most efficiently. There is no real controversy in this, as everyone understands private property as a basic right, we aren't talking about schools, churches, hospitals, or open carry at all. The changes to 231a aren't as good for the protection of private property or self defense, but it would give the citizen a chance to defend themselves.

Every time I get into, or out of my car, I think about my rights being violated as I put my safety equipment back in a so called "safe", where the only ones it keeps "safe" is the one I might have to use it against ! There is no other person who is in danger of getting shot by my gun, not me, you, my daughter, a citizen, a cop, not a single person, except the one person whom I bought the gun for. Sometimes, I have to go to certain areas where I do have my gun on me, illegally, for my safety. What goes through my mind, is the constant threat of arrest, 5 years of imprisonment, getting gang raped, loss of voting and gun rights for life, financial ruin through loss of job and government benefits, loss of home and property, and most importantly, loss of my daughter. All this, because I want to exercise a right that the legislature foolishly squandered away because of an irrational fear, all this, because the police, courts, and lawmakers broke the solemn oath of office they took when we elected them, and paid them lavishly, sometimes treating them like a star. All this, because I recognize that there are people in this world dangerous enough to design organize and maintain the strongest police force and prison system in the entire world, who are running around on the streets daily.

Please introduce and fight for the restoration of rights in this mater quickly, as this is a matter of personal and public safety.

Are you f****** kidding me?

 

[griffin]

Sometimes, I have to go to certain areas where I do have my gun on me, illegally, for my safety.

I would reword this sentence to something like:

Sometimes I have to go into certain areas where I am required to choose between disobeying the law and carrying a firearm for my safety, or following the law thereby risking my safety.

Better than coming right out and stating that you carry illegally. JMO. Or just leave it out altogether.

 

[Ezerharden]

Not the smartest thing to do, admitting illegal activities on an open forum. Since you also admitted you were Neil Carpenter, who is so persecuted by the police that he throws this bait out for them. Once again ladies and gentlemen, a fine example of what NOT to do.

 

[budlight]

I would reword this sentence to something like:

Sometimes I have to go into certain areas where I am required to choose between disobeying the law and carrying a firearm for my safety, or following the law thereby risking my safety.

Better than coming right out and stating that you carry illegally. JMO. Or just leave it out altogether.

I couldn't have said it better!