[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hastings March (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/24/2008 7:07:02 PM EDT
|
Anybody see the report about the march in Hastings in support of open carry? Anyone here particapate? |
I just checked opencarry.org and found a thread and links to articles. Click here for a link to Channel 3 video. That Skip Coryell has a good sound byte in the video. |
|
I was there. I was armed. I was open carrying. I was NOT the first one shot. Nobody called the police. I was not arrested. Nobody tried to grab my gun. I didn't see any soccer moms with kids running for their lives. I just can't understand it. Many here said all these bad things would happen to me but they didn't happen. I'm so confused right now. I trusted so many members here on arfcom to give me correct information but it turns out all to be false. My whole world is turned up side down now. What shall I do, ohhhhh what shall I do? 
|
Yes but the problem with it was that it WAS A POLITICAL STUNT. It was not about rights. It was about a police Chief that is running for county sheriff that said something he shouldn't have and the supporters of the incumbent sheriff thumbing their noses at him for it in an attempt to discredit him. This meeting in Hastings was NOT inspired by OPENCARRY.org nor was it really about freedom or truly educating the public. |
|
Yes but the problem with it was that it WAS A POLITICAL STUNT. It was not about rights. It was about a police Chief that is running for county sheriff that said something he shouldn't have and the supporters of the incumbent sheriff thumbing their noses at him for it in an attempt to discredit him. This meeting in Hastings was NOT inspired by OPENCARRY.org nor was it really about freedom or truly educating the public. ........So the plan to spead your "education" backfired? Theres a surprise... |
Unfortunately, much like society (with a little help from the media) decides who is pretty and who isn't, it would appear as though society (with additional help from the media again), have no choice but to believe the event was about rights - "Organizers said they were defying Hastings Police Chief Jerry Sarver, whom they say wants to stifle their gun rights." How else do people voice objection when their rights are being trampled and get media attention without organizing a rally or some other kind of "political stunt"? Further, the media have indicated that the event was "heavily promoted on the Web site OpenCarry.org." Not necessarily by opencarry itself, but nonetheless, the tie-in, however incorrect, has been made in most readers mind already. And low and behold, a highly negative counterpoint was included from the Brady Bunch - "Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, the largest U.S. gun control organization, said he doesn't dispute the legal right to carry weapons openly but thinks those who demonstrate for such rights are pushy and aggressive. "Their No. 1 mission seems to be making other people nervous," he said. "That's a little childish. Of all the issues that need volunteerism in this country, in Michigan, in Detroit, you'd think people would find a more useful way to use their volunteer hours than walking around showing they have a gun." Gun Owners Show Their Metal |
|
Every group has their "pushy extremists". OC guys are no exception. But then again, you have your "pushy" bible thumpers and "pushy" anti gunners, "pushy' Pro-lifers.....etc. Anything you ram down somebodys throat, be it politics, religion or what ever, Will have a negative impact on your cause. |
|
"And low and behold, a highly negative counterpoint was included from the Brady Bunch - "Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, the largest U.S. gun control organization, said he doesn't dispute the legal right to carry weapons openly but thinks those who demonstrate for such rights are pushy and aggressive." Anything that comes from Peter Hamm/Brady campaign can be certain it is utter crap and pure anti-gun. |
+1... I mentioned this march to a good buddy of mine, who also happens to be the local cheif of police...To my dismay, he rambled off a few laws(that he believed were broken, not oc itself though) and said he would have put everyone of them in jail.   I was so shocked at his attitude towards OC in general, I couldn't think of anything to counter him with...
|
I'd also like to know. As it is, it sounds like your "good buddy" is just trying to use the usual method of discouraging you and others from OC'ing. Contrary to what he said he would have done, he'd probably do the same thing that the Hastings Chief did. |
The peace was not disturbed, and since when can't a group of people walk down a public street and meet in a public park????? Good God this is supposed to be America. Where freedom reigns, contrary to the US "The Reversal of Freedoms Act of 2002". Really, when did we all become sheep? |
That is what I said...It went something like this... HIM.......ME How is THAT disturbing the peace? Did people stop and look at them? idunno...probably.... There you go...  It is a good thing the media doesn't give them much coverage...It'll die out...Things like these always do... It was on like three news programs... That's because they are fools<--(last word substituted to keep it pg) I also found out he believes there SHOULD be registration for all firearms...He claims that he isn't against civilians owning firearms but believes that they should be kept track of...And he wonders why I don't want to hang out with him anymore...For instance, I traded him my 30-06 deer rifle for his kalashnikov (which was the first one I got  ) and he believes there should have been some paperwork involved...So there you have it.....
|
|
You ask a multi-part question because you are describing a dynamic situation that changes by the second. So you will not receive a short answer to it. If approached, I would greet the LEO with a smile and a hello. If he starts to "question" me I will ask if the reason he is talking with me because I am wearing a sidearm. After which I would simple ask "I'm being detained or am I free to go?" If he actually places me under arrest... I would be polite and not resist in any way. When he puts the cuffs on me I will not resist. When he puts me in the back of the car I will not resist. I WILL ask that he run the siren and hit the lights while on the way to the station. I will keep my mouth shut until the time that I ask for a lawyer or my phone call. I will also leave my voice recorder running the whole time. Does this meet with your approval? |
Your actions don't have to meet with my approval. I've been there and done that. It's not quite the "cake walk" you seem to think it will be. Good luck to you. |
|
If the officer approaches you and asks for your ID, runs your name to make sure you arent a felon in possession of a firearm, then sends you on your way after the all clear. I dont see the problem. If for some reason you do get arrested. Im pretty sure he will not drive with lights and siren to the station. Im also pretty sure you would no longer have your voice recorder on you anymore. ( or anything else in your pockets for that matter) I dont believe the police need a reason to talk to you. However, if they try and you pull out the "I know my rights" card, what was going to be a 60 second encounter may turn into several minute long investigation with possible unsavory consequences. So you had it partly correct: Always be cordial Answers their questions politely Dont get into a pissing match...(youll loose) Example--- Cop pulls over a vehicle to let them know they have a tire going flat. plates expired yesterday and has a cracked windshield. Dont- give the cop an attitude and say "why the hell did you pull me over?" You are now guaranteed the 2 tickets and maybe more that he wasnt going to give in the first place. Do- wait for the officer to speak to you, politely explain your side and thank him for his concern. Guess what, no ticket..... No matter what the reason an officer approaches you, just be prepared to ID yourself. |
I was jokeing about the lights and siren thing  I should have added that I will not argue with the LEO nor will I editorialize the law nor will I get in his/her face and state "I know my rights!" Why is it that people alway assume that someone else will do the "wrong things". I've been around the block a few times myself and I'm not some wet behind the ears kid either. |
Answers their questions politely (WHAT? you don't have to answer any questions. They can ask anybody a question (voluntary encounter), but you don't have to agree to talk to them. The "am I being detained" question alerts the officer that this guy probably knows his rights. If you are not being detained, then walk away, politely, if you are being detained then the DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE suggestion becomes even more important.) The US Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of a gun does not in itself constitute a reason for questioning or detainment. A good educational video can be found here: Don’t talk to police video http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/ Cop pulls over a vehicle to let them know they have a tire going flat. plates expired yesterday and has a cracked windshield. Getting pulled over is a generally a legal stop and you must present a drivers license. I'm talking about a stop while you are walking down the street in a lawful manner. Two very different examples. The advice is similar in both cases say no more then you need to in a legal stop, say nothing in an illegal stop. |
|
True, you dont have to answer their questions. But by having the "I know my rights attitude" you are not only escalating the encounter, you are also basically giving the cop a reason to have an atrtitude with the next OCer he comes in contact with. Which in turn only sets your cause back. Like the old phrase...you get more bees with honey than vinegar. If you have nothing to hide, why would you not want to talk with the officer and possibly educate him to your cause. Just remember, disorderly conduct is a very broad charge. OC may be lagal, but the pissing match you get into with the police most likely wont be. You can handle the situation however you want, but the attitude you give is the attitude youll get back 10x. OK try this scenario... Ocer is lawfully walking down the street. Passerby sees the gun and calls 911 beliveing something may be about to go down. P:olice pull up and talk to you. Now you are under investigation and may be detained until they are satisfied you are legit. At this point out comes your I know my rights attitude and things go south fast. Handle it how you wish............ BTW, I believe it has been ruled that providing your name and birthday are not a violation of your right against self incrimination. If I am wrong, please cite.. |
I quote:
And
But yeah, your right. Getting into an argument with the officer is a good way to give that officer just enough to arrest you. I suppose that‘s why dougwg stated that he, “would keep his mouth shut“ and, “wouldn‘t editorialize“.
You have oversimplified your points to support your argument (whatever that it). Thing is, if certain elements are in place, then your argument is quiet sound. However, if those elements are not in place, then the argument is unsound. Neither dougwg’s scenario, nor yours, makes use of such certain elements. If anything, dougwg’s scenario actually eliminates such elements. |
|
My post was not to deter from dougs argument. He does have a good one once in a while. I was merely stating that if one goes up against a LEO with an attitude, the whole situation will escalate, usually against the person being interviewed. Handle any encounter any way you wish. I am just spelling out how just about every LEO I know might respond to such an encounter. And trust me when I say this. I am greatly more informed about OC than your average LEO. If you are OCing, You will get investigated and released once you are clear. After that, you can claim harrassment, violation of rights or whatever. Just giving you the LEO perspective.............. |
ETA: Thanks for the comments. I always appreciate hearing the LEO perspective. |
Here is a very good atricle on this subject. WHEN APPROACED BY POLICE WHILE OPEN CARRYING. By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."3 State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.4 Anonymous Tip In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.5 More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.6 Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.7 In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.8 The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.9 Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person. The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following: • Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation • Are themselves acts of violence • Indicate impending criminal activity • Raise a reasonable concern for public safety Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public. Examples of Appropriate Police Actions Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm. Enforcement Guidelines Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available: • Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm. • If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so. • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way. • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview. • If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon. • Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter. 1 See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990). 2 Id. 3 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 4 Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998). 5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990). 6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000). 7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000). 8 Id. 9 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998). |
|
OK, but your fourth bullet points to raising a reasonable concern for the safety of the public. Sorry to say but, a person with a gun exposed in public can easily qualify and thus be investigated. (investigated, as in detained for a brief time to speak with) Yes you can argue this to the end of the world but it will still hold up in court as a proper investigation. Any attorney will ask you "were the actions of the officer REASONABLE"? Thats where the grey area starts. Again, handle your encounters however you see fit. I am merely spelling out how you might be approached from an LEO point of view. |
I don't think so
Even so, if all a person does is respectfully ask for the officer's RS, and maybe clarify if that RS consist solely of the holstered gun, then it would be up to the court beyond that point. I'm guessing that everything that the officer discovers after that would be thrown out due to lack of RS. Like you said, handle it how you see fit, but it would be a shame to see a criminal go free on a technicality because the officer failed to properly articulate RS. |
Not according to the Supreme Court. Don't give up. |
Like I said, if you think it's justified, then fine. I disagree (people can do that), but then I also realize that it's you who will be doing it. And, I realize that there isn't much chance of it going much further than the stop, so there is probably little consequence to making an unjustified stop. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to stem on the assumption that a holstered firearm is a threat to "public safety", and that a stop would be justified on that alone. I'm not buying it, and I don't think the courts would either. Sure, you may be able to get away with it as long as it doesn't make it to court (or if you can find a judge that cares more about his personal agenda than the law). It would be interesting to hear a prosecutor articulate the basis of for the stop should it go further than just a simple stop. Like I said, if you think it's justified, then fine. However, I would recommend you check with your prosecutor, should you ever happen to encounter such a situation, especially since the State's AG has said that it's legal. It would be a shame to have anything discovered incident to the stop thrown out due to the Supreme Court ruling that you had insufficient RS. Thing is though, I think most of us know that that isn't what it's really about. I don't think you expect such a stop to go any further than the street, so your confidant that you can slide by, not on the flimsy "public safety" requirement, but because you don't expect it to go any further. If you stopped someone without any RS and did a Terry Frisk, and then let them go about their business, would there be any repercussions (this goes for anyone, not just OC)? Somehow I think that it would be deemed a "no harm, no foul" incident. However, if by chance anything were to turn up during a Terry Frisk, then I would be surprised to hear of you basing the RS of the stop solely as being “he had a gun”, since it’s already been ruled out by the USSC. Somehow, I think you’d probably find something else to use as RS, either in addition to, or in place of. I don't know you, so I may have it all wrong. However, that's how you come across when you say, "it's a justified stop", in spite of what the Supreme Court says. Again, thanks for taking your time to discuss this matter with us. I appreciate the perspective that your experience and knowledge brings to the topic. |
|
OK, Ill play ball a little longer.. My argument wasnt that the holstered firearms itself was the cause for public concern. It was that whoever called the police to investigate the matter believed it was cause for concern. In that regard, I believe the stop would be justified, Since I am only being sent to the scene of a "man with a gun".... So until I have spoken with you to find out your intentions, you would be under investigation. Once I have talked to you and found you to be a law abiding citizen, you would be on your way. (yes it would take 5 minute from your life that youll never get back) If you were to blow me off and refuse to speak with me, then I have no other recourse than to believe that youre up to no good. Yes I understand its a very grey area. How would any of you OC guys recommend the police approach this situation? (besides, "leave me alone, its my right to OC") because frankly it probably wont happen that way. If I get a solution that can satisfy the OC end of it and the LEO end of it, then I will be more than happy to implement it and even spread it to other LEOs. |
|
Dezmo1754, "Once I have talked to you and found you to be a law abiding citizen, you would be on your way." I agree with this as I don't want to give a LEO a hard time, that is not one of my objectives. As for the most part, LEO's are people too and as such they don't want to be given a hard time any more than anyone else. As long as the "stop" remains professional I will remain professional and cooperative. BUT, as soon as the officer turns the "stop" into an adversarial situation, I will assert my rights as far as the 5th and 4th. I would also hope you would support this action. |
As for any suggestions you are soliciting, all you have to do is follow the guidelines already in place for such incidents. If you observe a person who is OC'ing, and at the same time is also doing something else to warrant RS, then by all means it would deserve investigation. This follows the ruling. If you feel you want to try a voluntary interview, then by all means do so. However, understand that the "attitude" thing works two ways. Professionalism doesn't dictate that an officer lecture someone on the evils of OC, just because that particular officer doesn't approve. If you judge that an investigation is necessary, you are allowed to conduct a voluntary interview without RS/PC. If you have RS, you should be able to say so when asked, same for PC. I would urge you to go check out the Michigan section of OCDO. We are starting to see reports of departments that are aware of legalities of OC, and the procedures involved in such things as a Terry Stop, Voluntary Interview, etc... The majority of those reports are positive, due in part to the level of professionalism demonstrated by those individual officers, but also thanks to the efforts of some of the dedicated individuals who are working to get the information out. I hope to do visit that forum as I also think you would be a great asset to it. The members have developed a handout for LE departments that contains an outline of not only the legalities of OC, but also suggestions for how such incidents could be handled. A person in your position may be able to provide valuable insights as to whether or not any improvements need to be made on that front alone. There is enough "us v them" going between LE and the citizenry. You could help us bridge that gap. |
|
|
Ghostrider....Dispatchers rarely get the proper information to the street guys. No matter what the situation. Doug...I agree with you completely. By simply talking to the OCer like a human and not making them feel like a suspect, then this will most likely happen. 1. The OCer will feel that they may have a better rapport with the LEO and may even benefit the OC cause. 2. The LEO will have conducted a tactful and thourogh investigation as to the call he was sent. I wasnt asking for procedure to handleing this situation, I was asking how you personnaly as an OCer would present yourself as if you were LEO. An opinion from the other side is ofen a greater learng tool than a book. |
Thnx |
I don’t mean this to be disrespectful and I’m just trying to show the other side of the argument. BUT, if you approach me and I ask you if the only reason you are talking to me is because of my OCing, then you have no PC or RS, and by law you should leave me alone. I have shown by my actions I’m lawful, i.e. not doing anything that is unlawful. So until such time I become unlawful I can tell you to piss off, in a nice and polite way of course. This is the problem that some LEO’s have; they think that a person has to obey his/her orders whenever engaged by them. While many times this is true, under lawful stops, this is not the cases in an OC situation. As far as "satisfying the OC end of it" I really don’t have to justify my lawful actions to you. Opencarry.org, informs people of there rights, and suggest that they cooperate with all lawful orders. If they want to give ID, they can, but LEO’s should understand that the person stopped for OCing doesn’t have to give ID or even talk with them. At this point it is casual contact and citizens are free to disengage if they want to. |
|
Here’s a concern of mine, (and I most certainly do not intend any disrespect, as well as appreciate dezmo1754’s contribution to this thread), but I sometimes get the feeling (based on some of the reactions by LE members of these type of boards) that they not only don’t like being asked for RS/PC, “am I being detained/ free to go”, …etc, but will see it as “giving an attitude”, and also escalate things if people assert their rights in such a manner. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but that’s just the impression I get. As I’ve said, I’ve only had one officer react in such a way, and the rest of them were for the most part professional, so it isn’t my experience. |
|
www.macombdaily.com/stories/081408/loc_local01.shtml PUBLISHED: Thursday, August 14, 2008 'Open carry' group to gather Guns on hips, advocates to meet in Warren By Norb Franz Macomb Daily Staff Writer Ron Gibson carries a semi-automatic pistol on his hip for anyone to see, and insists he's not out to intimidate.  Ron Gibson and his wife, Jennifer, talk to their neighbor, Diana Pussehl, right, Wednesday in Washington Township. Macomb Daily staff photo by David Dalton When he goes to bed, the .45 caliber firearm is nearby and loaded. "Just because I'm carrying a gun, I shouldn't be viewed as a threat. I don't bring any attention to it whatsoever," he said. Gibson is among about three dozen members of a gun rights group who will "pack" a picnic with their families Saturday afternoon in Warren. They are part of a growing movement of advocates promoting the Second Amendment and the open carrying of handguns. The group, members of OpenCarry.org, invites the public to stop by at Veterans Memorial Park, on Campbell at Martin Road, and ask questions or pick up a pamphlet. But don't look for them to fire shots into the sky - or even take their weapons out of the holster. It's the first public event in Macomb County for the gun proponents, following other gatherings around Michigan - the most recent in Hastings. None of the events has caused much of a stir, but still raised a few eyebrows. "Our goal is to be educational without being confrontational," said Gibson, 38, of Washington Township. Pat Glide, salesman at Michi-Gun in St. Clair Shores, said most customers are knowledgeable about Michigan's right-to-carry gun laws. "We get asked questions on a daily basis," he said. Warren Police Commissioner William Dwyer said Wednesday his department is aware of Saturday's picnic. "We don't believe there are going to be any problems. We feel they certainly have a right to do what they're doing," he said. Still, Warren police plan to monitor it. Dispatchers have been advised about the picnic and how to handle any 911 calls. Dwyer refused to divulge details of an operational order he has issued for officers Saturday. "Hopefully it will be a peaceful picnic," he added. With Macomb County leading the way, Michigan's concealed weapons law was changed six years ago to require county gun boards - which previously could deny permits for virtually any reason - to issue a permit to any adult who passed a safety course and did not have a criminal record or mental illness. Gun-owning motorists must remove the holster and store the firearm unloaded in the trunk or other place far from reach when behind the wheel. [I think reporter meant to state this rule for those without concealed carry permits from Michigan or their home state - Mike S.] Michigan is among 44 states where it's legal to carry a weapon in public with a permit. If the guns are holstered, they must be in plain view at all times, and legally purchased. [The reporter is conflating rules for folks with and without permits to conceal. if you have a conceal permit, you can conceal the holstered handgun. - Mike S.] Anyone purchasing a pistol must be at least 18 years old and register it with their local police department. Gibson said open-carry is not a form of machismo. He said some in law enforcement aren't knowledgeable about gun laws in their own respective states, occasionally leading to disputes with local officials. Members who are detained are usually released after police check with their municipal attorney. "Here in my neighborhood, I open carry almost every day," said Gibson, who said he's been threatened with arrest. Across the nation, gun rights advocates have gained new confidence from a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that clarified that individuals have the right to keep guns in their homes for personal protection. The 5-4 decision overturned a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In a society where many people keep cellular phones and Blackberry units on their belt, the handgun on Gibson's hip usually doesn't stand out. Still, someone in a store occasionally will inquire if he's a cop. When he replies that he's "just an ordinary citizen," some will question why he feels the need to pack a pistol. His answer: to protect his family and practice his constitutional rights. "A right unexercised is a right lost," the married father said. "I hope and pray I never have to fire that thing at anything but the paper target at the (gun) range. But if I feel my life is threatened or my family's life is threatened, then yeah." Gibson, a deer hunter who said he owns "several" rifles and shotguns, recalls firing a 12-gauge shotgun at age 4 with his father's guidance. The owner of a computer business, Gibson said he doesn't open carry when meeting with customers because he considers it inappropriate to display his advocacy to customers. OpenCarry.org members acknowledge that it might be unnerving for some in public to see a group openly toting handguns. With that, members try to combat what they describe as a stigma that gun owners are lawbreakers. Founded in 2004 by Virginia residents Mike Stollenwerk and John Pierce, OpenCarry.org's Web site boasts more than 8,500 registered members and records 600,000 hits a month. |
|
OK, im sorry but... In an earlier post I made a comment that OC is legal and dandy but makes one look like a gun-toting redneck. Yes, I was chastised for making that remark. I was told that OCers are not Gun-toting rednecks, just law abiding citizens excersing their right to OC. However, by posting the above photo of a guy openly carrying a large frame XD in a trailer park with a mullett haircut and tattoos doesnt exactly supprt your argument against my gun-toting tedneck remark. Now before I get slammed again, please note that I am a little more versed on this subject than the average person reading the Macomb daily. But Id bet the average reader is still thinking " look at that redneck with a gun....." Im just saying that maybe this was a poor choice for a poster child. Maybe I am off base here but, Why doesnt the OC crowd use their collective efforts to have the legislature clarify the OC statute instead of butting heads with the CC guys, the police, the so-called uniformed public and the anti-gun crowd? ( and yes I know there is no OC statute, but if there was one this wouldnt be an issue) |
I think it would be very difficult to get a law passed that stated it's ok to OC just as it would be hard to get a law passed that said you can wear a green shirt if you want. I understand what you're saying though.... please remember this "movement" is still very young. |