# Rifle-Carrying Teen Going to Trial



## Big Frank 25

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Birmingham Case


----------



## WoW.

play stupid games...


----------



## Petronius

I used to know the guy this kids mother is married to. The mother's husband was never really a gun type of guy.


----------



## WoW.

Legal or not, somebody should have instilled some good common sense in the lad before allowing him to stroll around slung up like that.


----------



## Epatti

It worries me to see gun owners question state law- the kids common sense is not even applicable to me. He did nothing illegal and was arrested. I'm not even an open carry guy but the minute I stop believing in proper enforcement of the laws I'll be damned.


----------



## lang49

Birmingham will lose this- State law actually prohibits them from enacting their own regulations on the possession and transport of firearms:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2j...2&highlight=local AND government AND firearms


*FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)*
*Act 319 of 1990*

*123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.* 

Sec. 2.
A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.


Secondly, the city should hire a new lawyer. 

"(The) Legislature could have included walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back (as one of the legal exceptions), but it did not because such activity has no legitimate purpose," Kucharek wrote.

I'd like to see Kucharek quote the law that prohibits "walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back " because there is no such law.


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Birmingham will lose this- State law actually prohibits them from enacting their own regulations on the possession and transport of firearms:
> 
> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2jgikx45cz2dys2ma45agy55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-123-1102&highlight=local%20AND%20government%20AND%20firearms
> 
> 
> *FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXCERPT)*
> *Act 319 of 1990*
> 
> *123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms.*
> 
> Sec. 2.
> A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
> 
> 
> Secondly, the city should hire a new lawyer.
> 
> "(The) Legislature could have included walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back (as one of the legal exceptions), but it did not because such activity has no legitimate purpose," Kucharek wrote.
> 
> I'd like to see Kucharek quote the law that prohibits "walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back " because there is no such law.


 I think that the city will prevail, basically because:
A). If you are approached by an officer while walking down the street, you are required to Identify yourself to him......stating your name,and address will suffice

B). If are driving down the street, you have to show him you are of age and legal right to drive down the rd, 

C), If you are walking down the street carrying a weapon, pistol,rifle, you could be required to prove that you are of legal age and stature to be carrying a firearm. If you cant, wont prove that you are of legal age to be in posession of a firearm........then you could, should be arrested and charged with multiple offenses


----------



## Naden fourteen

GIDEON said:


> I think that the city will prevail, basically because:
> A). If you are approached by an officer while walking down the street, you are required to Identify yourself to him......stating your name,and address will suffice
> 
> B). If are driving down the street, you have to show him you are of age and legal right to drive down the rd,
> 
> C), If you are walking down the street carrying a weapon, pistol,rifle, you could be required to prove that you are of legal age and stature to be carrying a firearm. If you cant, wont prove that you are of legal age to be in posession of a firearm........then you could, should be arrested and charged with multiple offenses


Where do you guys come up with this stuff? 
A) Michigan has no requirement to ID.
B) You cannot just be randomly pulled over to check your D/L.
C) Unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be, is, or has been committed, there is no obligation for the person to even speak to LEO...And, carrying a gun, openly or concealed, is not, of itself, a valid reason to stop.

Try reading Michigan State Police bulletin MSP#86.

And since the preemption law of 1990 and the Ferndale decision by the court of appeals in 1995? Yeah, the city is gonna get hosed.


----------



## tallbear

I see this case having more to do with their definition of "brandishing" than if he was carry "legally" (open carry of long gun). A city CAN regulate that without coming against 123.1102.


----------



## lang49

GIDEON said:


> I think that the city will prevail, basically because:
> A). If you are approached by an officer while walking down the street, you are required to Identify yourself to him......stating your name,and address will suffice


Gideon,

I encourage you to learn and know your rights. What you stated here is dead wrong. There is no requirement for producing ID when walking down the street.


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Gideon,
> 
> I encourage you to learn and know your rights. What you stated here is dead wrong. There is no requirement for producing ID when walking down the street.


 Didnt say that You had to produce I.D for walking down the street, what I said was that stating your name would suffice in that scenario .,,,,,,


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Gideon,
> 
> I encourage you to learn and know your rights. What you stated here is dead wrong. There is no requirement for producing ID when walking down the street.


 Didnt say that You had to produce I.D for walking down the street, what I said was that stating your name would suffice in that scenario , if a LEO approaches you and ask for ID, telling him your name is all you have to do, if driving producing a driving License is required, If doing something that is age restricted, proving your age could be required .,,,,,,


----------



## lang49

GIDEON said:


> Didnt say that You had to produce I.D for walking down the street, what I said was that stating your name would suffice in that scenario , if a LEO approaches you and ask for ID, telling him your name is all you have to do, if driving producing a driving License is required, If doing something that is age restricted, proving your age could be required .,,,,,,


Go ahead and cite the law that would obligate me to identify myself in such a situation. On second thought, don't bother- it doesn't exist.


----------



## lang49

Hey Gideon,

Check this out...the very last paragraph of this MSP bulletin states 

*"Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation."*

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf


----------



## 2PawsRiver

The charge of obstructing will stick and possibly the disturbing the peace will stick as a result of his actions after police contact. 

He looks to young and in today society, while totally legal police aagencies are expected to at least investigate a situation like this and as part of an investigation he would be required to identify himself. 

If you're walking down a city street with a rifle strapped to your back and don't expect that the police are going to check it out, you're either naive or stupid. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## GIDEON

2PawsRiver said:


> The charge of obstructing will stick and possibly the disturbing the peace will stick as a result of his actions after police contact.
> 
> He looks to young and in today society, while totally legal police aagencies are expected to at least investigate a situation like this and as part of an investigation he would be required to identify himself.
> 
> If you're walking down a city street with a rifle strapped to your back and don't expect that the police are going to check it out, you're either naive or stupid.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



Common Mark, dont burst their bubble....:evil:


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Hey Gideon,
> 
> Check this out...the very last paragraph of this MSP bulletin states
> 
> *"Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation."*
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf


 Ok, I'll play along..................explain M.I.P.s.......I.D. has to be checked in order for this ticket to be issued, and they dont have driving in order to receive one?


----------



## lang49

GIDEON said:


> Ok, I'll play along..................explain M.I.P.s.......I.D. has to be checked in order for this ticket to be issued, and they dont have driving in order to receive one?


Probable cause my friend- The cop can only ask for it if he believes a crime is being permitted- An 18 year old holding a can of beer is committing a crime- An 18 year old holding a rifle is not. 

Actually, this kid could legally hunt with the rifle at 17 years of age without adult supervision (page 13 of the guide) so I don't know why they were harrassing him.


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Probable cause my friend- The cop can only ask for it if he believes a crime is being permitted- An 18 year old holding a can of beer is committing a crime- An 18 year old holding a rifle is not.
> 
> Actually, this kid could legally hunt with the rifle at 17 years of age without adult supervision (page 13 of the guide) so I don't know why they were harrassing him.


Maybe because they didnt know his age, plus there is a weeee bit of difference between hunting and carrying a rifle down main street


----------



## Cpt.Chaos

lang49 said:


> Probable cause my friend- The cop can only ask for it if he believes a crime is being permitted- An 18 year old holding a can of beer is committing a crime- An 18 year old holding a rifle is not.
> 
> Actually, this kid could legally hunt with the rifle at 17 years of age without adult supervision (page 13 of the guide) so I don't know why they were harrassing him.


So what could he possibly be hunting, in downtown Birmingham where he would be outside of any 450 foot safety zone....

Just wondering, if this boy was walking the street in front of your house with his M1, wouldn't you be the slightest bit worried or would you just let your kids go play outside as usual?.........


----------



## lang49

Cpt.Chaos said:


> So what could he possibly be hunting, in downtown Birmingham where he would be outside of any 450 foot safety zone....
> 
> Just wondering, if this boy was walking the street in front of your house with his M1, wouldn't you be the slightest bit worried or would you just let your kids go play outside as usual?.........


You're operating under the assumption that he was just loitering in front of a business or someone's home. Odds are he was walking from point A to point B with no goal but to simply get to his destination. If someone walked by my house and just kept walking why should I care?


----------



## 2PawsRiver

lang49 said:


> You're operating under the assumption that he was just loitering in front of a business or someone's home. Odds are he was walking from point A to point B with no goal but to simply get to his destination. If someone walked by my house and just kept walking why should I care?


Where did you come up with that.....the question was *"Just wondering, if this boy was walking the street in front of your house with his M1, wouldn't you be the slightest bit worried or would you just let your kids go play outside as usual?......... " *


Your son is getting ready to walk out the front door, hit the sidewalk, turn left to go two houses down to his friends house, and you see this guy with an M1 strapped to his back, walking up the sidewalk..........do you hold up your son for a moment or do you let him go, because there should be no concern, it's his right to have that rifle strapped across his back.

Now quit dodging and answer the question.


----------



## lang49

2PawsRiver said:


> Where did you come up with that.....the question was *"Just wondering, if this boy was walking the street in front of your house with his M1, wouldn't you be the slightest bit worried or would you just let your kids go play outside as usual?......... " *
> 
> 
> Your son is getting ready to walk out the front door, hit the sidewalk, turn left to go two houses down to his friends house, and you see this guy with an M1 strapped to his back, walking up the sidewalk..........do you hold up your son for a moment or do you let him go, because there should be no concern, it's his right to have that rifle strapped across his back.
> 
> Now quit dodging and answer the question.


Cops like you fail to understand - It doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the law says! *You don't get to make up your own rules as you go- your responsibility is to enforce the rules that exist!*

To answer your question- no I wouldn't have a problem with somebody walking by with a rifle on their shoulder provided they continued to walk as if they had a purpose.

Personally, when this kid is acquitted, I hope he turns around and sues the city for wrongful arrest.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

lang49 said:


> Cops like you fail to understand - It doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the law says! *You don't get to make up your own rules as you go- your responsibility is to enforce the rules that exist!*
> 
> To answer your question- no I wouldn't have a problem with somebody walking by with a rifle on their shoulder provided they continued to walk as if they had a purpose.
> 
> Personally, when this kid is acquitted, I hope he turns around and sues the city for wrongful arrest.


Refusing to answer, sometimes is an answer............really easy to talk the talk, but just can't walk the walk..........it's OK, I don't blame you, I would hold my son up until this guy was well past as well..........only difference is I'm not afraid to admit it.


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> Go ahead and cite the law that would obligate me to identify myself in such a situation. On second thought, don't bother- it doesn't exist.


 Actually a policeman can stop, and question you at any time. 

"No suspicion is required for a policeman to merely make contact with you.

Many of these contacts, stops, fall under the definition, or scope of a policeman acting in a care taking capacity.

Once approached, failure to give your name, or provide information re- guarding your identity could give the the police -RAS-, causing you to be legally detained by the officer."


----------



## NoWake

Currently carrying a M1 on your back while walking down the street may be legal, but the more 'in your face' some of these activists get, the greater the chance society will question wether it should be legal.


----------



## GIDEON

NoWake said:


> Currently carrying a M1 on your back while walking down the street may be legal, but the more 'in your face' some of these activists get, the greater the chance society will question wether it should legal.



Very true.............what ever happened to the guy who carried a shotgun into the library?


----------



## WoW.

lang49 said:


> To answer your question- no I wouldn't have a problem with somebody walking by with a rifle on their shoulder provided they continued to walk as if they had a purpose.


And what would the "purpose" be exactly unless it was to attract attention and get his fifteen minutes of fame?

With rights comes responsibility. Some people simply don't have the good common sense to use the brain that God gave them.

When will some gun owners get clued in that open carry of a rifle is NOT the same thing as openly carrying a handgun?

Meanwhile, attorneys keep hauling in the cash.


----------



## bassdisaster

When I was a kid I rode my bicycle thru town with a 22/410 strapped to my back, no one bothered me cause I wasent bothering anyone, I was going hunting or shooting.
Now I did not read the story, all I read was the reactions and arguements here, unless the kid was being a jackwaggon doing something or flashing the gun for respect/brandishing then he did noting wrong, sounds to me the LEO caused the disturbance but then again even if I had seen it all go down I still can not judge his intentions!

BD


----------



## WoW.

bassdisaster said:


> even if I had seen it all go down I still can not judge his intentions!


Come on...strolling around downtown Birmingham with a loaded Garand???

His intention was, to make a point. When he writes the check to his attorney, he will have to decide whether his grandstanding was worth it or not.

Meanwhile, all sensible gun owners may be adversely effected by a determination by the jury of what brandishing is. Slippery slopes...


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power

WoW. said:


> Meanwhile, all sensible gun owners may be adversely effected by a determination by the jury of what brandishing is. Slippery slopes...


It's not up to the jury to determine what "brandishing" means from a legal standpoint. - it's up to the judge to explain the law to the jury. Michigan statutes that use the term "brandishing" do not define the term, therefore a standard dictionary definition becomes the defining authority: _Brandishing_, to shake or wave menacingly.

Nothing that I've read suggests that he was "shaking" or "waving" menacingly.

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## GIDEON

9mm Hi-Power said:


> It's not up to the jury to determine what "brandishing" means from a legal standpoint. - it's up to the judge to explain the law to the jury. Michigan statutes that use the term "brandishing" do not define the term, therefore a standard dictionary definition becomes the defining authority: _Brandishing_, to shake or wave menacingly.
> 
> Nothing that I've read suggests that he was "shaking" or "waving" menacingly.
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


 Or if any of the other 49 states have defined brandishing as it pertains to carrying a firearm........interesting to see what the out come will be. Personally I dont think that it looks good for him.

http://www.shouselaw.com/brandishing-weapon-pc417.html

http://www.michiganvotes.org/forum/forums/t/63186.aspx


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Stop Signs exist because of people who were too stupid to slow down and look.

When we wind up with laws prohibiting Open Carry, it will be because of these type of jackwads who are too stupid to know when to open carry.

http://birmingham.patch.com/article...gham-park-to-support-troy-teen#photo-10283051


----------



## Naden fourteen

It's really sad to listen to you LEO types give excuses and rationales that have no basis in law for violating the rights of those whos opinions you disagree with. Then again, the worst people to ask about the legality of anything is a cop. I'm just damn glad I don't live in your area...

BTW, the city is really gonna regret this. Maybe they'll give their citizens something that will REALLY make their streets safer, and kick those ignorant cops to the curb and get the rest some decent training on the subject.


----------



## WoW.

9mm Hi-Power said:


> It's not up to the jury to determine what "brandishing" means from a legal standpoint. - it's up to the judge to explain the law to the jury. Michigan statutes that use the term "brandishing" do not define the term, therefore a standard dictionary definition becomes the defining authority: _Brandishing_, to shake or wave menacingly.


don't omit the:

or* display ostentatiously*.

*os·ten·ta·tious*

&#8194; &#8194;/&#716;&#594;st&#603;n&#712;te&#618;&#643;&#601;s, -t&#601;n-/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[os-ten-tey-shuhs, -tuhn-] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA 
adjective 1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others: an ostentatious dresser. 

2. (of actions, manner, qualities exhibited, etc.) intended to attract notice.



So who decides if the escapades in Birmingham were an ostentatious display, the Judge or the Jury? Either way...

And after that, where will we be when some politician decides we need more restrictive laws in place?


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Naden fourteen said:


> It's really sad to listen to you LEO types give excuses and rationales that have no basis in law for violating the rights of those whos opinions you disagree with. Then again, the worst people to ask about the legality of anything is a cop. I'm just damn glad I don't live in your area...
> 
> BTW, the city is really gonna regret this. Maybe they'll give their citizens something that will REALLY make their streets safer, and kick those ignorant cops to the curb and get the rest some decent training on the subject.


Did you not read, or can you not comprehend. Nowhere does anybody say he can't legally open carry down a street. I agree he can legally strap a weapon he can legally carry and walk down the street with it.

However if anybody is going to strap an assault rifle to their back and not expect a cop to stop them and identify who they are and why they are carrying that weapon, as stated previously, you're either stupid or naive.

We agree he can legally do it, you however appear to be of the opinion that it should be completely overlooked. That a passing cop should see a kid walking down the street with an assault weapon and he shouldn't give him a second look.

Since the last "Lacking Common Sense Open Carry Advocate" wouldn't answer the question, lets see if you will.......

Your 12 year old son is getting ready to walk out the front door, hit the sidewalk, turn left to go two houses down to his friends house, and you see this guy with an M1 strapped to his back, walking up the sidewalk..........do you hold up your son for a moment or do you let him go, because there should be no concern, it's his right to have that rifle strapped across his back.


----------



## WoW.

Look at me, look at me, I have a gun.

Well, the cops looked at him and now look where we are.

Absolutely wonderful.


----------



## Get Out

Were I a police officer I would just observe him. Follow him. Shoot! (poor choice of words) I would probably walk down the sidewalk next to him. Maybe strike up a conversation about the weather. I wouldn't even bring the gun up in conversation. That way you can keep an eye on him without giving him what he wants. ie a big confrontation, his name in the papers. Follow him out of town chat him up about how the Lions will disappoint. Wouldn't even ask him his name. Then once he is out of town just leave him be. But instead these officers walked right into his little game and played ball.


----------



## Get Out

Furthermore Good luck getting a conceal carry permit when he turns 21 with that county gun board!!! Dummy


----------



## TSS Caddis

If he was not approached and then shot someone, people would not be stating that it is a good thing the police didn't approach him.


----------



## WoW.

Get Out said:


> Were I a police officer I would just observe him. Follow him. Shoot! (poor choice of words) I would probably walk down the sidewalk next to him. Maybe strike up a conversation about the weather. I wouldn't even bring the gun up in conversation. That way you can keep an eye on him without giving him what he wants. ie a big confrontation, his name in the papers. Follow him out of town chat him up about how the Lions will disappoint. Wouldn't even ask him his name. Then once he is out of town just leave him be. But instead these officers walked right into his little game and played ball.


 
And when the person you didn't check out shoots somebody and they ask you who he was, what is your answer likely to be mr police officer?

What if the kid had a bottle with a rag hanging out of it? Would you investigate that?

How about????

While I do not at all advocate a "papers please" society, if people continue to push the envelope, our freedoms could conceivably be further restricted.


----------



## GIDEON

Naden fourteen said:


> It's really sad to listen to you LEO types give excuses and rationales that have no basis in law for violating the rights of those whos opinions you disagree with. Then again, the worst people to ask about the legality of anything is a cop. I'm just damn glad I don't live in your area...
> 
> BTW, the city is really gonna regret this. Maybe they'll give their citizens something that will REALLY make their streets safer, and kick those ignorant cops to the curb and get the rest some decent training on the subject.


 If possible please elaborate on what has no basis in law?


----------



## Get Out

WoW. said:


> And when the person you didn't check out shoots somebody and they ask you who he was, what is your answer likely to be mr police officer?
> 
> What if the kid had a bottle with a rag hanging out of it? Would you investigate that?
> 
> How about????
> 
> While I do not at all advocate a "papers please" society, if people continue to push the envelope, our freedoms could conceivably be further restricted.


if I am walking right next to him observing him the whole time I don't see him shooting someone... and were I a police officer I would stop him from doing so. The kid didn't have a bottle with a rag hanging out of it so what does that have to do with anything. But I will play your game. If he has a bottle with a rag hanging out of it, most likely his intent is to do harm or destroy property. However, people carry guns everyday without doing property damage or harming someone. This is simply an open carry instance. Wether it is in a holster on his hip or strapped to his back either way it is not in his hands. He has the right to bear arms.


----------



## MSUICEMAN

Naden fourteen said:


> It's really sad to listen to you LEO types give excuses and rationales that have no basis in law for violating the rights of those whos opinions you disagree with. Then again, the worst people to ask about the legality of anything is a cop. I'm just damn glad I don't live in your area...
> 
> BTW, the city is really gonna regret this. Maybe they'll give their citizens something that will REALLY make their streets safer, and kick those ignorant cops to the curb and get the rest some decent training on the subject.


Because when I think crime, I think Birmingham.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Percha Man

Just imagine if we all toted our guns around in the open. This wouldn't be an issue...


----------



## WoW.

Get Out said:


> Were I a police officer I would just observe him. Follow him... *Follow him out of town* chat him up about how the Lions will disappoint. Wouldn't even ask him his name. Then once he is out of town just leave him be. But instead these officers walked right into his little game and played ball.


 







Get Out said:


> *if I am walking right next to him observing him the whole time I don't see him shooting someone... and were I a police officer I would stop him from doing so.* The kid didn't have a bottle with a rag hanging out of it so what does that have to do with anything. But I will play your game. If he has a bottle with a rag hanging out of it, most likely his intent is to do harm or destroy property. However, people carry guns everyday without doing property damage or harming someone. This is simply an open carry instance. Wether it is in a holster on his hip or strapped to his back either way it is not in his hands. He has the right to bear arms.


If you really were a Birmingham police officer, you would also realize that you can't just follow people every where they go, especially after they leave town on foot. 

If you really were a Birmingham police officer, you would be able recognize that fact that it is highly unusual for a youthful looking pedestrian to be strolling around with a Garand slung up.


While you are waiting to get into the academy, take the time to look up the definition of brandish. Also, look up the laws on possession of a firearm including specific situations that are permissable. 

Good luck with your imaginary career as a officer capable of stopping people with rifles in other jurisdictions from shooting others.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Get Out said:


> if I am walking right next to him observing him the whole time I don't see him shooting someone... and were I a police officer I would stop him from doing so. The kid didn't have a bottle with a rag hanging out of it so what does that have to do with anything. But I will play your game. If he has a bottle with a rag hanging out of it, most likely his intent is to do harm or destroy property. However, people carry guns everyday without doing property damage or harming someone. This is simply an open carry instance. Wether it is in a holster on his hip or strapped to his back either way it is not in his hands. He has the right to bear arms.


Well, so far two have not answered, let's see if this one will.



> Your 12 year old son is getting ready to walk out the front door, hit the sidewalk, turn left to go two houses down to his friends house, and you see this guy with an M1 strapped to his back, walking up the sidewalk..........do you hold up your son for a moment or do you let him go, because there should be no concern, it's his right to have that rifle strapped across his back.


----------



## WoW.

2PawsRiver said:


> Well, so far two have not answered, let's see if this one will.


 
Unfortunately, those that don't get it...don't.


----------



## Naden fourteen

I will once again direct your attention to MSP legal update # 86 0f October 26, 2010, to wit:

"Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a _*consensual*_ encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must posess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.

_*Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Motor Vehicle Code violation*_."

...Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the small leap from pistol to rifle, and in fact I have been to gatherings (attanded by senator Jim Barcia and the Bay County sherrif) where rifles (AR-15) were openly carried with no outcry, and vocal support of the sherrif and the senator. The Lansing police got educated a couple years ago after an incident at a Ponderosa.

And as for your second question, I don't care if my next-door neighbor has a 20mm Oerlikon mounted on his front porch...If he's not shooting or threatening to shoot anyone with it, what's the harm?


----------



## GIDEON

Naden fourteen said:


> I will once again direct your attention to MSP legal update # 86 0f October 26, 2010, to wit:
> 
> "Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a _*consensual*_ encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must posess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
> 
> _*Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Motor Vehicle Code violation*_."
> 
> ...Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the small leap from pistol to rifle, and in fact I have been to gatherings (attanded by senator Jim Barcia and the Bay County sherrif) where rifles (AR-15) were openly carried with no outcry, and vocal support of the sherrif and the senator. The Lansing police got educated a couple years ago after an incident at a Ponderosa.
> 
> And as for your second question, I don't care if my next-door neighbor has a 20mm Oerlikon mounted on his front porch...If he's not shooting or threatening to shoot anyone with it, what's the harm?



No suspicion is required for a cop to merely contact you.."There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a policeman from addressing questions to any one on the streets---Terry -vs -Ohio 392US1(1968)

Also contacts made during a policeman acting in his care taking capacity, situations that
"Arise from the police officers duty to maintain peace and security, to protect citizens from harm or annoyance----------Batt - vs Superior court, 100Cal.Rptr.181(1972)

Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer provides, RAS, which is sufficient grounds within its self to detain you. Upon detention an officer can demand that you produce identification, you can be detained and searched. Not protected by the 4th amendment because your actions gave "cause" for the search. 

In a 1974(?), ruling, the Supreme court ruled that a persons name is not inherently self incriminating, and thus not protected by the 5th amendment.

Know what you are talking about before you start talking, giving false information to people could have dire consequences.


----------



## Naden fourteen

Whatever you say...This gets underway on the 11th. The kid's gonna kick butt. If not in the first battle, then in the appeal. I'll be sure to come back and give proper reamings to all who deserve one...


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Naden fourteen said:


> Whatever you say...This gets underway on the 11th. The kid's gonna kick butt. If not in the first battle, then in the appeal. I'll be sure to come back and give proper reamings to all who deserve one...


Hopefully you hear the news and don't read, you definitely have some.reading issues. 

The question had nothing to do with your neighbor. Have somebody read the question to do you, then answer it.


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power

WoW. said:


> don't omit the:
> 
> or* display ostentatiously*.
> 
> *os·ten·ta·tious*
> 
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#716;&#594;st&#603;n&#712;te&#618;&#643;&#601;s, -t&#601;n-/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[os-ten-tey-shuhs, -tuhn-] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
> adjective 1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others: an ostentatious dresser.
> 
> 2. (of actions, manner, qualities exhibited, etc.) intended to attract notice.
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides if the escapades in Birmingham were an ostentatious display, the Judge or the Jury? Either way...
> 
> And after that, where will we be when some politician decides we need more restrictive laws in place?


In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. * 2. To display ostentatiously. n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." *.*

Nothing that I've read suggests that the defendant pointed, waved or displayed the firearm in a threatening manner.

Hoppe's no.10

*my highlights


----------



## WoW.

9mm Hi-Power said:


> In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. *2. To display ostentatiously. n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." *.*
> 
> Nothing that I've read suggests that the defendant pointed, waved or displayed the firearm in a threatening manner.
> 
> Hoppe's no.10
> 
> *my highlights


Just because you don't like the definition that I produced for ostentatious does not mean that it is not the definition.

When one is hunting, that would be fine. When one is walking down the streets of Birmingham and doesn't look old enough, no cop in their right mind would just pass him by.


----------



## WoW.

Naden fourteen said:


> Whatever you say...This gets underway on the 11th. The kid's gonna kick butt. If not in the first battle, then in the appeal. I'll be sure to come back and give proper reamings to all who deserve one...


 
Battle?

Appeal?

And what price tag is attached to all this grandstanding? Be sure and come back and provide is with the "cost" of this little stroll of his.

Maybe when he grows up some the drama of it all won't be quite so appealing.

Does anybody wonder how many guns this young man could have purchased with the money that is being spent on this fiasco?


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power

WoW. said:


> Just because you don't like the definition that I produced for ostentatious does not mean that it is not the definition.
> 
> When one is hunting, that would be fine. When one is walking down the streets of Birmingham and doesn't look old enough, no cop in their right mind would just pass him by.


I have no argument with your posted definition of "ostentatious" but I do as it relates to brandishing a firearm. Whether or not the LEO had legal justification for demanding i.d. _vis-a-vis_ the guy's youthful appearance was not the point of my reply. He was not brandishing his firearm as brandishing is defined in Michigan law and as I understand things he never took it off his shoulder until I suppose the LEO took possession of it. Pretty hard to menacingly wave about and threaten the populous with a slung rifle.

You seem to argue that the open carry of any firearm could be deemed ostentatious and thus brandished. From a legal standpoint what evidence do you have that he was - given your posted definition of "ostentatious" - carrying the firearm so as to impress his fellow citizens? Open carry is legal in Michigan. If I choose to open carry neither you nor a LEO can assume that I am doing so to impress others. 

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## lang49

GIDEON said:


> No suspicion is required for a cop to merely contact you.."There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a policeman from addressing questions to any one on the streets---Terry -vs -Ohio 392US1(1968)
> 
> Also contacts made during a policeman acting in his care taking capacity, situations that
> "Arise from the police officers duty to maintain peace and security, to protect citizens from harm or annoyance----------Batt - vs Superior court, 100Cal.Rptr.181(1972)
> 
> Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer provides, RAS, which is sufficient grounds within its self to detain you. Upon detention an officer can demand that you produce identification, you can be detained and searched. Not protected by the 4th amendment because your actions gave "cause" for the search.
> 
> In a 1974(?), ruling, the Supreme court ruled that a persons name is not inherently self incriminating, and thus not protected by the 5th amendment.
> 
> Know what you are talking about before you start talking, giving false information to people could have dire consequences.


You're right- you should get your facts straight before spouting off a bunch of BS.

In the consensual encounter you speak of (which is not the same as "Terry" stop) you are not obligated to tell the cop anything- which is why the encounter is referred to as casual. Failing to identify in a consensual encounter in itself is not reasonable suspicion for a terry stop, as the Michigan state police bulletin that several of us have sited clearly indicates. You're right in that once a legitimate terry stop occurs which can only occur with reasonable suspicion- you may have an obligation to identify yourself.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Since none of our three "Lacking Common Sense Advocates" will answer the question then it would be safe to assume they would hold their son up and let an unknow subject with an assualt weapon pass, rather then letting their son share the sidewalk with him..............and I think it is reasonable to hope they would.

Anybody that would open their front door and see a stranger walking down the sidewalk and allow their son to leave the house and share a sidewalk with him is either lying, stupid, or has a son they are tired of.

Terry V Ohio speaks often about reasonalbeness and it is reasonable for an officer to stop a person in this situation to determine if a crime is, has been, or about to be committed, and a part of that involves identification.

For those that argue against it...................you're argument is hollow, you can quote, argue, debate, but quite frankly, all you are is talk and you have demonstrated that while you want to believe you totally support open carry without any infringment, you just can't prove your stupid enought to believe it...........fact is you look out your door and see a man with an assault rifle walking down your city street.........you would be suspect as well............just can't quite make yourself admit it.


----------



## WoW.

9mm Hi-Power said:


> He was not brandishing his firearm as brandishing is defined in Michigan law and as I understand things he never took it off his shoulder until I suppose the LEO took possession of it.
> 
> You seem to argue that the open carry of any firearm could be deemed ostentatious and thus brandished. From a legal standpoint what evidence do you have that he was - given your posted definition of "ostentatious" - carrying the firearm so as to impress his fellow citizens? Open carry is legal in Michigan. If I choose to open carry neither you nor a LEO can assume that I am doing so to impress others.
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


What I am saying is, I am not aware of the Michigan law that specifically describes what brandishing is. What brandishing is NOT is described but what is has been left up to the courts to determine as far as I know.

If you know something different, please post it up.

My argument is, long guns are treated differently under the law. Open carry more appropriately describes handguns as most long guns are not carried concealed or in holsters are they? 

When gun owners start carrying shotguns into libraries and garands down the streets of Birmingham, they are looking for attention and guess what---they found it. 

Whatever happened to common sense use of rights?


----------



## lang49

WoW. said:


> My argument is, long guns are treated differently under the law. Open carry more appropriately describes handguns as most long guns are not carried concealed or in holsters are they?


With regard to open carry, Michigan law doesn't make a distinction between handguns and long guns.

As for brandishing, you might want to read this Attorney General's opinion written by none other than Jennifer Grandholm. In her opinion, the Attorney General also uses the dictionary definition of brandish.
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm


----------



## GIDEON

lang49 said:


> You're right- you should get your facts straight before spouting off a bunch of BS.
> 
> In the consensual encounter you speak of (which is not the same as "Terry" stop) you are not obligated to tell the cop anything- which is why the encounter is referred to as casual. Failing to identify in a consensual encounter in itself is not reasonable suspicion for a terry stop, as the Michigan state police bulletin that several of us have sited clearly indicates. You're right in that once a legitimate terry stop occurs which can only occur with reasonable suspicion- you may have an obligation to identify yourself.


CASUAL ENCOUNTER?--or LEO's doing there job?

The young man was engaged in a act that is age restricted in the state of Michigan, when approached by LEO's, he refused to produce Identification, Remember, giving your name is not protected by the 5th. When he refused, he was arrested..........just a bit different from a Terry-stop.

People like this should be forced to reimburse the State for the cost of prosecuting them.


----------



## GIDEON

9mm Hi-Power said:


> It's not up to the jury to determine what "brandishing" means from a legal standpoint. - it's up to the judge to explain the law to the jury. Michigan statutes that use the term "brandishing" do not define the term, therefore a standard dictionary definition becomes the defining authority: _Brandishing_, to shake or wave menacingly.
> 
> Nothing that I've read suggests that he was "shaking" or "waving" menacingly.
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


However, in a brief filed on behalf on the city by Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, P.C., Kucharek said Combs met the definition of "brandishing" outlined by Birmingham's ordinance and state law. According to city ordinance, brandishing a firearm is illegal except for police officers, or when gun owners are purchasing and transporting a weapon, hunting or engaged in target practice.
"(The) Legislature could have included walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back (as one of the legal exceptions), but it did not because such activity has no legitimate purpose," Kucharek wrote.
Barron said Wednesday that Birmingham's ordinance regarding brandishing firearms is clear and mirrors Michigan law, and Combs' conflict with the brandishment charge is "without merit."
"City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city

Evidently, if he met the definition, there must be one, both with the city and state


----------



## lang49

GIDEON said:


> However, in a brief filed on behalf on the city by Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, P.C., Kucharek said Combs met the definition of "brandishing" outlined by Birmingham's ordinance and state law. According to city ordinance, brandishing a firearm is illegal except for police officers, or when gun owners are purchasing and transporting a weapon, hunting or engaged in target practice.
> "(The) Legislature could have included walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back (as one of the legal exceptions), but it did not because such activity has no legitimate purpose," Kucharek wrote.
> Barron said Wednesday that Birmingham's ordinance regarding brandishing firearms is clear and mirrors Michigan law, and Combs' conflict with the brandishment charge is "without merit."
> "City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city
> 
> Evidently, if he met the definition, there must be one, both with the city and state


Gideon,

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Many of us have sited actual laws. You've sited nothing but opinions.

For instance, the quote from Kucharek- Just because Kucharek says there is a law restricting the open carry of a firearms doesn't mean there is such a law. *I've asked you to cite the law that prohibits this person from carrying a firearm in public in Michigan. You haven't been able to do this because there is no such law.* 
I cited the attorney general's opinion which clearly states indicates that mere possesion of a firearm is not a crime. You've failed to provided anything tangible to contradict that either.

I encourage anyone reading this thread to take no stock in anything you've written here. I'm done with you.


----------



## lang49

Steve just posted this in another thread. This is completely applicable in Michigan and exactly what the gentleman in Birmingham had the right to do.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427046


----------



## 2PawsRiver

lang49 said:


> Gideon,
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Many of us have sited actual laws. You've sited nothing but opinions.
> 
> For instance, the quote from Kucharek- Just because Kucharek says there is a law restricting the open carry of a firearms doesn't mean there is such a law. *I've asked you to cite the law the prohibits this person from carrying a firearm in public in Michigan. You haven't been able to do this because there is no such law.*
> I cited the attorney general's opinion which clearly states indicates that mere possesion of a firearm is not a crime. You've failed to provided anything tangible to contradict that either.
> 
> I encourage anyone reading this thread to take no stock in anything you've written here. I'm done with you.


Talk about a hollow arguement. While you may talk that this trash, as I said earlier, even you arn't as dim as you pretend to be.


----------



## WoW.

lang49 said:


> . Many of us have sited actual laws. You've sited nothing but opinions.


And speaking of opinions, what about those AG opinions that have been posted regarding their reading of the definition of brandishing?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for some opinions to be noteworthy yet nobody seems to be able to come up with actual language that has been made into law? Some would say that the Legislators intentionally left things up to the Courts. Scary eh?


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power

GIDEON said:


> However, in a brief filed on behalf on the city by Mary Kucharek of Beier Howlett, P.C., Kucharek said Combs met the definition of "brandishing" outlined by Birmingham's ordinance and state law. According to city ordinance, brandishing a firearm is illegal except for police officers, or when gun owners are purchasing and transporting a weapon, hunting or engaged in target practice.
> "(The) Legislature could have included walking down a public street with a firearm strapped to one's back (as one of the legal exceptions), but it did not because such activity has no legitimate purpose," Kucharek wrote.
> Barron said Wednesday that Birmingham's ordinance regarding brandishing firearms is clear and mirrors Michigan law, and Combs' conflict with the brandishment charge is "without merit."
> "City ordinances must follow constitutional law," Barron said. "(However) Home Rule cities have specific authority to enact ordinances in the interest of the city
> 
> Evidently, if he met the definition, there must be one, both with the city and state


As posted on State of Michigan websites - because "brandishing" is not defined in any Michigan statute its "legal" definition comes from a standard dictionary definition - to wave about in a menacing or threatening manner.

*In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. &#8211;n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." *

I have read nothing that suggests he waved or flourished the rifle menacingly or displayed in a threatening manner.

I suppose one could argue that the act of carrying a firearm openly is "threatening" in and of itself but if that were the case then any open carry could be construed as brandishing. However, since open carry is not a crime in Michigan the act of openly carrying a firearm cannot be construed as brandishing.

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Who said anything about being tough...........and if you can't figure out the answer to your own question, well as I said I have no patience for jackwads.


----------



## Outdoorsman17

2PawsRiver said:


> Who said anything about being tough...........and if you can't figure out the answer to your own question, well as I said I have no patience for jackwads.



I think your in the wrong thread, trying thinking before you post. Who cares about your Patience just do your job and not let your personal feelings get involved, after-all that's what "WE" are paying you for.


----------



## MSUICEMAN

Its not illegal to be an idiot. Unfortunately, the long term implications of idiots mean the common sense gifted people will probably deal with more legislation and restrictions.

Thanks moron.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WoW.

MSUICEMAN said:


> Its not illegal to be an idiot. Unfortunately, the long term implications of idiots mean the common sense gifted people will probably deal with more legislation and restrictions.
> 
> Thanks moron.
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2


 
You are right.

And, it is within their rights to take a long walk off a short pier too.

I wish more of them would do that for attention than show off their guns in places to attract attention.


----------



## Dom

MSUICEMAN said:


> Its not illegal to be an idiot. Unfortunately, the long term implications of idiots mean the common sense gifted people will probably deal with more legislation and restrictions.
> 
> Thanks moron.
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2


+1 . . . just because it may be legal, there is a time and place, and doing these type stupid things just because you think it is legal is going to place more laws and restrictions and more hassle on EVERYONE! Is that what we want? No more common sense. They should put em in jail for a month so he can think it over and the next time he gets some bright idea he might think twice.


----------



## Robert Holmes

First of all why was this guy carrying the gun to begin with? If it indeed was loaded, there is the intent to use it, possible that brandishing could stick.I look at it like this if the speed limit says 55 then go 55 and the police will leave you alone. If you are going to strap a rifle on your back and walk through metro then mabey you should expect the police to do what they get paid to do. This idiot was looking to attract attention and he found it. I hope that in the long run there is a lesson learned here.


----------



## RedM2

Interesting video... 



 
To 2 Paws... no I wouldn't let my kid out but that doesn't make it any less legal. I also wouldn't let my kid walk through the ghetto...where people can legally go about their business.


----------



## lang49

Robert Holmes said:


> I look at it like this if the speed limit says 55 then go 55 and the police will leave you alone


It's just amazing how many people don't realize that possessing a gun in public isn't illegal.

You can argue that it's not smart...but to argue that it's not legal is just plain wrong.


----------



## WoW.

lang49 said:


> It's just amazing how many people don't realize that possessing a gun in public isn't illegal.
> 
> You can argue that it's not smart...but to argue that it's not legal is just plain wrong.


 
I don't think anybody is stating that it is illegal for an *adult* to *possess* a firearm in public.

In this case, I do believe that there is a little more to the story.


----------



## hairyjoe123

Carry your weapons. If your afraid of the guy with the legal open carry, its your right to choose an alternate route or continue on your current route. Don't be so self entitled and try to take away another persons rights. One day you may find that you yourself need be carrying. Would you rather this kid carry illegally. At least with an open carry you can see a possible threat and proceed accordingly. That's the way I see it. Generally people disagree. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## hairyjoe123

Robert Holmes said:


> First of all why was this guy carrying the gun to begin with? If it indeed was loaded, there is the intent to use it, possible that brandishing could stick.I look at it like this if the speed limit says 55 then go 55 and the police will leave you alone. If you are going to strap a rifle on your back and walk through metro then mabey you should expect the police to do what they get paid to do. This idiot was looking to attract attention and he found it. I hope that in the long run there is a lesson learned here.


The police are paid to police not harass. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Thanks Wow, took the words right of my keyboard. Nobody has said it was illegal.

The only question is does a kid with an assault weapon strapped to his back, walking through a residential area warrant suspicion or investigation. 

Oobviously Red would agree that it would.


----------



## GIDEON

Whats really interesting about that Maine video, is that he had a camera, and seemed to be working off of a script, sort of steering the conversation to questions he wanted to ask.

On any given day I see way more people carrying a pistol, than I see carrying around a video camera.


----------



## rotty

2PawsRiver said:


> The question posed involved an M1 and while not initially designed as an assault weapon, more for defense, it is considered by many to be one of the first assault weapons....just a difference of opinion....another difference, when I call a man ignorant, I don't do so under some anonymous internet screen name.........*so educated youself, grow a pair and it may change your position on this topic*.



The media gets enough b.s. already, my point being some folks use "phraseology" that only fuels the fires. (and is not necessarily accurate)
I'm not getting into an internet pissing match here.
I support the kid because I "have grown a pair" and support those who support the same rights I believe in and want this country to go in a different direction than it is currently heading.

I will say, both sides could have handled it a bit differently, you can do a brief search on youtube and find all kinds of examples of what to do and not do in re: open carry. I still stand by my statement that I would rather the public get used to seeing guns carried in a responsible manner by law abiding citizens for the benefit of our own safety as opposed to the "ewww...its an evil gun!" thing that is so prevalent today.

I for one am proud to stand up for my rights and do so in conversation (written or verbal) with other people and government officials as well as industry members.

the firearms community needs to unite, or we will soon be the outcasts.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

> I for one am proud to stand up for my rights and do so in conversation (written or verbal) with other people and government officials as well as industry members.


So, do you sign your name to those, or just use Rotty.:lol:


----------



## rotty

name and address, and have all the replies right here.


----------



## bassdisaster

WoW. said:


> Come on...strolling around downtown Birmingham with a loaded Garand???
> 
> His intention was, to make a point. When he writes the check to his attorney, he will have to decide whether his grandstanding was worth it or not.
> 
> Meanwhile, all sensible gun owners may be adversely effected by a determination by the jury of what brandishing is. Slippery slopes...


We can not all be Judge and Jury, The Lord sayeth VENGENCE is MINE!


----------



## WoW.

bassdisaster said:


> We can not all be Judge and Jury, The Lord sayeth VENGENCE is MINE!


And no matter how it plays out, the attorney sayeth, CASH is MINE!


To each their own.


----------



## GIDEON

2PawsRiver said:


> The question is not is it legal, it is does it warrant investigation, or should it be considered so normal that it would not warrant a second look, your answer clearly demonstates that it does.
> 
> You stopped your son, not because what the man was doing was illegal, it just didn't sit right. An officer see's something that just doesn't sit right, he or she is obligated to check it out, and that involves identifying the person.
> 
> If he had simply produced identification, explained why he was walking through the neighborhood with an assault rifle strapped to his back, he would of been fine.
> 
> He however didn't, and obstructed the officer from doing his duty and I have no doubt he will be found guilty, or if the lights ever clicks on he'll plead guilty.


sums it up perfectly-------------------------if found guilty is that a felony charge?


----------



## Petronius

GIDEON said:


> sums it up perfectly-------------------------if found guilty is that a felony charge?


Felony for what?


----------



## GIDEON

petronius said:


> Felony for what?


The charges he is charged with.....brandishing, disturbing the peace, obstructing ..............


----------



## 2PawsRiver

I doubt and hope they have no luck with any kind of brandishing.......the Disturbing the Peace charge would be a misdemeanor, the Obstructing charge would be a felony.

If he had any kind of sense he'll take the deal they offer him, plead to the misdemeanor, but if he had any kind of sense this thread wouldn't exist.


----------



## WoW.

2PawsRiver said:


> If he had any kind of sense he'll take the deal they offer him, plead to the misdemeanor, but if he had any kind of sense this thread wouldn't exist.


Light on sense and will be even lighter on dollars too.


----------



## GIDEON

2PawsRiver said:


> I doubt and hope they have no luck with any kind of brandishing.......the Disturbing the Peace charge would be a misdemeanor, the Obstructing charge would be a felony.
> 
> If he had any kind of sense he'll take the deal they offer him, plead to the misdemeanor, but if he had any kind of sense this thread wouldn't exist.


So when this all washes out, this kid could be legally prohibited from owning a fire arm


----------



## 2PawsRiver

GIDEON said:


> So when this all washes out, this kid could be legally prohibited from owning a fire arm


If he lives at home, it could also keep guns out of his house.


----------



## WoW.

2PawsRiver said:


> If he lives at home, it could also keep guns out of his house.


Gotta disagree, on that.

All Dad has to do is make them inaccessible to him and that is pretty easy to do w/ a safe.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Hence the "Could" and not a "Will".


----------



## WoW.

2PawsRiver said:


> Hence the "Could" and not a "Will".


 
Who is Will?


----------



## KCRuger

I am not saying this kid was using his head in any way shape or form. It probably was not a good idea. The part of this that disturbs me is that several people on here are afraid that they will put in place more laws banning this. Did you ever stop to think, whats the point for something to be legal that if you do it you will lose the right? You might as well give up the right all together. I agree that everything has a time and a place but to say you hope the kid goes to jail just so he can think about what he did because you are afraid to lose your right. My friends if you are afraid to do something that you have the right to do for fear of losing the right, you have already lost it. Not trying to start a fight just my thoughts on the topic. I hope the kid wins and I wish more police officers would get educated on the laws. The only thing I think he did wrong was not give up his ID. I am more than willing to exercise my rights. I am not willing to pick a fight. If he wanted to make it known he does not have to give his ID then state just that. Let the officer know you know you dont have to give them your ID but are willing to just to put his mind at ease.


----------



## brookie1

What makes this unique is the age issue. He should have shown his ID to prove he was eighteen. He didn't have to answer any questions, just hand over his ID and then ask if he was free to go. None of us were there to see how this really went down, but his refusal to ID may end up finding him guilty of obstructing. I don't see it any different than being checked for ID if you appear underage and are drinking. However any firearm related charges are just ridiculous, IMHO.


----------



## GIDEON

brookie1 said:


> What makes this unique is the age issue. He should have shown his ID to prove he was eighteen. He didn't have to answer any questions, just hand over his ID and then ask if he was free to go. None of us were there to see how this really went down, but his refusal to ID may end up finding him guilty of obstructing. I don't see it any different than being checked for ID if you appear underage and are drinking. However any firearm related charges are just ridiculous, IMHO.


 A felony charge for basically being a stupid kid seems harsh, maybe a public SMACKING would be more in line


----------



## Dirty_Harry

I am failing to see why the Garand is being veiwed as an assault rifle in this thread? Whats the difference between it and a regular Remington 7400 .30-06? Heck I have a Browning BAR .308 that I hunt deer with and apparently I am going into the woods with an assault rifle. 

Kid was stupid, but within his rights.


----------



## WoW.

Dirty_Harry said:


> I am failing to see why the Garand is being veiwed as an assault rifle in this thread? Whats the difference between it and a regular Remington 7400 .30-06? Heck I have a Browning BAR .308 that I hunt deer with and apparently I am going into the woods with an assault rifle.
> 
> Kid was stupid, but within his rights.


Do you take to the streets of downtown Birmingham with your "assault rifle"?

Technically, his is NOT an "assault rifle" by definition. Technically, it is a "battle rifle". I don't know what caliber that it is but, you have to believe, one of the two. 

What makes the "splash" in the media shouldn't really be the type of rifle but in this instance, it made for more "interesting" reading for non gunnie types who have no clue what a Garand is unless they saw Clint in Gran Torino and maybe not even then.

But, other factors in all of this comprise the sum total of the "incident" which lead up to the impending trial.


----------



## WoW.

jehler said:


> I hope the kid is absolved and uses that m1 to shoot a button buck this fall


Where have you been.

Jury brought back NG verdicts.

Maybe he can shoot a dozen button bucks because the law permits it. Why don't you invite him to your place to do just that?


----------



## Outdoorsman17

The more of the posts in this thread I read, I'm glad he was found innocent. If for nothing else just to keep the cops in line


----------



## jehler

WoW. said:


> Where have you been.
> 
> Jury brought back NG verdicts.
> 
> Maybe he can shoot a dozen button bucks because the law permits it. Why don't you invite him to your place to do just that?


Ha, I've been fishing....


----------



## WoW.

Outdoorsman17 said:


> *The more of the posts in this thread I read, I hope he's found innocent.* If for nothing else just to keep the cops in line


 
Does anybody around here actually read the danged thread before posting a reply?


I guess it is like voting, you don't need to know much to do it.


----------



## Outdoorsman17

lang49 said:


> Which side of your mouth are you talking out of?? Over in the "know your rights" thread you stated
> 
> " If there is somebody in an area I am responsible for and he needs checked out they will be checked out, the hard way or the easy way, and trust me there is always a hard way if needed"
> 
> Don't even suggest that you wouldn't have acted the same as the cops in this situation. You've already implied that you would have.



Another tough guy, that lost the battle move on and maybe ''US'' tax payers will pay your check again, mr public servant


----------



## Outdoorsman17

WoW. said:


> Does anybody around here actually read the danged thread before posting a reply?
> 
> 
> I guess it is like voting, you don't need to know much to do it.



Do you think before you talk? WOW:lol:


----------



## 2PawsRiver

lang49 said:


> Which side of your mouth are you talking out of?? Over in the "know your rights" thread you stated
> 
> " If there is somebody in an area I am responsible for and he needs checked out they will be checked out, the hard way or the easy way, and trust me there is always a hard way if needed"
> 
> Don't even suggest that you wouldn't have acted the same as the cops in this situation. You've already implied that you would have.


Maybe between the two of you, you can find somebody that can read for you. I said I would check him out. In what you quoted I said I would check him out, and I will say it again for you slow ones, I would of checked him out. 

I don't know how they did it, therefore I can't say, and did not say I would do the same thing they did.

Done with both of you until you get together and find someone to explain things to you


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Another tough guy, that lost the battle move on and maybe ''US'' tax payers will pay your check again, mr public servant


Another anonymous internet coward with a big mouth....and I never claimed to be tough, but I don't mind putting my name with my comments.......maybe you think that makes me tough.....it doesn't........you could do it too, well maybe not you.

Are you really so stupid that you think I was part of that battle.


----------



## jehler

Damn you guy are ugly, I'll guess I should read the whole thread, right after this springer episode..... :no:


----------



## WoW.

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Do you think before you talk? WOW:lol:


 
Don't try and make this discussion personal as you may not like the outcome.


----------

