Jeff, are you aware that even with a concealed pistol license a person is NOT required to conceal? And the only difference between open carry and concealed is you can see it, how does that make you feel any safer? Is it because its out of sight out of mind? The fact is youre probably around many people carrying as over 300,000 MI residents are licensed to carry concealed, so if thats already true how is that same person carrying openly any more dangerous?

Lucky for everyone, your "feelings" don't trump the Constitution.

Jeff S., may I please see proof of your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment licences? And please, conceal your rights if you feel the need to exercise them.

K?

Jeff, in case you didn't know nearly everyone there carrying a firearm have their CPL's. Whether or not you FEEL safer or not doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you WOULD have been safer. Also, just a reminder, You nor I have ANY right to FEEL safer, you and I only have a right to BE safer.

And that's perfectly within your rights to call the police, there's nothing wrong with that. Seeing that would raise my eyebrow, too, and I am a person who carries both concealed and openly. The problem seems to be in how the situation's dealt with by the police. What I believe to be the bottom line is that one shouldn't be arrested unless he's broken the law.

So sorry it hurts your "feelings" there Jeff.

Waaaaaaaah

I agree, Jeff. I grew up in metro Detroit in the 60's and 70's and don't recall anyone carrying a gun in the open on the downtown streets of Royal Oak or Bhm. If a person needs to carry a gun to feel safe, I don't have a problem with that. I remember having lunch with a friend (and a gun ethusisastt) and her jacket inadvertently lifted up revealing a revolver in a waist belt. I said in an undertone..."um, your gun is showing", she smiled abashedly, and covered it up. That is what I see missing in the gun owners here, the seemingly normal desire to be discreet about carrying their firearms, they are so over the top, militant about it. And since the law is on their side, why the need for this rally?

Reading further in the comments here, I see that gun rightists want to make a new norm, where firearms are carried openly by everyone to discourage crime. Like the old wild West. They are not being revisionist fo 50 years ago, this is a new vision for the 21st century.

@ Jeff S. and cookiepro2: Open, legal, non-criminal, peaceful, non-threartening exercise of any Constitutional Right need not be hidden. Insisting otherwise is an attempt to marginalize and stifle the Right so as to make it non-existant.

Open Carry is not a "new norm". It is very much the Old Norm, after having been suppressed for far too long. Your discomfort at people "coming out" is irrelevent. No-one should have to hide in a closet. Otherwise, please don't be caught outside your home with visible books and papers. That just makes many Citizens nervous and is therefore not to be tolerated.

Does walking by several big black or Hispanic guys that are looking at you funny make you feel uncomfortable? Should we arrest them so you can feel more comfy?

I agree with almost this whole statment, and I couldn't have put the second half of your paragraph better myself. I have been open carrying nearly daily since 2007.

Waaaaaaah

Kenneth - good for you, your right. I'd disagree on the "fools" comment though - unfortunately, too often those laying in pools of blood are innocent bystanders or victims of domestic abuse. Not everyone is trained properly, or has the best of intentions.

I agree with Erin on this, sorry Kenneth, I know you personally, and I agree with you most times, but this particular statment is not your best. I open carry daily.

You honestly think that a person who's legally carrying a weapon would shoot you for saying something offensive? I'd be more likely to think that of someone carrying a gun ILLEGALLY, in which case the gun would surely be hidden/concealed. As far as the open-carry folks, they've been some of the best, nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting. Attend a get together and you may share the same opinion. If you're concern is based on ALL citizens who carry (those licensed to conceal), I'm sorry to say that as stated above, there are currently over 300,000 MI residents licensed to carry concealed. That's about 1 in 30, so you pass these people everyday. You shop with them, you drive among them, etc. Perhaps you shouldn't be so offensive. As they say, an armed society is a poite society.

Obsurd.

Your accusations are vile, baseless slander. Flagged.

I don't know how your comment got approved in the first place, Jemu, but I believe in Free Speach, so good on you for sharing your opinion. I see you have been "stoned posting". Good thing your not legally allowed to buy a pistol in the Great State of Michigan, being a drug addict and all, because if you did, appently you "may shoot" someone if they something you "view offensive". Since you believe that would be your "right". Scary in dead. BTW, I encourage you to seek treatment, for your drug use, and/or mental condition. Good luck!

I've personally met people from several ethnic backgrounds at these gatherings, so your racial argument kinda falls on its face.

WOW, way to be racist, and assume so is everyone else! I personally open carry, I have friends of many different races who open carry, and have met even more.

Just because you can drive a 3500lb death cart on wheels around doesn't mean you should. Please sell your cars and walk. Everyone will me much more safe. Please think of the children.

Yeah, COnstitutional Rights should always be hidden away from the sight of decent people, amIright?

Sarcasm, of course...

There is a difference between a LEGAL activitie, and commiting murder! Wow, I honestly can't believe how ignorant some of these posters are. A lot of the fringe, irrational posters on here, I suspect need medication.

You may not NEED to have a gun to be safe, but I'd rather be on the safe side when my life or possibly a bystander's life may be on the line. Unexpected bad things happen to unsuspecting people all the time. The saying that "it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" makes sense to me. Everyday, I can find a story where a victim could've been spared from a beating from multiple others, or a rape, or death - with a firearm and training. You would seemingly rather risk being a rape victim than get a tool and training for its use? That's your right. You probably believe that the police should be armed, right? And you would probably agree that you'd be fine if there were 300,000 more police out there, right? What's a police officer? An armed "good guy". To me, there are only so many police out there - but the more armed "good guys", the better.

Nate, I like you, you seem level headed and reasonable.

I don't need a gun to feel safe and I don't believe that violence is the solution even in response to violence. I don't think you can get rid of violence by force or even the intent to use force. That is why I won't carry a gun.

I believe in the evolution of consciousness and truly believe that it is possible to get over the need for violence as a society. I realize that many people do not think as I do.

I also don't believe in accidents or random events. I know that I have a lot of control over the experiences that come into my life. I am creating my life's experiences. So far even the "bad" experiences that I've created have proven to have a silver lining and a purpose.

For now I believe that police are necessary and guns seem to go with that job description in the US. I'm not sure that they are all "good guys" and I don't think more is always better. Actually, if we had an equal number of people (and $$s) to the current police force in this nation who were 100% dedicated to identifying and helping struggling people we may actually be safer. I don't think people are born violent. I think they learn to be violent and that can and will stop when enough people stop thinking violence is a solution to any problem, ever.

@Inner Voice
I was going to reply only to the post I am replying to, before first reading its replies (where this comment is now), which included one a good reply from you (wow this sentance is confusing, hope you got all that lol). Anyways... I didn't like the original comment, but I did like your reply. You are probably the most well spoken (typed) anti-barearms person I have heard (read). Your first post came off as insulting, as where your second showed a kind mutual respect. I thank you for listening to what Nate had to say, and replying in kind.

I personally do carry a firearm as part of my daily life. I am not afraid of anything, I just prefer to be ready if something bad happens. I also keep a flashlight in my car, and several in my home. I use my seatbelt. I have batteries in my smoke detectors. Am I expecting my electricity to go out, or to get into a car accident, or for my house to catch on fire? No, I am not. But prepared I am none the less. Unfortunatly there is violant crime in the world, even here in the US. There are murders, rapes, armed robberies, and beatings everyday. I hope and pray I never find myself in one of these situations, but if I do, I would like to be prepared for it, just like I am for a fire. I take from your ladder post that you believe in karma to a point, and what you put out you get back. What if your wrong, what is some things are completely random? I choose not to take that risk. Good luck to you, and God Bless!

@Brandon - Thanks for the good conversation. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and I'm glad you did read the whole chain before you replied. You understand what I'm expressing and I understand you (I think). I understand your comparisons to seat belts, fire extinguishers etc. I have and use those things too. The difference with the gun is that when it is actually used (fired) during a violent encounter it will most likely be used to injure or kill the attacker. That act is an attack of violence. I understand why a person would do that to defend life or property but it is violence. So I'm trying to live in my, possibly deluded, world of safety and non violence. (continued)

I also understand the concept that I've seen written that guns by there very existence in an open carry sense can prevent attacks from occuring. I get that too. It is also an example of using fear to control people. Their "fear" of possible attack is what prevents them from attacking but it is not a truly "peaceful" encounter. There is an issue of power and control (a type of violence) involved in the encounter. This is also the same power, control (violence) that people feel when around police officers and it is the same fear / violence that people are really talking about when they talk about a police state or fear of the government. It is all the same "violence". I'm trying to say that an attack or a fear of attack or the perception of inequality of power are all forms of violence.

I have no idea if you get what I'm saying. All of this can be stopped when we truly change the way we relate to all people. Violence will end when the fear of power, control, domination ends and it starts with me. Thanks for listening.

@Brandon - I do want to touch on the concept of karma a bit too. I totally believe in cause and effect and what you put out is what you get back. I also believe that we have a lot more power to create our experiences than most people might agree with. I totally believe in personal power but I don't believe in the use of power over others. I am glad that the FA rights exist even though they do lead to misunderstandings such as the one that we're all discussing here. They are necessary for now (our point in consciousness).

Humans and humanity are continually evolving and we are at an extremely important point in our evolution right now. We individually and collectively are creating our future and the future of our children. We are getting MANY warning signs that what we are creating is not working effectively for all of humanity or the animals or the earth. Daily we are presented with thousands of opportunities to choose who we are and how we are going to interact in the world that we perceive around us. Everything is a choice and everything, even the apparently random events, are indicators of whether the choices we have individually and collectively made are supporting life, freedom, happiness etc. Our choices matter. I am doing the best I can to choose life, love, freedom, happiness, peace and to teach others about their power to choose too.

In your head!!! Well if it's in everyone's head why the hell do people get robbed, raped, mugged and murdered! LOL
I would rather protect my self, family and even people who are around me that I don't even know, rather than call 911 and hope the police get there in time! POLICE are expert witnesses after a crime has been committed, murder, rape, robbery mugging and so on, I am not talking about seeing a speeding car as a crime and writing a ticket. Police get there after the crime is committed 99.9999% of the time! They can't be everywhere! I don't want my self or anyone around me to be a victim. If you want to be a victim, and wait for the police to get there feel free!!!

You need me on that wall, you want me on that wall!

Well said

It's Ok with me if you carry a gun to protect yourself from all the other gun toting people that you think are out to cause you trouble. It's legal. It's your perogative. I'm just saying when you strap on your gun or tuck it in your pocket the people that you're defending yourself from are only in your head. The more they exist in your head, the more likely they are to appear in your life. The thoughts you think now are creating your future. Eventually you may prove yourself right and I'm glad you'll have your gun with you. I just hope nobody get's hurt.

I choose not to carry a gun and I don't expect I'll ever find myself cowering under a desk. The difference is that I live in a safe world and you live in a scary dangerous world.

@ Inner Voice: "...the people that you're defending yourself from are only in your head." What an odd view to hold, considering the crime stats proove otherwise.

"... I don't expect I'll ever find myself cowering under a desk." Hmmm... are the approx. 1.5 million victims of violent crime each year "expecting" to be victims? Or was it just something that happened without their planing for the event?

PavePusher:
" @ Inner Voice: "...the people that you're defending yourself from are only in your head." What an odd view to hold, considering the crime stats proove otherwise. "

-- My point is that unless you're targeting someone specific when you grab your gun and leave your house your enemy is only a figment of your imagination at the moment. And further I would say that because there is that figment of an enemy in your imagination you are actually increasing your chances of meeting the enemy.

" "... I don't expect I'll ever find myself cowering under a desk." Hmmm... are the approx. 1.5 million victims of violent crime each year "expecting" to be victims? Or was it just something that happened without their planing for the event? "

I would guess that many of the victims were not CONSCIOUSLY expecting to be victims but I believe that no encounter is truly random. The creation of the encounter was established unconsciously (by imagining it for example). All of our experiences have been created by us whether consciously or unconsciously.

@ Inner Voice: So, you are saying that victims of crime intend to be victims, and people who equip themselves for self defense ared looking for a confrontation? Wow. That's incredibly stupid and vile. On what actual evidence do you base these slanders and accusations?

@PavePusher
Sorry to have upset you. We're coming at this from very different perspectives and I understand that what I said seems rediculous and vile to you.
You Asked "@ Inner Voice: So, you are saying that victims of crime intend to be victims," My answer is that I think all people are always doing the best they can to take care of themselves at all times based on the information that they have and their beliefs. Most people wouldn't KNOWINGLY intend to be a victim of a violent crime. This is probably weird to you but unintentionally, subconsciously I think individuals and society as a whole are creating the circumstances that allow it to happen. There is always a cause that leads up to any action whether we know what it is or not. These things are not random. The universe is not random. So one question might be did the victim CONSCIOUSLY INTEND NOT to be a victim of violent crime? Probably not. Violent crime related to drugs is not random. Violent crime related to domestic violence is not random. Violent crime related to karma is not random although rarely understood. Violent crime and the factors that lead up to violent crime such as mental illness are not random. Suicides are not random. People and society have just NOT wanted to do what is necessary to prevent them.

@PavePusher - You also asked
" [Are you saying that] people who equip themselves for self defense ared looking for a confrontation? "
My Answer: No, I don't think ALL people that carry a gun are "looking for" a confrontation. I believe that people who equip themselves with a gun for self defense are doing so because 1) they believe there is a possibility that they could be engaged in some sort of altercation. 2) They believe that a violent reponse with a gun is an appropriate response to a threat of bodily or property harm.

Am I accurate in understanding your beliefs? Please help me understand if I'm wrong.

I do not hold those 2 beliefs to be true for myself so I don't carry a gun for self defense.

Interesting, I hadn't known that about Switzerland, so looked it up. It is an outgrowth of the Swiss Army service. Those that were in the army are allowed to keep their issued rifle at home, after it's been altered to take away the automatic feature.

In addition, Wikipedia says this about gun carry laws in Switzerland:

"To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle."

Wikipedia gun, Switzerland quote continued:

"Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:
fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]

[edit] Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.: For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[10]"

So it looks like in Switzerland, the original incident (individual carrying loaded firearm in Bhm) and this rally (with people bringing their guns) would not have been permitted.

Re-read what I said...

Sorry, which part?

My point (from reading Wikipedia) is in Switzerland, a firearm carrying permit is "in most cases issued only ro private citizens working in occupations such as security". The prevalence of firearms at home is due to that all males have conscripted service into the Swiss army and yes, the gov't "pays for their ammunution and shooting lessons" as part of their army training, and then they get to keep their rifle after their service. The teen arrested in this case (for his conduct, not for gun carrying) would not fit in either of the above categories, that I can see, in Switzerland.

@ cookiepro2: I don't remember Switzerland having the equivalent of our Second Amendment.

In the meantime, may I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, please?

pavepusher,
I was responding to No's post about Switzerland being a dream country for gun owners. It is apparently not.

You don't have one.

i support your right to do so

I hope you paid the Federal tax on each ammo round....

I hope you made it yourself, in your basement, and hand-packed all of your own ammo for it too. That way, the government won't know about it.

Sssshhh...I won't tell 'em about The Patch. ;-)

Kim--Reality check here. The voters of Birmingham gave the city away to the devils about 10 years ago when they voted for a commission that spends as it pleases, not to benefit the entire community. In response, many of us who live here already boycott downtown by spending as little time and money downtown as possible. In our minds what happens downtown can just stay downtown.

The relevent Amendment states "...keep and bear...". Good luck with your avoidance behavior.

If you don't want to walk around town with your 5 year old when a guy is toting a gun, then you can never go around town, or anywhere in the state for that matter, unless you are in the middle of the woods. There are over 300,000 CPL holders in MI. That is 3.3% of the population, or about 5% of adults, so 1 in 30 people are most likely armed when in public in this state, and 1 in 20 adults, even more if you count police officers. So good luck in your fantacy world @Kim.

there were locals

Your protestations against peaceful, non-criminal exercise of a Constitutional Right are a totally inappropriate use of your First Amendment Rights.

See how that works?

Well your glad "your police department" arrested someone for a legal and constitutionly protected RIGHT, because you disagree with it. Okay, well I disagree with your legal and constitutionly protected right of free speach. Your comment offends me, I should call "my police department", and have YOU arrested!

Here is a quote from the original Troy patch article:

"Officers stopped the man and asked for identification so they could verify if he was old enough to be in possession of the rifle". So the police had a reasonable right to ask for his ID, to see if he was indeed at 18 years are older, and thus would be permitted to carry the rifle. Just like you have to show your ID to buy alcohol.

Further, in the article:
"police said Combs refused to identify himself, and he was taken into custody for disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm and obstructing an officer". So it seems the court case is based on Combs's alleged behavior after the police questioned him, not on his right to gun carry.

Cookiepro - agree. This is about the behavior, not the gun issue.

would you be upset if it was a gathering of police officers. there armed two, a lot of people say one of the open carriers my go nuts and shoot some one, please tell me what magic pill the city's give there police officers, so they don't go nuts???????

as for the comment that none of the protesters where not from your precious Birmingham, they came from all over the State of Michigan to protest a civil rights violation, just as the freedom marchers did in the south, yes this is a civil rights violation. next you will be saying only residents of Birmingham can use your parks

Vehicles kill and injure far more people than guns. Fact.
Please sell your cars and walk. Set a good example, do it for your children.

karl,
I suppose there is the possiblity that a police officer may go rogue and start shooting up, but they've as they dedicated their life to public safety, had psychological examinations, training, ongoing reevaluations by their peers and superiors, vs an average ciitzen getting a gun permit for casual use, I'd say it is more likely that the latter would "go nuts" with a gun.

combs is 18. he's not old enough to conceal in michigan. he's old enough to die for his country though...

CookiePro2,

CPL holders are statistically safer than even police officers.

YOu may be surprised at the level of training the police actually get. You may also be surprised at the level of training Joe Public seeks out voluntarily.

What ever happened to things like "benefit of doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty"? Why should combs have to prove he is of age? Why do the police just get to go around assuming everyone is guilty all the time? We are not the scum of the earth that they would seem to believe.

Cops break plenty of laws and plenty of cops commit violent crimes. Domestic abuse, robbery, murder, theft, etc... Yet no one thinks twice about them carrying, yet your neighbor gets a gun and all the "what if" possibilities pop into your head.

It seems reasonable to me for the cop to check ID for age in this situation since that is part of the law and Sean Comb is definitely young. I suspect the officer was probably just doing his due dilligence and things got out of hand but we can't just assume that is the case.

Constitutional Rights do not require camoflauge, and exercise of them in a peaceful manner is not justification to be "escorted to the city limits and told not to come back". Congrats on picking a colorful (and sadly all too true) Jim Crow action to be promoting.

By the way, there is no state that requires one to carry a government issued ID, nor any state that requires one show a drivers licence if not in control of a vehicle. Some states do require that one verbally identify oneself if that police officer has RAS or PC of a crime. These laws vary widely by state. What is the law in this location?

You don't seem to grasp the concepts of: 1) freedom, 2) the legal and constitutional constraints in which police must adhere to, and 3) civil rights. You JUST said that even though what he did was legal, he should've been escorted out of the city and told not to return...for NOT breaking the law. Kudos to you, for not many people would admit that they WANT to live in a police state. And as far as "doing a better job concealing his weapon"... then, by concealing his weapon, he would've been breaking the law. Lastly, you're so concerned with people carrying loaded guns in a the park, where RESIDENTS (as if your local residents are any different than any other people) play... again, there are over 300,000 people licensed to carry (concealed) in MI, and I have news for you.... they don't carry their guns UNLOADED. You and your city's residents are always around people carrying loaded weapons. Even some of your precious "residents" are carrying these tools of mass destruction.

> carrying a loaded assault rifle down the street on a busy Saturday night...while legal, isn't the right thing to do and this Combs kid should have been escorted to the city limits and told not to come back.

Do you see what you just said? Under what law would the police legally be able to escort Sean to the city limits?

Please cite to where anyone carried a rifle that was "loaded". Also, "assault rifle" has a very specific legal meaning, and I can just about guarantee none of the protestors had one, unless they are very rich indeed.

I'm not, nor would I ever, try to argue the 2nd ammendment. What I'm arguing is that legal vs. illegal and acting in an appropriate manner are not always in lock-step. You can try to paint Combs as a patriot, and try to paint this as a civil rights matter and maybe you can make a case, but the simple fact of the matter is carrying a rifle (my apologies for refering to it as an assault rifle) strapped to your back on a Saturday night is not a protest, it's a middle-finger to society. Like it or not, the sight of a gun in public makes a lot of people uncomfortable. We don't live in an active war zone, so the general public are not used to seeing large guns on display. What Combs did, while legal, was not the right thing to do. I don't think he should face charges, but I think he should grow up and think about other people in the community (it's legal to do a lot of things in public that we don't do because as a polite society you should just know better).

@JD Legal, peaceful exercise of Constitutional Rights is never "a middle finger to society". Quite the contrary, those who want to restrict Rights, based on some ill-defined, unquantifiable personal dislike are the ones casting disrespect and hate and engaging in behavior that tears at society.

Do you have a list of all the non-law "rules" we should abide by? If so, please provide it so we can discuss the phenomena.

And you'd have been just as wrong to do so as the police were.

No one picked him as a "poster boy" - he chose to do something that was within his legal rights to do, whether "normal" or not, and is now in a legal battle. You say you would've asked for ID, but that would be a slippery slope because police do NOT have the right to stop and ID someone without probable cause (PC) or a reasonably accrued suspicion (RAS) that a crime is being committed. If you're driving down the road, not breaking any laws, the police may not pull you over just to verify that you have a drivers' license. It must be assumed that you have a valid drivers license. The same principle goes for those carrying guns, whether it seems sensible to you or not. If you're driving normally, it must be assumed that you're doing so legally. If carrying a gun, it must be assumed that you're doing so legally.

Youthful appearance = probable cause. You would assume someone who appears to be 14 years old is carrying legally? You would tie the hands of law enforcement that much? What about parolees who are banned from weapons ownership?

I assume you trust government-certified journalists more than some guy with a notepad and pen and video camera?

PavePusher, "government-certified" journalists? What on God's green earth are these government-certified journalists you speak of? I receive my news from private corps and the AP + Reuters. Your argument seems marred by over-zealous anti-government insanity. What country do you live in that has government-certified journalists? This sounds like the kind of paranoid talk of anti-gov nuts who would rather we live with no form of government... teaching our own children (sans public education); putting out our own fires (sans public services/first responders); and defending our own property (sans public safety). This is perhaps the greatest reason the common man and woman, such as myself, fear gun activists: you seem to live in a parallel universe- or country, so to speak- where our government is out to get you. Tell me, do you take your tinfoil hat off when we the national anthem is sung?

I was drawing an obviously sarcastic parallel (i.e. "satire") the final sentence of your initial comment. Since you seem to claim that only government-certified agents should exercise the Second Amendment, surely, in order to be academically honest and consistent, you want to carry that premise over to our other Constitutional Rights, yes?

@Daniel JK
I find it sad at how paranoid you are of the average law abiding gun owner. How you assume that people who carry firearms in this state are part of the "Michigan Militia", or that they at least support the "Michigan Militia" by wearing their t-shirts. I personally may not see firearms ownership, or even the bearing of firearms, as a civil rights issue, but you sure seem to be trying to proove the point that it is. By saying, "Any man or women who smiles while wielding a gun and saying they're being treated unfairly appears to the common public as nutters and out-of-their-minds... ...I- and many others - trust the members of a fraternal police order with their weapons more than sum guy in a "Michigan Militia" shirt". You seem to think that law-abiding citizens who choose to own or carry a firearm(s), are not normal, and you obviously don't like them, you as well believe that "common public" shares your view point. So by your statment and statment alone, it is a civil rights issue.

Luckaly the common public does not agree with you, luckaly the majority of the "common public", agrees that law-abiding citizens have the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms, and luckaly The US Constitution as well as The Michigan Constitution guarentees these rights.

Oh and I don't know of a single member of Michigan Open Carry inc, or OpenCarry.org that is a part of the "Michigan Militia".

But here is a fun fact for you, EVERY Man and Women in The State of Michigan are a part the of the un-organized State Militia (not to be confused with the "Michigan Militia). This includes YOU Daniel JK, if you indeed live in Michigan, and are an adult. Its in the state Constitution, I suggest you read it, have fun!

And here you go, comparing a hand-held gun to a nuclear device. Yeah, that's relevant alright... *roll eyes*

I wouldn't feel so at all, but I would not patronize the establishment unless absolutely neccesary. Having had a firearm stolen from a vehicle even though it was secured, I can testify that it is much safer for everyone if it stays in my control in its holster on my belt.

OK, just wondering, thanks for your reply. Needing to carry a gun around and think about all these rules and possible situations seems like it would be a PITA, but that's just my opinion.

On the matter of banning firearms from private businesses, private property rights do still trump firearms rights in situations like this. I don't feel like my rights are violated by this. In fact, I feel that private property rights are being upheld, as they should be. Even tho I'm a person who carries firearms daily, I'd like the right to ban firearms from my property if I chose to do so. I personally (like most carriers) try not to patronize establishments that ban firearms. I can always take my business elsewhere.

As for the teen carrying the rifle in this story, what's it matter what his plans were so long as it was legal? Granted I don't carry long guns in public, but I do go about my daily business when openly armed. I shop, I eat, I drive, I go for walks, etc. I've been openly carrying for a few years now and the only negative reaction I've ever gotten was from a couple who moved to a table on the other side of a restaurant. By and large, it goes unnoticed, which is fine (other than it showing that people just don't pay attention to their surroundings).

no, a concealed pistol license is required to enter a bank with a firearm and he's only 18. a concealed pistol license holder does not have to conceal their firearm in the bank, however, just be licensed.

Restrictions vary depending on whether the person has a CPL (concealed pistol license). With a CPL, there are far fewer restrictions. To (legally) walk into a bank while carrying a firearm, one must have a valid CPL, which Combs is too young to obtain. However, a person with a CPL may carry, openly or concealed, into a bank. Do keep in mind, tho, that a CPL is only for PISTOLS. Even a CPL holder may not walk into a bank with a long gun, be it a rifle or shotgun - PISTOL ONLY. And if you think about it, going to the bank may be an IDEAL time to be armed. A business owner making daily deposits could be a likely robbery target.

I'm a very firearm-friendly person, and I too agree that just because something's legal doesn't make it right. An activity being legal or illegal is usually determined in black-and-white. Something being "right" isn't so black-and-white, since peoples' opinions of what's "right" vary widely per individual. I sure don't think it's "right" to hang a pair of well-detailed testicles from one's vehicle bumper, but it's legal, so I must respect that. The last thing I ever wanted to hear from my 6-yr old daughter in the car was "Dad, what are those blue balls hanging from that truck?". I even thought that one could construe that as "displaying pornographic material to a minor" which IS illegal. But in all, it's a legal act, so I must respect his right to put testes on his truck, "right" or not. I feel the same for firearms - you may not think it right to openly carry firearms, but it's a legal activity, so you should respect that right, even while disagreeing with it.

I'm not sure Dan & Nate are correct.

If the bank isn't posted as off-limits, sure. If the staff then asks him/her to leave, they would have to do so or face trespassing charges.

Unless there is a law I missed, or I read something wrong: http://www.handgunlaw.us/

It's hardly professional to break the law. BPD obviously was trained incorrectly. They need re-trained if they are being trained to violate civil rights under color of law. You might want to reconsider the use of the pronoun "their" vs "there". You might also refer to the written opinion of Jennifer Granholm regarding brandishing from when she was the state AG.

So you advocate a Police State. How very... totalitarian... of you. North Korea called, they want you to come home.

it's funny how i keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, but i've never had to use it. it's funny how i wear my seat belt, but it's never kept me safe.
i carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. you take a gamble with your life every day if you decide not to carry a gun with you. which is faster a bullet from a gun or the average arrival time of the police?

Mr. Turner, the mere act of bearing a sidearm does not constitute "brandishing". "Brandishing" has a specific legal definition and intent. Please look it up.

i continue to carry a gun because it HAS kept me safe

fair enough

i didn't

that's ridiculous, kennedy was not killed by an M1, and even if he was, who cares? every time someone dies by a certain gun, should it be banned? or should we just take away the guns that are used to kill the ruling class elite?

he was not brandishing under definition of the dictionary or by Michigan Attorney General opinion:
Verb:
Wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Mr. Turner, you are now simply making things up. Nothing you said above is a true statement.

It's impossible to wave or flourish without using your hands. The gun was slung over his back. Even Granholm agrees that what he was doing is not brandishing in her published opinion the definition of brandishing.

what part of the trend of making gun laws more lax in michigan gives you that impression. a MORE restrictive gun law hasn't been past in the last 10 years in michigan.

@Michael De Santis
"soon enough, the right to carry will be a law of the past..."

I ask you what in the world would give you that idea? Since the Clinton Gun Ban expired, I personally know of no gun laws passed that point to "the right to carry will be a low of the past". Since the begining of the decade 4 states have gone to Constitutinal Carry, meaning no permit is required to carry any pistol (or long gun), be it openly or concealed. In addition, Almost every state in the US have gone from "May Issue", to "Shall Issue", in the past 20 years. May Issue means issuing a carry permit is an option of The State or Police. Shall Issue means issuing a carry permit/license is REQUIRED by the state if you meet the requirments. In these years following the Shall Issue laws, most states have further relaxed their firearms laws, including lessening the amout of Pistol Free Zones, repealing Gun-Registration, allowing carry in vehicles without a permit, and allowing automatic firearms within particual states.

Firearm laws are getting less and less strick in this country, because State Governments realize that everytime firearm laws get less strick, crime rates go DOWN! State Governments also realize the majority of citizens like their RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms! But good luck in your fantasy world.

"...keep AND BEAR..."

LOL, indeed.

i don't understand most of your garbled comment, but to reply, i have a life, thanks.

Karl,
That is the dilemma, how were the police to determine he was at least 18 years old (and thus legal to carry) WITHOUT having him show his ID? Should they just have taken his word for it, if they asked him, "son, how old are you?" and if he replied "sir, I am 18 years old", they should have wallked away and accepted that?

@cookiepro2
Whether you agree with it or not, you do not have to produce ID in Michigan, in fact you are not even required to carry an ID in ALL 50 states (unless enjoying a particular privlage). The only time in Michigan you MUST carry and present ID is when hunting, carrying a concealed pistol, or when driving, and the police officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion you have broken the law. If you are driving completely legally, but look under 16, a police officer can not pull you over, there is no PC or RAS of a crime. It is the same with carrying a firearm. The police can approch him, and ask him what ever they want (even though for some reason, a lot of people think it is illegal for a police officer to ask for ID, it isn't they just can't demand it), even for his ID, but they can demand nothing of him if there is no PC or RAS that a crime is afoot. If he anwsers the police officers (or remains silent or refuses to answer any questions, exersizing his 5A rights), and gives no PC or RAS, then they can not demand anything. By demanding (not asking) he show his ID, the police are violating his 4A rights. If someone is okay with the police doing this they should also be okay with the police searching their home or vehicle whenever they want.

Also @cookiepro2, what is your SN in regards to, does it have to do with computers, cooking, or something completly different? Sorry for the off topic question, I'm just curious.

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10176.htm
here, this might help you in your understanding of brandishing. his rifle was slung over his back.

so you advocate politeness and complicity under threat of arrest? i'm glad you aren't a legislator.

why SHOULD there be suffering and consequences for lack of politeness and complicity. contempt of cop is not a crime. i'm sorry for what you went through, but if anything, that should have made your resolve STRONGER against overreaching "authority" types.

#1 they didn't find a way to arrest him, they made one up on the fly
#2 it's not a fine he's looking at, it's jail time and a record, all for NOT BREAKING THE LAW
what's not clear about the fact that he violated NO law?

i understand what you are saying about systematic oppression, but it's time to rise up! i hate when cops are referred to as authorities. authority is non-existent, it's an idea that is only as powerful as you allow it to be in your mind. if you truly believe you are a sovereign, free individual, then you realize that no other human being is any better than you are. it was such an important concept that the founders included it in the declaration of independence.

i wish you could too, because the reality you've constructed for yourself is one of fear and oppression. it's very freeing to realize that you are your own individual. there is no unwritten law of respect for a peace officer. respect is something earned and the way to earn respect is certainly not to violate the constitutional rights of a FELLOW citizen. you're right he will have his day in court and he will be victorious.

There is no moral or legal requirement to "respect a peace officer", especially if the "peace officer" is not following the actual written laws.

Your failure to recognize this is quite disturbing and an indication of one of the major problems with our society.

By the way, "brandishing" has a specific legal definition and what he was doing does not meet it. You can look this stuff up quite easily. There is no legal requirement to carry a government issued ID when walking.

yes, Nat, similar reason If pulled over by police for possible speeding, I refer to him as "Sir" and am ultra-polite, doesn't cost me anything, and more likely to get a warning that a ticket. We can talk theoretically about this kid's situation but he's the one now facing court date and maybe conviction at the start of his adult life. My BIL's son was facing something similar, thrown in jail for aiming a paint ball gun at a motorist. My BIL was mad as heck at his son's foolishness, let him stay a night in jail. But he had to pay big $$$ in lawyer fess so it wouldn't result in something criminal on son's record. Sometimes smart is better than standing up for rights that you know you have.

You are right, the police should respect theCitizens they serve, lest they feel the pain of the unemployment line.

your logic is excessively flawed. there is a HUGE difference between those people who break actual laws and those who break these ethereal unwritten laws you speak of. please point to ONE, just ONE, law that sean combs broke.

So, unless a person co-operates by following a police directive that is not a law, and thus not a legal or moral obligation, they deserve whatever the police then do to them?!

Wow. How very... totalitarian... of you. North Korea is only a plane ride away, if you care to move.

Who said the "kid" was being "belligerent"? Is it belligerent to exersize your Constitutional Rights? Like your 1A, 2A, 4A, and 5A rights?
1A- Freedom of expression, like doing something that not everyone agrees with.
2A- Keeping and Bearing Arms, like carrying a slung rifle.
4A- No unreasnable (illegal) search and seizure, like not producing ID when DEMANDED by police.
5A-Right to remain silent- like not answering every question asked of him.

Erin, appreciate your perspecive of someone who has grown up in a gun-friendly culture, that would have been the response I would have thought would come from gun-owning folks of my parents and grandparents generation, respect for authority figures like police and teachers, and the wish to keep their kids on the straight and narrow.

Erin, the problems are:
There is no requirement to carry ID in any state. The police have no right to stop and demand such, absent RAS/PC of a crime in progress or immenent. Simply carrying a firearm is perfectly legal. They may approach and ask questions, but there is no legal or moral obligation to answer or provide information, if not engaged in criminal activity. If officially detained, with RAS/PC, the police may request the person ID themselves verbally, but there is no requirement to provide any government issued ID.

How is the right thing arresting someone for exersizing their Constitutionaly protected RIGHTS? To me that sounds like something the arresting officer should goto jail for.

Erin,
You are part of the problem with this country,Before you go flying off the handle let me explain.
You seem to be perfectly content with allowing the Gov't. to protect you and tell you what you can and cannot do.You are perfectly content with the idea of giving up certain rights in order to be "protected".
This is not what our founding fathers wanted for this country and it damn sure isn't what the "majority" (as you put it) of your community or any other community wants.
I know of another group of people who had the same outlook on Gov't and personal rights that you do.....Nazi Germany. Worked out great for the Jews,Gays,Mentally Handicapped,Physically Handicapped and "Dissidents" now didn't it?

Actually, it's been demonstrated that the officer was not within the law.

During the Jim Crow era, many townsfolk in many locales were "comfortable with the action taken to ensure their... safety." Didn't make violating Constitutional Rights moral or legal then, and it doesn't now.

And sorry, but some people here are trying to use the word "responsibility" as a cover for banning something they don't like, even if it's perfectly legal, Constitutional and done safely and peacefully. So no, that won't wash either.

Good night and peace to you.

Erin, I think you're correct. I'm a resident, and spend lots of time with my familyl at the parks downtown. The courts need to decide this one. In my opinion, I think the police did the right thing for the community. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this is MY community, and feel more than safe with OUR police department. Let's wait and see what happens. As for the protestors, maybe they should stay in THEIR communities, and set up informational gatherings in THEIR local parks on open carry laws, and enlighten THEIR neighbors.

@ Erik: Congrats, you've just endorsed Apartheid. Wow. Well done. Stormfront is looking for people just like you.

Seriously, did you consider, for even the barest moment, what you just said?

Black Civil Rights marchers should have just "stayed in THEIR communities".

Gay Civil Rights marchers should have just "stayed in THEIR communities".

Anti-War protesters should have just "stayed in THEIR communities".

Anyone demonstrating for equal and just and correct application of law for all should just "stay in THEIR communities".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Oy vey.

[crosses legs]

I heard he felt threatened because it was wearing a hoodie.