The police said that he looked too young, and from the man's picture, I can see why. In my opinion, they had probable cause to stop him and ask for identification. I don't oppose legal handgun ownership or carrying, but it sounds like this kid was an "open-carry provocateur", more interested in spoiling for a confrontation than exercising his rights.

So after seeing his age and realizing he was lawfully carrying his rifle why did they proceed to arrest him? Was it because they don't know the law (likely) or because they took it upon themselves to knowingly infringe upon his rights because they don't like the law?

Hey, it's your tax dollars that are going to pay off this kid's civil rights suit...have at it.

well the law doesnt say if you look old enough to open carry a firearm you can. it says you have to be an adult. 18 years old, it also says in the law you dont need to give ID unless you are being stopped for a motor vehicle violation. This guy knew the law, he was testing the laws, and he found out the police dont care. NOw He is going to be a part owner in Bimingham after his lawsuit settlement for unlawful arrest.

yeah, People would feel threatened by that but it seems like only mothers are worried about this law that has gone unnoticed. It's silly that people can carry around loaded guns, as if these were battle grounds.

there is no know defined restriction except a fully automatic machine gun. which has been outlawed in the state since the 40's

you are right David! Very scary that these cops would violate a citizen's rights so easily and without care! I hope they are properly repremanded and taught the laws they are supposed to enforce and not violate.....

Actually, yes. That is exactly what they should do.
Don't bother anyone unless they have broken the law.
It's elegantly simple, don't you think?

Unless you think it preferable to ticket people for speeding just because they are behind the wheel or arrest men in the vicinity of children because they may be child molesters, how about arresting all black men because they might be drug dealers/murderers/rapists? Bring on the Pre-Crime Police!!

Fear is no excuse for denying someone their rights...if he has a gun and you are afraid walk away or get a bigger gun ;) If I want to use an ATM machine and there is a 6' 5" gang banger looking dude what will you do? Call the cops and tell them you are scared or use a different ATM?

Can you point me to where you have a right to "feel" safe? just because the sight of a gun "intimidates" you, everyone has to give up their rights? sounds like you need to talk to a shrink and work out your irrational fears of guns......

You can't blame the parents...he is 18 y.o and knows the laws better than most US citizens. Blame our Fore Fathers

wiley,I am going to go out on a limb, he is going to win his unlawful arrest and birmingham people are going to pay this kids college expenses. as far as disturbing the peace he didnt, he was exercising his state constitutional right. and the police were the ones disturbing the peace. as far as your rights you have none much like me eating an ice cream cone in public it is a legal act, so is carring a firearm in public

do dogs scare you as well? might as well outlaw anyone from owning a dog...

You can twist meaning all you want, but that opinion would never hold up in court. Having a gun slung on the back is not having the gun in hand, pointing it at someone. You're blowing things way out of proportion. But hey, that's what anti-gun activists need to do in order to prove a point. So have at it.

Analogy time. If you walk towards me with a hammer in a tool belt and I shoot you, it's murder. If you swing your hammer at me and I shoot you, it's self defense. Get it?

I own guns. I'm not an anti-gun activist. I'm an anti-idiot with access to guns activist. Every decision this kid made in this incident suggests he's an idiot. I've yet to hear one of you constitutional scholars give a good reason for him to carry the loaded weapon into the environment he did. Legally he could. But why would he? By the way, anytime you refuse a reasonable request by police to do something you can pretty much count on getting arrested. Dumb kid, probably raised by dumb parents. Don't feel sorry for him in the least and I hope his parent's enjoy paying his legal bills.

Personally I don't care why he was carrying it as long as his intentions were legal which from all the evidence I've seen (two articles on The Patch) he was. When I carry my gun(s) I typically do so to protect myself and my family. In Sean's case he does not have the ability to carry concealed because in Michigan you have to be 21 to apply for a CPL. So that would be the reason he was open carrying. Second I don't know what other guns he owns maybe that is the only firearm he has? Maybe his smaller more politically correct one is at the gunsmith I don't know and it doesn't matter. Bottom line is that in this state in this country you can lawfully carry a firearm to protect yourself and he chose to do so. Bravo Sean carry on!

By the wayt he reason I carry a firearm is because policemen are too heavy.

I would disagree wiith your analogy case alw has been established that even a person carrying a firearm after breaking into you house doesnt automatically give you the right to shoot that person. you have be afraid for your life and an act has to be demostrated. before that happens granted you dont have to run and hide but you have to prove your actions. so good luck with that.

Ah, but there's the rub. The way the stand your ground laws are written, somebody with a reasonable suspicion of immediate danger can execute deadly force. Many will argue that a guy walking toward you with a semi-automatic weapon in an urban setting may meet the definition of reasonable suspicion.

I believe the important part of HB 5135 is "who is attacted....has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force." Clearly, a person walking down the street minding their own business is not actively attaching you.

GambitofTroy, nice to hear that people still believe in the Constitution and upholding the law!

He was not brandishing a weapon...if you like I can link you the definition of brandishing. "Waving in a menacing manner" having a rifle strapped to your back is CANNOT legally be called brandishing. It does however make your post sound more menacing so go ahead and use the artistic license if you wish.

Private property is a different story...any private property owner can ask him to leave and he must comply or he will in fact be breaking a law. Honestly if I saw him I would not steer clear because I am aware of the laws of the state and I know many many people who lawfully carry both openly and concealed in the state. So no, I would not be afraid. If on the other had he was brandishing it like you incorrectly stated I would definitely steer clear of him for many reasons.

My grandmother feels afraid when she sees a black man walking down the street towards her. Is it not his right to be black? Does he not have the same right to walk down that street? To answer your questions, your pursuit of happiness would NOT be infringed, because he didn't attack you. That is the fact, not what you feel.

Alternatively, you could buy yourself a gun, then you would feel much safer in public, and in your own home. Equal rights for all is what brings our country balance.

Your "sense" of freedom may be infringed, but your actual freedom would not be. Learn the difference. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that other people have to give up their rights just so that you can feel warm and cozy. And for the record, the cops made up all sorts of charges and arrested him even though it's something that the state attorney general already issued a ruling on, and the state police issued an update on to ALL POLICE AGENCIES about. Not only can the guy with the "idiotic grin" sue the city, but he can sue each individual police officer who had anything to do with this. Freedom makes me smile too. Let's leave the gun out of this for now - the police stop you while you're doing nothing illegal and demand to see your papers, arresting you when you refuse. The supreme court already said you don't have to show them. They charged him with obstructing an officer by not telling his age/name/ownership. Did he ever lose that "right to remain silent?" Remember, the police have to prove your guilt, you don't have to prove your innocence.
Oh, and what everybody else said about a slung rifle - if it's laying across his back and pointing up, exactly who is he threatening? Try reading attorney general opinion 7101 if you don't believe me...

Agreed...

I knew you would come around ;)

"An armed society is a polite society."

NOt to disway your new found understanding. I might also ask you to see the MSP crime stats that show we have become a polite armed society. with reduced crime.

When you can guarantee me beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the bad guys guns have been taken away I will give up mine. Until then...not a chance wise up. Only the good guys follow laws.

It's not legal to carry guns into schools. Wrong again ;)

Most schools don't even allow them in the parking lots.

If someone wants to kill you and there are no guns, they will use knives. If there are no knives, they will use clubs. You think murder was invented with the gun. A society without guns is a barbaric society where the strong can dominate the weak, where women must rely on men for protection. An armed society makes everyone equals. Guns give you and me equal ability to protect our right to life, our liberty.

Thomas Paine quote:
He supposed quietude of a good man allure the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them...

Did you ever notice the types of wanted murderous rampage shootings usually happen at the gun SAFE zones? Why is it the few that do these somehow do not commit these crimes AT the police stations or maybe a shooting range... hmmmm? Point is that the world is a dangerous place, you walk this earth ONE time, whome is responible for YOUR success to complete your walk in its entirety? You are, trust not this task to ANY other entity or office.

ALSO...Google (democide)
It would seem we have more to worry about from those that wear our own uniforms.... to the tune of almost 200 million in the last twentieth century alone world wide. We are here to help you........ trust no one.

as a former EMS worker most gun crimes are from unlawfully obtained guns, and remember any legal act is just that. your reaching and your dog dont hunt.

That's fine. I myself would not do what he did, and will admit I would be a bit apprehensive if I had seen him.

But it's not illegal.

If you don't like it, it's time to get active. Until then, he's well within his rights. He will not be convicted and may sue. That actually may have been his entire motivation. He's either making a statement, or making money.

And to add - of course your husband knows where he can and can't carry. You can view this in the MI laws, on the sheriff's website, and many other places. The man (18yo from other articles) here also knew where he can and can't carry.

We're arguing over semantics. Your opinion vs the law.

Please explain to me how keeping a round chambered in a firearm you are legally carrying stupid? you think the cops walking around have empty guns? Why would he remove his gun while talking to cops? He did the right thing by refusing the police illegal orders to show them his "papers". I doubt he gave up his firearm. They took it from him, so there wouldn't be any "misconstrued actions".

I'm gonna agree with kyle. The one run-in I had with the cops (also where they overstepped their bounds and I won in court), I had my gun in a locker. They had me open the locker and immediately step away, hands on their guns the whole time. They removed it from the locker, took out the magazine, and removed the round from the chamber (a gun that's not ready to fire as soon as you need it is almost as useful as a light plastic brick).

So if you don't have common sense and are stupid and immature, then you are subject to being arrested?
Wouldn't be very many people left on the streets.

actually you are wrong, Michigan is not a "Stop and ID" state. This young man has no legal duty to produce ID if he is not being detained or arrested. The can ask, but if they are told to pound sand like Sean told them to do by refusing to produce ID, anything they do after that other than walking away is illegal.

the key factor here is that thousands of citizens in that area either conceal carry or open carry every day, everywhere they are allowed to. Just like this young man.

they can ask any questions they want. he has no legal duty to answer any questions or produce ID. (ever heard of the 5th Amendment?) Just because he didnt submit to the will and intimidation tactics of these bullies doesnt mean he did anything illegal or wrong. please explain to me how exercising your "right to remain silent" is obstructing an officer?

no they didnt have a right to ask for id, no other probable cause either,

do you wear a seatbelt while in a car? why are you so scared about getting into a wreck? do you have smoke detectors in your house? why are you so afraid that your house will burn down in any second? do you have health insurance? life insurance? do you lock your doors and windows when you are not home? see where I'm going with this? We are not "frightened". we are prepared, we know and understand that the world is a dangerous place and that crime can happen anywhere. Law abiding gun owners either stop or prevent crime against ourselves and family over 2 million times a year. thats over 5,400 times a day. how many times has your smoke alarm gone off today? how many times has your seat belt saved your life? but we are the paranoid ones........