Poll: Should People be Allowed to Openly Carry Weapons in Michigan?
A deadly shooting early Friday during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at a Colorado movie theater has reignited debate about whether stricter gun laws can prevent such tragedies.
Photos
A deadly shooting early Friday during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at a movie theater in Colorado has spurred debate about whether stricter gun laws could have prevented the tragedy.
Some gun rights advocates argue that had a member of the audience been carrying a weapon, they could have used it to stop the shooter; advocates of more stringent gun rules, however, say more weapons lead to more chaos and ensuring public safety should be left to law enforcement.
Adults are legally permitted to carry and conceal registered pistols and rifles under Michigan law and aren't required to show ID to police. Municipalities are not allowed to regulate the possession of firearms; but, according to state law MCL 750.234d, there are certain exceptions when firearms are not allowed. These include:
- Churches
- Courts
- Theaters
- Sports arenas
- Day care centers
- Hospitals
- Establishments licensed under the Michigan Liquor Control Act
Should people be allowed to carry and conceal weapons in Michigan? Take our poll.
Easydude
11:57 am on Friday, July 20, 2012
We are heading back to the Wild Wild West. Imagine a 21 year-old carrying a gun, and two or three other men try and take it away....Bang, Bang,Shoot, Shoot and Die!
Jesse Williams
2:41 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Legal carry isn't the problem, honestly. Legal carrying has been shown, in the U.S. and other countries, to lower violent crime rates. Read, educate yourselves, see through the hype.
Jim Routhier
2:14 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Having a gun in the house increases the chance of someone in the home being accidentally shot by the weapon. YOU educate yourself and see through the NRA hype.
Thomas Gagne
5:23 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Jim, having milk in the house increases the chances milk spilling. Having a pool in the backyard increases the chances of drowning.
However, one resource you may find educational is the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Not too long ago they published an article titled, "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?"
I found it an interesting read. Perhaps you will, too.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Steven Russell
2:49 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
This article has an error, you are not allowed to conceal rifles. If you do conceal a piston you ARE required by law to disclose in an encounter with law enforcement. You don't have to show ID if you are open carrying and not committing a crime.
Ferndale Resident
4:27 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
This is a good example of "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
canseeallsides
2:35 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
A right not exercised regularly and vigilantly may be taken away.
Dan F.
7:12 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Open carry isn't the problem.
Patience
9:02 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Not everyone who owns a firearm is a criminal or planning to commit a crime.
Jim Routhier
2:16 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Agreed.
However many of them ( look at some of the comments here) have only had an 8-hour training course and now think they are ready to be Wyatt Earp.
micheal w smith
7:34 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
The problem is not everyone is phycologically mature enough to have the responsibility to possess a firearm. Mandentory training and phycological screening is the answer. You can't get a drivers license without training - neither should you be allowed to have a firearm without the same.
JH
3:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The problem with your logic is that driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed (2nd Amendment) right, so this is not a valid comparison.
By your logic, you shouldn't be allowed to exercise free speech (1st Amendment right) without mandatory training and psychological screening.
Thomas Gagne
3:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
There are differences between rights, privileges, and entitlements.
Royal_oakman
8:07 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
What is the law on open carry in the locations that are restricted for concealment, thought you could open carry in those places?? But not sure.
JH
10:13 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If it's prohibited under federal law (federal buildings) you cannot carry there, period.
There is, however, a loophole in the state laws. The law regarding open carry prohibits carrying in certain locations without a permit. The law regarding concealed carry prohibits carrying concealed in certain locations. There are a few places in which a person with a CPL can open carry, but the CPL holder cannot concealed carry there and a person without a CPL cannot carry there at all. Movie theaters are one such example.
With this being a little-known loophole, you should expect to be arrested even though you are doing nothing illegal. You should not be charged though.
Andy S.
10:30 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
You can't open carry in Michigan... It's concealed carry only... You have to take and pass a CCW class before you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. There are people walking around Royal Oak that are packing heat every day and everywhere.
ddg3362
12:41 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Cpl no more ccw.
Ed
1:22 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Michigan is an open carry state Andy.
Andy S.
2:17 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I didn't think you could just holster up a pistol and walk down Main Street with it... I thought it had to be kept concealed. I'm not up on this enough to comment.. Sorry.
Thomas Gagne
9:06 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Michigan's constitution reads, "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Apparently, Michigan's constitution is unique in that it specifically identifies self defense as a right.
While the law doesn't specifically permit open-carry it doesn't restrict it. The rule of lenity requires we read laws to mean "anything that isn't prohibited is permitted."
In 1990, MCL 123.1102 prohibited local jurisdictions from passing or enforcing their own ordinances regarding firearms and weapons.
Janet Payne
9:51 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I am for concealed weapon carrying however I will never understand why ANYONE can buy military weapons and such on the internet.Why is that not illegal!!
Thomas Gagne
9:56 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
From what I can discover online, a weapon purchased online may only be delivered to a business with a valid Federal Firearm License. The FFL then assumes some responsibility in making sure you're qualified--according to local laws, to take possession of the weapon.
I don't know if the same holds true for ammunition.
JH
10:10 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thomas is correct, you can order online but it must be shipped to a licensed firearms dealer, who then transfers it to you as long as you pass the FBI's background check or have a concealed pistol license (which also requires a background check to obtain). You cannot simply have firearms delivered to your house unless you are a licensed dealer.
Ammo you can order and have delivered, but the stores are legally required to verify you are of legal age to purchase the ammo before it can be shipped to you.
Janet Payne
10:45 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The Colorado shooter evidently did purchase amo on line.
micheal w smith
2:16 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
While I support the intent of the 2nd Amendment - assault weapons was never our forfathers intent. Protection of family and State was! The 2nd Amendment has been used as a crux - not for its intent, but by the arms industry as a method to increase sales of its weapons and ammo. The NRA has been duped into supporting nothing more then a sales gimmick by the likes of Remington, Colt, etc, to increase their bottom line. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see thru that.
Thomas Gagne
7:54 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Michael, I've been thinking a lot about the intent of the 2nd amendment lately, specifically with regard to assault weapons. I'm reminded our nation's independence may never have been started, much less won, without the colonists possessing weapons of roughly equal caliber to the British Army.
More recently Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria remind us how important it is for citizens to be armed so they may, as our Declaration of Independence urges, meet their " .. their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Americans are rightfully proud of their nation, but they are conceited and naive to believe out government ever incapable of trampling the rights of its citizens or the citizens not needing to defend themselves against their own government. Recently in Detroit a woman defended herself from police and was vindicated in the courts for her actions.
Lastly, the police are not sufficient in numbers to protect us. The are bet prepared to respond to and investigate crimes. We should not expect them to defend us in every instance and so should either take responsibility for that ourselves or cross our fingers and hope we never have to defend our children with nothing in-hand but a cell phone.
micheal w smith
8:13 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Mr. Gagne - One must remember that prior to our Revelutionary War - we didn't have a standing army. AND we have State malitias - they are called The National Guard. As for our rights being trampled - I say it is already happening. But not by force. Between such onerous laws like the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court who believes in Plutocracy - we are well on our way to losing our democracy. However, I am finding it hard to find fault with your hint about "police state". In too many cities, our police forces are acting like bullies. They seem to have forgotten the creed of "protect and preserve". However, my premise that all this halabaloo over 2nd amendment rights has more to do with gun sales and little to do with defending our right to "bear arms" - stands.
JH
10:22 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Leslie and Laura, this is incorrect:
"Adults are legally permitted to carry and conceal registered pistols and rifles under Michigan law and aren't required to show ID to police."
Rifles cannot be carried concealed. Also, carrying a rifle around is likely to be considered "suspicious" which is reasonable cause for an officer to stop and question you, at which point ID must be shown. They can also prosecute this (carrying a rifle) as brandishing.
In addition carrying concealed requires a Concealed Pistol License, which allows a person who has passed a background check and been fingerprinted to carry a pistol concealed. If this person is stopped by police for any reason (even for something unrelated to firearms, such as speeding or failing to use turn signals properly, etc.) they are required to immediately inform the officer that they have a Concealed Pistol License and that they are currently armed.
Also, statistics show that police officers are more likely to commit crimes than those with Concealed Pistol Licenses. It is foolish to marginalize the latter group as they are much more likely to be law-abiding citizens than any other demographic.
Please don't start topics with a misleading introduction.
JH
11:07 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
What Michigan needs is not another gun law. The criminals who are responsible for the vast majority of gun related crime are not following the laws already in place, so why would they be expected to abide by another?
We need stiffer penalties for criminals, not stricter laws for all citizens.
Thomas Gagne
11:42 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"We need stiffer penalties for criminals" or put another way, we need fewer criminals, or fewer crimes. It could be argued that more and stricter laws create more crimes and criminals--which is the opposite of the desired result.
Passing more and stricter laws makes the sheep feel better and the shepherd more empowered, but means nothing to wolves.
JH
11:51 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thomas, I am not a sheep. More and stricter laws are not what I said that we need.
I said we need stricter penalties. If you don't think this is effective, please show me one person who received the death penalty and then committed another crime. I support stiffer penalties for obvious crimes, such as robbery and murder... not stricter gun control. I would be in favor of less restrictive gun control.
A dead wolf is a rug.
Thomas Gagne
1:17 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
JH, you misread my comment. It was not directed at you, but to others who reflexively want to justify the passing of more gun laws based on the insanity of Aurora's suspect.
JH
2:06 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Yes, I completely misread your comment, my mistake.