This would only attract more attention to the city. We should all admit we rented out our downtown to hooligans several years ago--with our new entertainment and liquor laws--and simply avoid downtown at night. I only hope we are reaping just rewards from this rental arrangement via taxes, etc. It would be next to impossible to make our city into Peaceville again.

Clinton, I don't understand the "good to know" phase. Is your comment entirely opinion, or do you have a factual basis for what is "good to know", such as a post verdict press statement from either the City or the BPD?

Well, it's "good to know" on several grounds, possibly most importantly if you're using your open carry rights in Birmingham, it's nice to know what to expect. Good to know doesn't necessarily mean "This is how it should be"

I like how the jury ruled, some members basically said "Look we don't like it, but this is the way the law was written." We don't need activist judges, and we sure as hell don't need activist juries.

@Clinton Baller

It's good to know that the BPD would file multiple false arrest charges on someone?

It's good to know that you're fine with the city of Birmingham being sued for their gestapo tactics.

It's good to know that you are fine with taxpayer dollars being awarded to plaintiffs instead of being used as intended, to improve the city.

It's good to know there are people like you...

I suggest you figure out how to pay for those "refresher" courses. Or perhaps it would be more prudent to simply teach/encourage respect for authority in the first place? If he had simply smiled and said "Yes, officer, here's my ID. I am, in fact, 18 years old." Wouldn't that have saved all of us taxpayers a pile of money? Seems like common sense needs to prevail, regardless of the law.

Chris P. -- I think what would've saved us money is if the BPD swallowed their pride and decided not to press charges after they learned he was in fact 18.

AChris P.
> If he had simply smiled and said "Yes, officer, here's my ID. I am, in fact, 18 years old." Wouldn't that have saved all of us taxpayers a pile of money?

No, it wouldn't, because the police testified in open court that they would have arrested Sean anyway. They stated that they would have just thrown less charges at him.

And Sean did produce his ID. As soon as he pulled it out they arrested him.

@Chris P, Sure would've saved a whole lotta trouble if Rosa Parks had simply moved to the back of the bus. But sometimes you DO have to stand up for yourself and your RIGHTS, or you may eventually lose them.

Well said Allen. Do I think it was a good Idea for Sean Combs to do what he did; No. But he was in the confines of the law and again the Constitution protects us from a police state. Unless you are being charged with some sort of crime you do not have to offer up any identification.

While I don't disagree with what you are saying Allen, the Royal Oak issue was solved at the City Council level. It was not taken to court so there was no verdict.

'Midget' is considered a derogatory term. In future rants please use the term 'little people.'

Wow, that's a little extreme..advocating that kindergarteners carry a gun is crazy..Go drink some of that "koolaid" and take a nap in yo momma's basement.

Matt again you are being ridiculous with this six year old child garbage. One can tell if he is a six year old or not. The fact is Sean Combs was 18 and his rights were violated.

Matt Wimble has officially lost his marbles and, imo, his sense of humor.

> All the Birmingham PD did was ask for ID to make sure he was 18, which he just turned. He refused to show ID,

The BPD had a right to ask. Sean had a right to refuse. That's the law.

And he actually did show his ID. You know that, right? It was after he showed his ID that they arrested him and charged him with three law violations. (None of which he actually committed).

Matt, you are confusing "asking" with "demanding". The police can ask anybody anything they want.

When you figure that out, you may understand that Birmingham Michigan is not Germany.

Time to get terrified...you wouldn't believe how many law abiding citizens are walking around you right now with loaded weapons. Does it make you feel better when you can't see the weapon? If there had been such a person at any of the well publicized firearm crimes that have occurred over recent years the horrible loss of life may have been reduced!

Collages in Michigan are gun free zones. So you will NEVER find guns on campus.

You most certainly will...interesting you point that out...the bad guys will always have guns...what you meant to say is that the good guys won't have guns on college campuses. It's a shame really.

Dennis I agree with you not a smart move by Mr. Combs. Yet he was in his right to do so. This is a game that is being played to tear down our constitution. Again, 2nd amendment right to bare arms and 4th amendment right not to identify as no crime was being committed.

GambitofTroy, I was being sarcastic, I agree with you

@ bushman
> Collages in Michigan are gun free zones. So you will NEVER find guns on campus.

Actually they are not gun free zones and you can carry on most. For example, Michigan State University allows CC on campus (although not in buildings).

Dennis, Actually YES!! Because this young Man has the ability to defend himself and OTHERS if need be when that psycho (who doesn't care about any gun laws or signs) decides to take out a few innocents...

Let's see here Dennis...

"If I saw a young man carrying a loaded weapon through the streets of my City I would seek shelter"

YOUR City? I was unaware you owned Birmingham!

"My wife and daughter often walk their baby, our grand daughter here and the idea that adults would walk about w loaded weapons in such a peaceable, safe and secure town is terrifying to me."

Peaceable and secure??? You're living in a fantasy world and you better snap out of it. Bad things happen EVERYWHERE. Or did you forget about the robbery at gunpoint in the Somerset Mall parking lot a few weeks ago?

"Just because you can, does not mean you should. I can shout my opinions from the roof top but it would be foolish and insensitive to do so."

Tell that to those who signed the Constitution.

"Do you want your son or daughter going to college where this young man goes. if you were a college admissions officer, given the history of violence on college campus's, the issues of out of control young men on a violent rampage, would you want this person on your campus?"

Not just YES, HELL YES! This young man is exactly the type of person that I'd be proud to have my family and friends associated with. You could learn a thing or two from him.

"We need better legislation and common sense on this issue and not a vigilante mind set to resolve this in a civilized manner."

Oh great...More feel good laws that only affect law abiding citizens. When was the last time ANY law stopped a criminal from commuting a crime? In addition, if you relate what Sean did with vigilantes, well, you need serious help.

Chris P. said: “It's also my right to be fearful when I see a gun in the context of downtown Birmingham; honestly, my pursuit of happiness is threatened when I witness something like that.”
Here’s part of the underlying issue Chris P. You, and others like you, cheapen realistic rights by arbitrarily adjoining them to your own narcissistic ideas of rights. I’m pretty familiar with the Bill of Rights and I can guarantee you it is NOT your right to be fearful when you see a firearm… you’re entitled to be a hoplophobe if you wish, but it’s not your right…the mere idea of such cheapens all civil liberties.

Chris, how can you say "the police also reacted in the right way." They did not. They arrested this young man and charged him with three crimes, none of which he committed. The judge threw one charge out right away because it violated Michigan's law. How is that a correct action from the police? Throwing two other charges at him to see what sticks. How is that a correct action from the police?

Howdy, neighbor! I also live in Birmingham and don't feel "our social rules" are different than those anywhere else "all over this diverse urban area."

I hope you're not suggesting that the vast majority of residents in communities with different social and economic makeups are less interested in a safe atmosphere where adults and children can walk, dine and enjoy evening entertainment safely and comfortably.

"Culture clash of huge proportions" and "the Wild West" are puzzling references, though I have an uncomfortable sense about what you may be tiptoeing around, Ms. Thomas.

And to be clear: I want our police to question openly armed teens who appear younger than 18. Requesting proof of age is appropriate and minimally intrusive of legal rights, in my view.

Mr. Stamm--I'm not tiptoeing around anything when I say the value systems of many of the 19,000 people who live here are quite different from those of many of our metro Detroit neighbors. Especially among the oldtime townies there are many unwritten social rules that made this city a desirable and cohesive place to live. Now, I would exclude some of the folks who came here to make a buck off their houses the last few years. Those people would have moved out already if they weren't underwater on their mortgages. Actually, they now provide a bit of a chuckle as they pay us taxes on houses they could never afford.

Geez, this language of "iffy," "dicey," and "diverse urban area," scares me. It sounds like the language characteristically used to describe "inferior" people/races in the eugenics era. Wow!?!?

would you feel safer if they carried them concealed? Then you could pretend like it's not there and be happy off in lala land
...

Umm, the only ones who "riled up the population" was the police! IF they had done their job, and after they found out that he was indeed legally carrying, they should not have arrested him and pressed bogus charges that cost the city lost of money. And there is still a very good chance of a violation of civil rights suit that would cost the city dearly.

You seem to be misinformed in all of your comments. The "poor woman" who was shot was not "hugging" the officer. She was dirty dancing and grinding on him.

"Incurring the wrath of gun toting radicals"? HAHAHA Nice. Right out of the Brady Campaign Handbook.

.

"The public square is not a forum for underdeveloped fringe interests." It seems that in Greg Thrasher's America certain people (interests) will not enjoy the right to freedom of expression.

In America our consitution even allows everyone to be an idiot and a fool....

Greg T. -- and Darwin takes care of the rest.

Actually, Greg, the public square is the EXACT forum for ideas to be heard (or seen). Perhaps a little reading of history would help you in your endeavors to understand the issues.

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 6 Bearing of arms.

Sec. 6.

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 5.

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

False interpretation? I think it's you who have the false interpretation.
There is no ambiguity there at all.

Every Person

Has the right to keep and bear arms

For the defense of himself

And the state.

I do agree with you about the waste of funds, but not for the reasons you espouse.

No entirely accurate many indigenous people have had sovereign nations long before the illegal invasion on our country's original illegal aliens and domestic terrorists ( pilgrims and puritans).

This was not a trial based upon consitutional issues nor did this verdict have anything to do with generational aspects of our nation. This outcome is a result of fringe groups and people on the edge in a post industrial society who tragically believe our own government is their enemy.

Clarification, since our foundation in 1776.

None of your rights were in jeopardy! This ridiculous waste of tax payer's money should not be celebrated.

I hope no other staged events like this ever take place again in Birmingham!

@ thrasher
> This ridiculous waste of tax payer's money should not be celebrated.

Then you should be angry at the police for throwing a bunch of charges at Sean just to "see what sticks," and to the DA for going ahead with prosecution. They are the ones that wasted the taxpayers money. The judge tried to get the DA to back out of it before trial, but the DA was stubborn. Not guilty on all three counts.

I would be happy to see Mr. Combs sue the city and the officers individually for a 1983 Civil Rights violation.

Are you suggesting that police officers should be able to stop anyone on the street and ask for ID? I don't think that would go over well... more specifically, openly carrying a firearm is not a crime and therefore it is not reason enough to suspect the individual of committing a crime. With regards to your question of latitude to enact ordinances, if I understand you correctly then you should know that MI state law preempts any local ordinance regarding firearms

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.

History: 1990, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991

I realize that Mike. But it appears that other states have allowed municpalities to regulate fireames, especially with regard to open carry. Montana and Mississippi would let a city disallow open carry in a public park or a public gathering (such as an outdoor concert), for instance. To me, this makes sense. Give the local government the power to govern their own particular situation. I'm not a Bhm resident, I don't know what problems they have downtown, but if they feel a need for an ordinance, who am I to say they can't have it? To me this is democracy, giving the say-so to the smallest unit of government if it is within reason.

@cookie pro
> giving the say-so to the smallest unit of government if it is within reason.

The problem is it is not within reason. That's why Michigan (and a number of other states, including our neighbor to the south, Indiana) have preempted local governments from doing just such a thing. This eliminates a patchwork of laws with varying legal standards. That is EXACTLY what the Michigan legislature voted against, what you are advocating. This was done on purpose. It is no accident of law.

Good luck getting the 4th Amendment repealed. Your city is in Michigan, Michigan is in the United States of America. Both have laws that must be followed. What special interest group from Clio brought any agenda to "the table"? That seems like an attack on me. I have no agenda. I do have values, morals, ideals and honor. Many people died for the rights we have. So I will be not let anyone take those rights from me or any other American.

MCL 123.1102 prevents local governments from prosecuting Americans for exercising their Second Amendment Rights. Would you want a law passed in Birmingham violating your rights?

As far as the AZ stops, unless there is RAS or PC they do violate the constitution. Checking for citizenship on a lawful stop does not.

Sorry, Ken, I did not mean it as a personal attack. I just saw "Clio" in the above article and wondered why someone from there would concern themselves with what is happening in Oakland County. I do realize now that this is an issue that you feel very passionate about, as a Michigan resident. I am glad for my part that I have read this discussion if only for the information that other states have different laws regarding firearms, and I do not have to "get out of the country" to find something more suited to my views.

Ken,
Let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Suppose gun ownership becomes the newest trend among the 18 to 22 year old college group, sort of like beer drinking, or worse yet, in addition to beer drinking. They start showing up in Bhm on weekend nights, with their holstered guns, congregating on sidewalks and in parks. You can just see it is a matter of time before a shoot-out occurs. What lawful means would you give the police to prevent this hypothetical situation?

Let's say hypothetically gun owners are not all irresponsible drunks. Would that make you feel better. FYI there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. And a gun is used to lawfully protect such a person every 4 times every minute in the US. Just because you don't hear about things on the news does not mean they don't happen. There are well over 300,000 CPL holders in Michigan plus open carriers. If a "shootout" were going to happen in these "wild west" times I think we would have seen it by now. The shall issue CPL law came into effect in 2001. However, thousands of times, just in Michigan CPL or open carriers have defended their lives or the lives of others. Your argument continues to be moot along with several others.

I take it from your answer that there will never be a situation where police can lawfully question a person open carrying. For instance, if there arises a situation where they see a person acting strangely (oh, I don't know, talking to themselves or having a crazy mean look in their eyes) walking down the street with a holstered gun, the only thing they can do is follow and wait for the actual shooting. From your point of view, I gather that is an acceptable consequence of living in a free society.

Another point to make is I don't think carrying a gun is as much a safety against criminals as some may believe. Criminals have the element of surprise going for them, they'll pick on you when you're alone and not expecting it. A relative of mine was mugged. The mugger came at him from behind, held a hard object at his back (might have been a gun, maybe not). Relative did not want to risk getting killed, emptied his pockets, end of story. Having a gun would not have made any difference, and if relative indeed had a gun on his person, mugger would have gottten it.

There is no compromise to our rights. If you give the government an inch they take a mile. We have seen this time and time again. I will leave you with this. The key word is "temporary."

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Ken, I'll leave you with this:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise" - Benjamin Franklin

"Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion" - Benjamin Franklin

@cookiepro
> I take it from your answer that there will never be a situation where police can lawfully question a person open carrying.

The police an always ask questions of a person open carrying. Or walking their dog. Or playing chess in the park. That is called a consensual encounter. The person may engage in conversation and answer or decline to answer and walk away. What police cannot do is to unlawfully detain or arrest someone. For that they need RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) of a crime. MI is not a stop and ID state. And even when Sean provided his ID to the police, they still arrested him for not providing his ID! That was not a lawful arrest, and the judge threw it out. Brandishing a firearm is defined as waving it about in a threatening manner. MI Attorney General Jennifer Granholm even wrote an AG opinion on this that is used as guidance in court cases. Sean wasn't doing that, either, yet they arrested him for that as well. Lastly, no one called the police. No one said they were frightened of him. No one called 911. Yet the police arrested Sean for disturbing the peace. All was quiet until the police themselves became boisterous.

You don't see anything wrong with three unlawful arrests? With the police willfully ignoring the law? Really?

Well, yes Danny, I did think of that later on. The police can always strike up a conversation with a person they think might be dangerous, on the sidewalk, discover more that way and monitor him. I do agree that the Combs case was a bad example of enforcement, especially with the jury verdict being what it was. The case does however present to me "what ifs"...as in what if you have a maniacal nut case with a assault rifle walking around, I want the police to be able to take him down without having to worry about infringing on said nut case's rights.

> The U.S. Constitution is a fine document, but it is stale. It is past time to convene another Continental Congress to rewrite it.

You are dangerous.

Danny,

All free thinking men are dangerous.

You are wrong on all counts. You have absolutely no clue as to what the constitution or the amendments mean. I pity people who think like you.

Combs did nothing illegal, yet was arrested and charged with three violations, none of which he was guilty of committing. You tell me who was in the wrong.

Ladies and Gentleman, The race card has officially been played.

That won't work here without a change of state law because MI state law preempts cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities from creating their own firearms ordinances.

That is true, currently. What is also true from looking at various state laws is that the US Constitution's 2nd amendment is not followed purely by various localities, it is ignored, ameliorated, modified, interpreted according to the desires of the people living there.

Here's another interesting case, Washington State:
"Open carry of handguns allowed, but not long guns."
"Open carry of handguns are permitted in Washington without a permit, but with local Preemption." also, "State constitution does not allow local Preemption (except for open carry)".

He would have violated the law because he does not have a CPL. If he did (have to be 21) then he could actually open carry at his high school.

He probably won't OC a rifle in the near future (or he may). :-) My bet is he will OC a handgun when he gets some.

The Birmingham police did not arrest any of the "older" people who were open carrying rifles in support of Sean the several times in the past months when they've done it. Were they displaying bad judgment as well OCing in public and at the Birmingham city council meeting?

Danny,
Are you saying that any school district employee who had a CPL and decided to open carry at his/her place of employment, say a high school, could do so, and the school district would have no say in the matter? And if the school decided to fire such employee, the school would be breaking the law?

Really? An open carry law? Please show me this law.

I'll wait.....

True Patriot, are you being sarcastic to me, or are you addressing Danny sincerely?
I'm sorry, I really can't tell.

My question to Danny, or any other with this knowlege remains. So any CPL (concealed pisotol license) holder could legally carry open gun at a high school, and if they were told they couldn't do that, it would be illegal? Say, I, as a parent with a CPL, could go to a parent-teacher conference, open-carrying, and if I was told to leave, I would have the basis for a civil suit?

Also, do bank tellers generally know this about MI law? That is if you walk into a bank open carrying (and you have your CPL document in your wallet) that you are not necessarily intending a bank robbery?

Of course it is known that all CPL holders use common sense (which is a subjective matter) and would always open carry in sensible (again subjective) siituations. <sarcasm intended>

cookie, True Patriot is being sarcastic. There is no open carry law.

And yes, you can open carry in a school if you have a CPL.

You really know nothing about our laws or gun laws yet you and many others feel the need to comment and form opinions. Why? We open carry in banks all the time. There is not issue. At my bank, tellers thank me for doing it. Open carry is no different than concealed carry. Just because you carry a gun does not mean you are going to "rob a bank".

Bottom line is guns in the hand of law abiding citizens are good. No matter if they are open or concealed. You want to discuss people being irresponsible and reckless? Lets talk about the last time you were on the cell phone, eating or any other activity while driving. Motor vehicles are a huge danger and driving is not a right listed in the Constitution. In addition, motor vehicle crashes are nearly always caused by negligence.

@cookiepro

I am saying there is no law forbidding open carry at a school with CPL. If you were an employee, they could forbid it, but it is because of their work rules, not because of any law. Just like my employer. Any private entity can forbid firearms on their premises. And yes, people have gone to parent-teacher conferences in Michigan while legally carrying firearms.

Ken,
Thank you for clarifying True Patrioit's intention.

As far as commenting on this forum, I thought that was the purpose of it, to exchange opinions and garner information. I must say some of you know the MI consitution, backward and forward, re gun rules, it saves me reading it myself. All I have to do is pose possible scenarios and you guys know what is legal immediately.

It's also good to know of your own personal experience with open carry, i.e., your bank tellers thanking you for carrying your gun. I can see situations where people might want to carry guns....pizza delivery people in bad neighborhoods, repo man, eviction man, rent collector, business owner carrying cash to bank. It is off topic but I agree with you about irresponsible driving being a problem, people need to make driving their sole activity while behind the wheel, I am all for enforcement of that.

Danny,
Thanks for the info. So a public school, as an employer, could put in its work rules, no bringing guns to work. But as a publicly owned entity, cannot keep an over 21 year old from bringing an openly carried gun on the premises. Ha, I can see pleading with a teacher to pass my kid, oh and by the way see my holstered gun, lol!

@cookiepro

Do you remember a few months ago when a man in Grand Rapids was forced to leave a polling place? He was told firearms could not be openly carried in polling places or in schools (this was a school). They were wrong, and they later, publicly admitted they were wrong.

Cookie,
I apologize. Yes I was being sarcastic when I asked for a cite to open carry law. There is no such law on the books. Laws do not allow things, they restrict them.

You are correct that CPL holders can legally open carry in (most) of the pistol free zones. The exception being federal buildings and court houses. Private property is a different matter though. Privately owned banks and businesses can prohibit firearms without being sued. Same as you can do with your property. It's publicly owned entities that cannot because they are preempted by a court ruling at the appeals level.

Bank tellers ie. banks are private property and may or may not allow it.

I don't find a reason for sarcasm in your last comment. In my daily dealings with the firearms community, I have found your statement to be most truthful. You see, we are the ones who jump through the hoops, get thoroughly vetted by the FBI and have the most to lose if we screw up. Criminals on the other hand have nothing to lose, which is why they don't care what laws are passed to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying. They actually like that very much.

So those who advocate more restrictive laws, who do you think is going to follow those laws? The criminals?

Appleseed, how can you commend the city for acting appropriately? The police falsely arrested this young man and charged him with three crimes which he did not commit. The DA chose to go forward with the prosecution, even after the judge told her not to and to settle it out of court.

What some here are saying is disturbing. Sure, you, and maybe me, under normal circumstances would not bring our rifles to town. Especially when we can easily carry our handguns. (Remember, federal law prohibits an FFL from selling a handgun to Sean because he is under 21 years of age). But that is not the issue. What is at issue is what is legal, not what you or I would do.

I don't think any of us would like it if a LEO gave us a ticket, or arrested us, for driving 55 MPH on a road clearly marked 55 because they didn't care what the law was, they thought 55 was too fast. The police didn't care what the law was, they just started throwing charges at Sean and arrested him for as many things as they could think of. I think that is shameful behavior, and a violation of his civil rights. I hope he pursues a civil rights violation lawsuit against the city of Birmingham as well as the police officers for this egregious behavior.

The law and common sense are not the same thing. What you call common sense is really an elaborate system of unwritten rules that governs the behavior of social groups. YOUR common sense is actually what YOU (and your various social groups) consider to be normative behavior.

Actually,I remember an incident involving you that displayed an example of normative behavior. You were at a BCC meeting making a statement about possible problems with our hiring procedures. A city commissioner cut you off and insisted you address the mayor in a particular way. I assure you that probably 18,000 people in this town thought that the commissioner was rude to you. That commissioner never ran for office again because she knew none of us would support her after her lack of understanding of our normative behavior.

Here's another state that has overruled state preemption of local govemnent to regulate their "gunslingers":
"Montana: complete state preemption of firearms laws except localities may regulate the carrying of concealed or openly carried firearms to a public assembly, a publicly owned building, a park under its jurisdiction" Missisippi has a similar law.
If Shain Park gatherings of open carry advocates gets to be a regular thing, I can see Michigan going down this road.

I'm also proud of BPD, Greg, and pleased that we agree on this! ;-}

That said, jurors did have to apply the legal statutes' precise language rather than the sense that we and more than a few others share of what seems sensible.

The process, from street policing to justice system review, worked (better than Mr. Combs' original thought process, in my view).

Building upon Alan's comments, the jury is limited to the factual record made during the actual trial (the evidence) and in criminal cases must apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for a conviction. Sometimes we don't understand litigation outcomes, but I don't think that most Americans would want a different system of justice.

And, Alan and Greg, the common sense system will continue to work when an HR dept. Googles Combs and makes a judgement based on the news reports.

MJ--Of course, there is no way to know whether the case will work for or against Mr. Combs or be a neutral. It will depend on the value system of the employers involved. Again, it will have nothing to do with "the law".

A comment was deleted for violating our Terms of Use (http://troy.patch.com/terms).

Last time I checked MI constitution article I section 6 allows every person the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themself and the state. Also if I'm not mistaken MLC 324.43512 dosnt allow for the carry of the weapon in manner he did.. Before we exercise our rights we need to know to what extent they are limited.

@ski

MCL (not MLC) doesn't prohibit open carry, thus it is legal. Open carry is actually legal in more places than concealed carry. You do not need a license to open carry, either.

And yes, Sean was perfectly legal in openly carrying a loaded rifle like he did. He broke no law. If you think otherwise, please cite the relevant MCL statute.

> Justice also involves common sense and the ability to elevate above the limitations if flawed laws and tortured drafted laws .

Yes, for bad laws jury nullification can be used. You can refuse to convict someone for an unjust law. However, convicting someone for a violation he did not commit is quite another thing. I'm sure you wouldn't advocate anything like that, would you?

> Where is the proof that the jury's reasoning was appropriate

Where is the proof that this jury's reasoning was inappropriate? They followed the law. With all due respect to this site's rules of conduct, you are insane. You do realize that, right?

> This jury demonstrated the absence of community in rendering this hollow verdict.

What are you saying? The jury should ignore the law and convict on what they would like the law to be? You have little understanding of law, societal responsibilities to follow the law, the responsibilities of our law enforcement community to police those laws, and the judicial branch to adequately and responsibly adjudicate those laws.

> This verdict reduces the civility of Birmingham it puts all of us in peril

This verdict puts no one in peril. Grow up.

Oh, dear, you were so new to us then. Virtually all of us recognized that this city has a responsibility to listen to people with your life experience. We do not have a happy history in some respects. But our city normative behavior calls for social "death" by a thousand quiet cuts. That is exactly what happened to your oh so crass foes.

@cookiepro

Just FYI, you are wrong. Open carry with CPL is allowed in banks and churches.

Yes, because a law making it illegal to bring a gun into a school, bank or church will prevent crime. Wait, no, it seems I have read about thousands of such crimes in those places. Making guns illegal in a particular place just makes criminals safer.

Danny,
Thank you for the clarification.

Mike, this is the second time I've seen you refer to "QQ". Just curious, what does that mean?

Cookie, QQ might mean "questions," not sure. Just a guess. I think he is suggesting you read the Michigan State Police Update #86 he linked to get all of your Open Carry questions answered.

I also agree, you should click on the link and check it out. I actually carry a stack of these printed out in my briefcase to give to people. I don't fault people for not knowing all of our firearms laws. I do fault the police for not knowing them, though. Or worse, like in this case, ignoring them.

I suppose it was just a matter of time before this topic devolved into boohooing about racism eh... Kind of a go to talking point of left wing idiots regardless of relevance...

Has to be racial. Just because we are against profiling in this case means we are "ok" with profiling other races. Take your agendas elsewhere. If he was African American, Asian or Arabic the facts remain what the officers did was illegal and violated his rights. And I would still be standing up for his rights. In fact Greg bothered to gather facts before forming an opinion you would know several African American open carriers showed up to support this person's rights. Don't make this a race issue. I do not agree with any form of profiling. I know what is right and wrong. As such I form my opinions based on right and wrong.

I too am upset about racial profiling of minorities in general-and especially blacks, arabs, and arab looking races. But I don't blame civilians for that, I blame the very police department you seem to be so blindly proud of at the moment.

You want to talk about not dealing with reality? The reality is that the world is a dangerous place and we have the right to carry weapons to defend ourselves, especially considering the fact that police cannot be everywhere to protect us all the time and the average response time for a 911 call is somewhere around 5-10 min. If you honestly believe that a criminal would be deterred by carry laws you are a sadly mistaken and delusional person. People like you who cry racism at every opportunity are a detriment to the cause of stopping true instances of racism because you're always crying wolf. However, perhaps more importantly, what relevance was race in regards to this particular discussion in the first place? Or was it just about that time to start throwing the race card into the mix...

spare me your script about black youth being oppressed and racial profiling, especially in an area like Birmingham, MI where the median income is over 80k. yes those poor urban youths..... pathetic excuse

> I have little time for ignorance

I've read your comments. Apparently you do.

"go find some cowboy bar to discover your peers"

Yeah, I would call that racist. Call up a fellow racist celebrity Al and you can have a march.

A comment was deleted for violating our Terms of Use. Please see http://troy.patch.com/terms for more information.

Jen Anesi thank you for deleting my post because clearly the word "moron" is so offensive that my entire post deserved to be removed... glad we can have an open discussion here... racial attacks against me are fine right, but call a guy a "hypocrite moron" and all bets are off... pathetic

You are very welcome, Mike. Calling other users names is clearly prohibited per our Terms of Use, and it was my pleasure to delete your comment. You can still have a robust debate without resorting to name calling, wouldn't you agree?

If you'd like to read our Terms of Use one more time, you can find them here: http://troy.patch.com/terms

Thank you.

Jen, there was nothing defamatory about calling this individual a hypocrite, it is an accurate fact that is supported by the rest of the discussion. perhaps the direct insult of moron could have been removed but that is not grounds for removing the entire post, a simple edit would have sufficed. Also, per the user agreement racial remarks are also prohibited yet you let those racial remarks made against me stand. Clearly you have some sort of agenda to promote and you want to let some users attack and resort to name calling while disallowing it for others. typical one sided moderating.

Glad I am not the only one that noticed that. But we both know the officer won't be charged for lying in court or for the numerous state and federal felonies they committed.

Agree 100%

You have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about. This was not some publicity stunt. There may very well have been people like you on the jury who would most certainly allow your feelings and emotions to convict this young man when in reality no laws were broken. That would have been a true travesty of justice.

Greg, True Patriot is correct. This was not an event created by others to garner public attention, nor was it a staged display or protest to get it into court.

I am glad you agree, however, that this brouhaha was all over nothing. As long as he wasn't doing anything illegal, the police should have left the young man alone.

Just like when the woman cranked off a few rounds when leaving a bar and was charged with accidently discharging a firearm HA!!! She was a real concern, but they did nothing to her. And the people of B'ham had no idea she had a gun lol

The root of the problem is your lack of education and the lack of education of those who think like you. You would do well to take off the rose colored glasses and take an honest look around. The false utopia you and others like you believe is Birmingham is no more safe, nor more civil than anywhere else. Hopefully you don't learn that the hard way.

The residents of Birmingham are at LESS risk when lawful carry is practiced than when you drive your car.

Go ahead, look up the statistics. See how many people are injured and killed by vehicles in Birmingham, and compare that to how many people were shot by legally carrying citizens.

I'll wait...

Greg, you think Birmingham residents are prejudiced, and a white jury from Birmingham would find a black youth guilty, even when no laws were broken? I didn't realize the citizens of Bhm were so prejudiced against blacks.

Oh, and a white teen wasn't "given license and immunity to engage in behaviors," those are the laws. I find it disturbing some here want the police and the courts to violate our laws with impunity.

While correct to an extent, your argument is overly idealistic. Of course, racial profiling reflects the bias and stereotypes of the majority, but its consequences/repercussions are determined solely by the police who administer the law. After all, in NYC, a person can call a police officer on a "suspicious individual," but it is only the officer who makes the decision to "stop and frisk."

Brad, you are more than welcome to move to a country which better serves your needs. Be sure to pick one that has completely banned firearms while the crime rate skyrocketed shortly afterward.

Your feelings and emotions do not trump the law. How am I to know that you're not going to snap and drive your car into a crowd of innocent Birmingham shoppers? Please sell all your vehicles immediately. Do it for the children.

The only lesson that was (hopefully) learned is for the police and prosecutor to learn the law and not waste taxpayer dollars with frivolous charges.

Brad, I find it humorous that you are okay with people carrying hidden weapons as long as you don't see them, but openly carrying weapons scares you. If you are in favor of Sean being able to carry a concealed weapon, lobby for a change in our CPL laws where 18 year-olds are eligible. I would support you in this.

Greg, I do agree with you that "Justice and Civility have nothing to do with statues and laws created by elected legislators" sometimes. However, when you state, "Those who argue that because something is a law makes it right and correct are underdeveloped thinkers" you are misrepresenting everyone here. I haven't seen one person argue that. What I have seen is people argue that you cannot arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone for a law they did not violate!

Yet you have repeatedly called for this young man to be convicted and sentenced for laws he never violated in the first place, just because you didn't agree with his actions.

What's that phrase, "It's good to be the king!" You have taken that to a whole new level.

The flaw in your logic is that there was no breach of civility, nor safety, until the police arrived. There was no 911 call from panicking citizens such as yourself. There was no safety issues whatsoever until the police started handling his firearm which was safely slung on his back.

The short answer is yes.

By the way, that is a good question.

Allow me to answer your question with a question.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

I took a look at requirements on the MI gov site for obtaining a handgun (licensing, background check) and a CPL (quite extensive, including pistol training safety course)...it all looks good to me. But you would want to eliminate that? It appears that long guns have no regulation except that the purchaser be over 18, is that because long guns are considered less dangerous?

One last question, do you have any ideas on how we as a country can get guns out of the hands of criminals, and all the while not violate the 2nd Amendment?

Cookie,

I'm very glad you decided to do a bit of research into CPL's. It make is much easier to have a conversation with someone who has taken the time understand the laws involved.

The truth is, racism is the reason we have any type of gun registration in Michigan. The Dr. Ossian Sweets Case, which injected racial issues into law in order to keep guns out of the hands of black people. The KKK was instrumental in getting this passed in the early 20's. If you want, you can read about it here:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/sweet/sweet.html

The CPL RI-60 forms still include Race as part of the form that is required to be filled out.

Now, 43 other states have no handgun registration at all. It's not the wild west and there is no blood in the streets in those states because of this. In all honesty, handgun registration has not prevented one single crime, ever.

Your last question is not so easy. There are always those who will purposely injure or kill others for their own gain. There are gangs in New York and New Jersey that only use machetes, no guns. Even if you got rid of all the guns in the world, from criminals and law abiding citizens, bad people would find other ways to kill.

This is why we who hold to the 2nd amendment fight so hard to keep it free from infringement. Every time a new law is passed restricting firearms, the criminals rejoice because they know that the only ones to follow it will be the honest law abiding people. That give them free range over the unprotected population. And those who pushed for the infringements feel like they did a good thing, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

There are more than enough laws on the books. Michigan Firearms Laws is 272 pages long of restrictions. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf Yes, I have read it many times! I read it because I need to know every infringement in order to keep my butt out of jail, and my family safe.

"I took a look at requirements on the MI gov site for obtaining a handgun (licensing, background check) and a CPL (quite extensive, including pistol training safety course)...it all looks good to me. But you would want to eliminate that?"

A CPL is nothing more than a permission slip. You don't have to pay $105, take classes, get fingerprinted etc... to exercise any other rights. And none of those other rights specifically state "shall not be infringed" in them. So yes, it should be eliminated. Michigan should follow Vermont and Alaska.

" It appears that long guns have no regulation except that the purchaser be over 18, is that because long guns are considered less dangerous?"

No, long guns are not less dangerous. My other post explains why handguns were regulated. If the legislature tried to restrict long guns, they would find themselves voted out. Many hunters don't even own handguns and feel they should be restricted, but if you go after their rifles, they would come out in droves to vote. These hunters are called FUDDS.

Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

> is that because long guns are considered less dangerous?

No, long guns are MORE dangerous. Rifles are much more dangerous than handguns. The rounds travel two to three times as fast (thus doing much more damage) and for much farther a distance, and rifles are much more accurate. The best sniper rifle is...a deer rifle. In general, your chances of surviving being shot with a handgun are much better than being shot with a rifle.

Glad that the Sweet case turned out the way it did, given the times it would not have been surprising if the verdict had been different. TG, they had the greatest defense attorney ever and a fair judge.
It does seem odd that the RI-060 pistol purchase form and the RI-012 CPL application form both have a race box. Gender is also included, which would lead me to think that it is for ID purposes. However, driver's licenses which do identify gender do not have race. If it were for statistical purposes, generally forms would say and make that box optional. And if you were of mixed races, what would one put down? Perhaps as you said it is leftover from the old days.

I still think gun registration is good. People who have commited crimes, have a PPO order against them, or are mentally ill, should not be able to buy guns, even if it is violating their 2nd Amendment rights.

Any ideas on how to stem the tragic drive-by shootings and senseless shootings during convenience store armed robberies that we read about in the newspapers? I know you will probably say guns are not the problem, it is more the symptom of a sick society. But it does seem so easy with guns for an innocent child to be slain in a drive-by.

True Patriot & Danny,
Thanks for the info on long guns vs handguns. It sounds like some politics are involved there.

Cookie,

I'm not sure if you got the intent of the Dr. Sweets case. Yes, he was eventually acquitted, but the outrage after his acquittal is what created handgun registration.
Registration intended to keep law abiding black people from owning guns. That is the result, and although you believe that registration is still a good thing, I don't think you yet grasp the concept that registration will not keep guns out of the hands of people who have committed crimes, have a PPO against them, or are mentally ill. That is the flaw in the reasoning behind registration. It has absolutely no affect on criminals.

The gang bangers who do drive by shootings have nothing to lose and everything to gain by legislative restrictions on firearms. While I don't pretend to have a foolproof way to stem the violence that they create, I do know one thing for sure. Restricting the ability for law abiding citizens to protect themselves is not the answer.

You seem to have an open mind on this topic, so I will ask you to please remember this one simple thing when discussing this with others. Who is it that will obey the laws?

Good point, True Patioit. More restrictive gun laws do not seem that they will help with the gun violence, it continues unabated even with the laws that are in place. I would like a confiscation of the illegally held guns that are in possession of the "gangbusters", of couse that's not possible without breaking a host of protected rights.
Also pardon my ignorance, but isn't gun registration useful in solving some crimes? You know the ones where ballistics tests are done, the suspected murder weapon is confirmed to be the one, and ownership traced through the serial number on the gun?

> a diverse jury would not have produced a verdict where a white teen was given license and immunity to carry a rifle in a community venue.

So juries with Blacks on it would have convicted the teen because he was white?

> This verdict by an all white jury was not reflective of reality

Yes, it was. It was reflective of the law. Reality. Or are you looking for something in the realm of extra-reality (read extra-legal) remedies?

> In a region where racial profiling has threaten the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for americans of color

The police and residents of Birmingham are racists?

> to have this offensive verdict

It's offensive to not convict someone for laws they never violated?

You sure love the race card....You do know that as soon as you play it, everything you say afterwords is meaningless.

Neither the judge nor the jury did.

> .Please read the pleadings I agree with the city prosecutor's analysis of the crimes committed by Combs.

LOL! Now you're just making things up because you obviously don't know the "reality" of the case. The prosecutor accused Combs of violating her opinions of what the law should be, ascribing motives and actions to Sean that didn't exist in the first place, and stating legal activities in a way so as to make them appear illegal to those who don't know the law (the jury).

She never stated what Sean was doing was actually legal, which it was. Since this happened, groups of supporters have come into Birmingham openly carrying both handguns and rifles. They've attended a Birmingham City Council meeting with their loaded rifles. In fact, the police were there that night to see a new fellow officer get sworn in, and then they left. No one arrested the firearms owners because they were not breaking the law.

Here's a couple of photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~a3000/img/birmingham/2-sm.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~a3000/img/birmingham/SeanFamily.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~a3000/img/birmingham/BCCmeeting.jpg

You really don't know anything about the court filings or the trial, do you?

R--Thanks for the link. Loved the discussion. However, it did take me back to the bad old days when Huel was sort of driven out of town after the N word was written on his garage door. Bad old days.

@Greg Thrasher
> based upon a false interpetation of our consitution.

I ran out of characters in an earlier post, but to elaborate on this, in addition to the US Constitution, the Michigan Constitution specifically states that "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself."

It can't be any clearer than that. Please stop with your underdeveloped, myopic, fringe, racist agenda and trying to throw up ideological firewalls between the citizens of Michigan and our legislature and law enforcement. Some of us have been trying hard to eradicate the "Us v. Them" mentality that so many police officers have. (Read PoliceOne.com or Officer.com or any of the other LEO forums to see what I mean). Stop being part of the problem, start being part of the solution.

You continually brought race into this trial when race had nothing to do with this trial. Your argument has been that if a black man had been doing this he would have been found guilty, whereas a white man was not, because Birmingham residents are racist. Had I been on the jury I wouldn't have found a black man guilty because he didn't break any laws. Do you know that black people openly carry firearms all across Michigan every day without getting arrested? They do.

Your arguments ring hollow like a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal, and the beating of brass.

Greg, I thought your duties as a 24/7 activist were going to preclude additional comments in this thread.

Another question: What about the history of firearms in Birmingham?

> The Birmingham Historical Museum could do an exhibit about the history of racism in Birmingham.

Are you racist?

the Bill of Responsibilities, if it were to exist, i imagine would say that if someone is incapable of doing his/her job efficiently, he/she should walk away from it. This being the case, I think the police chief should take a look at the Bill of Responsibilities and resign immediately.

Yes, because one person was irresponsible we should ban guns. Or at least we should all know guns are bad, very bad.

Seems I read a story not even a year ago where a 7 year old stole grandma's car led the police on a chase, crashed and ended up brain dead. Let's ban cars while we are at it.