TexasCHLforum.com

Yep, you can be detained even if you have not committed any crime simply because you are OC.
http://www.guns.com/2015/06/16/michigan ... pen-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This should be appealed by the NRA.

I think it's also worth noting that Michigan is an unlicensed open carry state.

viewtopic.php?p=990162#p990162

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The SCOTUS could well treat guns differently.

Chas.

The double-edged sword of seeking relief in the courts. A decision to treat them differently might well take decades to reverse, and since there is no way to predict for certain which way the court would jump, I am inclined to want to exhaust the legislative resources first...... And that is I believe what the Founders intended.

Absolutely right!! Never ask a court, unless you have no alternative.

Chas.

The above nested quotes were in response to this post in the same thread:

LoveMeSomeBBQ wrote:There were lengthy debates in the House and Senate about officers stopping open carry CHL holders for the SOLE purpose of checking their license. Two amendments were passed and then removed to spell out that this was not to be allowed. During the discussions, it was stated over and over again that the amendments were not necessary because current law and court decisions say the same thing.

At a practical level, I would personally have no problem with a LEO checking my license, but if it became an issue...

1. What laws and decisions currently exist to address this?

2. Would the fact that an observer called 911 and reported someone with a gun change this protection (i.e. the "someone called in and it is my job to investigate" discussion).

and....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There is case law in the 4th and 6th circuits holding that, where open-carry is legal, the mere fact that a person is openly carrying a handgun does not establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The 5th Circuit has not addressed this issue. The 4th Cir. case is Black but I don't recall if it was an unlicensed open-carry state, or if it required a license. That could make a difference, however there are federal cases that held a LEO cannot stop the driver of an automobile purely to see if they have a driver's license. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will extend that to open-carry in states where a license is required is open to question. The SCOTUS could well treat guns differently.

Chas.

If I am not mistaken, the US District Court is lower down the totem pole that a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan is under the jurisdiction of the the 6th Circuit Court, which Charles has told us have held that "where open-carry is legal, the mere fact that a person is openly carrying a handgun does not establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop." Therefore, the lower court is in direct opposition to the higher court, which means that if the plaintiff seeks relief before the 6th Circuit, they will either uphold their own previous decision and reverse the lower court ruling, OR (God forbid), they will change their minds and reverse their previous opinion, dealing a death blow to the 4th Amendment for anyone who open carries. Plaintiff's strategic error was to seek relief in the courts. Now, unless he successfully navigates the litigation minefield and obtains a favorable ruling in the 6th Circuit, the anti-open carry ruling of the district court will stand. Suing was a huge mistake.

THIS IS WHY I said in my previous quote that seeking relief in the courts is a double edged sword. It might have been far more effective - with less attendant risk to open carriers in Michigan - if the plaintiff had simply gotten his local representative to file a bill in the next legislature to amend open carry to include 4th Amendment protections.

ALMOST NEVER TRUST A COURT to do the right thing when it comes to firearms...... as witnessed by the recent SCOTUS decision which went against gun rights...... in a court with a 4/4 liberal/conservative split and an independent who has voted in favor of gun rights. And by the way, what we have seen with SCOTUS's failure to uphold Heller is an ample demonstration of what might happen in the 6th Circuit if plaintiff appeals.

If you don't want courts to legislate from the bench, DON'T GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY!!! They are NOT representatives of The People.

That won't last. If LEOs start stopping everyone using probable cause or reasonable suspicion to the point it's happening all the time the next Texas legislature will slap that process into oblivion. We'll have to wait two years but it won't stand.

tex

thetexan wrote:That won't last. If LEOs start stopping everyone using probable cause or reasonable suspicion to the point it's happening all the time the next Texas legislature will slap that process into oblivion. We'll have to wait two years but it won't stand.

tex

Especially if the perception is that minorities are stopped more than non-minorities.

Mmmm - FNP-45

The Annoyed Man wrote: If I am not mistaken, the US District Court is lower down the totem pole that a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan is under the jurisdiction of the the 6th Circuit Court, which Charles has told us have held that "where open-carry is legal, the mere fact that a person is openly carrying a handgun does not establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop." Therefore, the lower court is in direct opposition to the higher court, which means that if the plaintiff seeks relief before the 6th Circuit, they will either uphold their own previous decision and reverse the lower court ruling, OR (God forbid), they will change their minds and reverse their previous opinion, dealing a death blow to the 4th Amendment for anyone who open carries. .....

Michigan is unlicensed concealed carry. In Texas concealed carry will still be illegal with an exception for CHL holders. That could require completely different precedent.

jmra wrote:

thetexan wrote:That won't last. If LEOs start stopping everyone using probable cause or reasonable suspicion to the point it's happening all the time the next Texas legislature will slap that process into oblivion. We'll have to wait two years but it won't stand.

tex

Especially if the perception is that minorities are stopped more than non-minorities.

Ah, but what IS a minority nowadays?

So there's a catch here - at least to me - and maybe I'm making too much out of it:

"U.S. District Judge Janet Neff determined that yes, officers do have that authority. Neff said the officers were “justified in following up on the 911 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

I read that as they're authorized to stop in response to a 911 call or other MWAG call. I don't read this as authorized to stop "everyone"... But maybe I'm wrong. It's still more broad than I'd like, but I don't see it as open season to stop anyone at any time.

If I'm on the carrying end of one of these stops, I'll just let it go down as the officer sees fit until the courts tell us otherwise...

PBratton wrote:

jmra wrote:

thetexan wrote:That won't last. If LEOs start stopping everyone using probable cause or reasonable suspicion to the point it's happening all the time the next Texas legislature will slap that process into oblivion. We'll have to wait two years but it won't stand.

tex

Especially if the perception is that minorities are stopped more than non-minorities.

Ah, but what IS a minority nowadays?

Ahh...the answer is so easy. If you have to ask, it ain't you!

PBratton wrote: Ah, but what IS a minority nowadays?

Whatever it is, it's changing...

Vol Texan wrote:

PBratton wrote:

jmra wrote:

thetexan wrote:That won't last. If LEOs start stopping everyone using probable cause or reasonable suspicion to the point it's happening all the time the next Texas legislature will slap that process into oblivion. We'll have to wait two years but it won't stand.

tex

Especially if the perception is that minorities are stopped more than non-minorities.

Ah, but what IS a minority nowadays?

Ahh...the answer is so easy. If you have to ask, it ain't you!

It's ok, you can always self identify as a minority or what ever you want to be, even though your are not actually the thing you identify yourself as, any time you want to. It seems to be popular these days. Just ask Caitlyn and Rachel.

All of this was solved with the Dutton amendment but the powers that be just had to get rid of it to placate law enforcement unions. Passed the same basic amendment in both houses and then bailed on it. Sometime we are just our own worst enemies.

Sad the Court made this ruling . How did we go from kids carrying a shotgun on a bicycle going hunting and no one cared back in the 1970's to all these Man with a gun calls we have today.

Deltaboy wrote:Sad the Court made this ruling . How did we go from kids carrying a shotgun on a bicycle going hunting and no one cared back in the 1970's to all these Man with a gun calls we have today.

Communism. Anyone can laugh all they want, tell me I'm technically incorrect, etc. But until someone comes up with another simple catchy phrase for these left-wing elitist statists, I'm going to call them communists.