Ben Wallace should have attended an OC seminar; it could have saved his a$$ :(

[stainless1911]

Agreed.

Just another case of rules for the sake of having rules, and nothing more.

 

[budlight]

He might have had a better chance in court on the CCW charge if the weapon was in ANY type of locked container and placed in the most REAR portion of the vehicle. Given the fact that it was up front and not in a locked case I think he is totally out of luck. IMO...I don't see why he shouldn't face a charge on this. OCers without a CPL keep their firearms unloaded in the trunk of their vehicle. If they don't have a trunk they store it unloaded in some type of locked box in the rear of the vehicle. If he is exempt, then everyone without a CPL should be able to have an unloaded firearm on the seat next to them in their vehicle.

 

[sprinklerguy28]

The term constitutional carry is dangerous. Check out the 3 states that have it and how restricted they are in where they can carry. I agree that we should be able to carry without permits everywhere. However the fact is we currently have laws that need to be followed. He broke the law and is another idiot making guns/gun owners look dumb in the media. We need to change the laws not complain about cops enforcing the current ones.

 

[stainless1911]

If he knew the laws and broke them anyway, then he would be an idiot. The idiocy here, is in the law, not in Mr Wallace.

 

[Jared]

I don't see how this CCW charge will stick. Arizona v Gant is now settled, the search of the car was unlawful.

 

[ElectricianLU58]

If he knew the laws and broke them anyway, then he would be an idiot. The idiocy here, is in the law, not in Mr Wallace.

B.S. he should get at least one felony for this and lose his drivers license. if you cannot marginalize people, what is the point?

you are either good or bad. he drove drunk and he drove around with an illegal concealed weapon. he should get at least some jail time (during basketball season), to set an example that one has to pay when one drinks and drives.

we all see the commercials 5000$ in fines and losing your license on the first offense... why should he not face the same justice as anyone else would?

felons are not equal to every one else, and that is the way it should be. they should not vote or carry guns. hell, the violent felons should be branded on the forehead.

 

[stainless1911]

Not familiar with AZ vs. Grant, could you elaborate.

 

[stainless1911]

B.S. he should get at least one felony for this and lose his drivers license. if you cannot marginalize people, what is the point?

you are either good or bad. he drove drunk and he drove around with an illegal concealed weapon. he should get at least some jail time (during basketball season), to set an example that one has to pay when one drinks and drives.

we all see the commercials 5000$ in fines and losing your license on the first offense... why should he not face the same justice as anyone else would?

felons are not equal to every one else, and that is the way it should be. they should not vote or carry guns. hell, the violent felons should be branded on the forehead.

I have zero tolerance for DUI myself. However, I cant tolerate violating someones rights either. The DUI and the CCW are two completely different events.

Saying he should get a felony charge for exercising his right to keep, not so much as to even bear arms, especially in his private property, is pretty thick headed.

I completely disagree with taking away either the RKBA or the right to vote.

 

[ElectricianLU58]

well, we will have to agree to disagree.

a felon does not and should not have equal rights.

my understanding of felons, is that they cannot own firearms (even BB guns) or ammunition or have it in their homes. i have heard that they cannot even enter a home that has firearms in it (i am not sure of this, but i like it).

when his team gets to go to a party at the home of some rich whoever (who has guns or even a BB gun)... the felons should not be able to go. and if they do, they should be violated and be put in a real prison... just for walking in the door. a felon should have to ask before walking into any home if he allowed under the law. life should be harder for him or her. he/she is not equal.

i am not against having small felonies expunged after a given period. but the worst felonies (violence, hurting or killing someone while drunk driving...), should never be expunged.

 

[stainless1911]

at least Im on the same side as those who wrote the constitution.

 

[DrTodd]

I don't see how this CCW charge will stick. Arizona v Gant is now settled, the search of the car was unlawful.

Wrong. He was arrested for the drunk driving and the gun was found during an "inventory" search; legal as long as the PD has a policy regarding the search and the arrest was not a pretext for a search. It would be easier to argue the issue of "pretext" had the arrest been for jaywalking rather than for drunk driving.

 

[budlight]

Wrong. He was arrested for the drunk driving and the gun was found during an "inventory" search; legal as long as the PD has a policy regarding the search and the arrest was not a pretext for a search. It would be easier to argue the issue of "pretext" had the arrest been for jaywalking rather than for drunk driving.

I concur with Dr Todds opinion. I haven't seen any related case decisions on INVENTORY SEARCHES. Also I would say it's safe to assume that the PD involved has a written policy stating an inventory search must be completed and documented prior to impounding a vehicle.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

Wrong. He was arrested for the drunk driving and the gun was found during an "inventory" search; legal as long as the PD has a policy regarding the search and the arrest was not a pretext for a search. It would be easier to argue the issue of "pretext" had the arrest been for jaywalking rather than for drunk driving.

some old but very good advice...

when ordered to get out of your car, roll up the windows, Lock your doors as you exit, leave keys inside!

 

[DrTodd]

some old but very good advice...

when ordered to get out of your car, roll up the windows, Lock your doors as you exit, leave keys inside!

And if you are arrested, know that your car will be impounded and the contents "inventoried"

Such "inventory searches" have been deemed reasonable and therefore fall under an exception to the warrant requirement when two conditions are met.

1) the search must serve a legitimate, non-investigatory purpose (to protect an owner's property while in custody or to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property) that outweighs the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. See Illinois v. Lafayette, (1983); South Dakota v. Opperman, (1976).

2), the search must follow standardized procedures. see Colorado v. Bertine, (1987) and Florida v. Wells, (1990). But, such a search does not include a cell phone, see United States v. Wall, (2008) nor does an inventory search exception justify search of a cell phone, United States v. Flores, (2000).

 

[CoonDog]

Ben Wallace is another victim of the State of Michigan's war against the people. In the name of "public safety", the State has committed countless atrocities against those simply for minding their own business.

 

[DrTodd]

Ben Wallace is another victim of the State of Michigan's war against the people. In the name of "public safety", the State has committed countless atrocities against those simply for minding their own business.

Partially. Assuming he is guilty of "drunk driving", admittedly a big assumption, he is guilty of that and I don't think I need to feel too sorry for him in that regard. I'm sure someone will post how the level of BAC for being drunk is too low, etc. That is not the reason I'm posting this, though, and that discussion can take place elsewhere. I have not read anything regarding this beyond what was originally posted, so I restrict my opinion to that.


But, I agree regarding the CCW charge. Perhaps people will begin to understand why we are very specific as to what the firearm laws are here in Michigan; one honest, well-meaning mistake can be a felony on your record. Willful intent to carry a pistol concealed is not necessary, nor is being under the influence a defense to the charge. At least Michigan makes most violations of the Michigan CPL law a civil infraction (not a crime) for CPL holders; most other states make such things as carrying a pistol in prohibited areas a misdemeanor (a crime), with or without a license to carry concealed. That is why if you carry concealed or openly, especially out-of-state, knowing the law in that jurisdiction is very important.

 

[PDinDetroit]

perhaps people will begin to understand why we are very specific as to what the firearm laws are here in michigan; one honest, well-meaning mistake can be a felony on your record.

qft

 

[NHCGRPR45]

No problem, I knew what you meant. But... I would think that if you designed the case to hold your handgun it meets the requirement. The law doesn't dictate that it can't be designed by you. I imagine that what they were trying to avoid was someone who attempted to argue that, for example, a backpack full of other things met the requirement as a case. But, without any case law, who really KNOWS what they were thinking? (get it, CASE law ?)

Agreed.

Penalties need to be attached to the oath that the police take. That way, as soon as one brings someone up on a charge like this, he can be immediately terminated for breaking the oath that he swore to.

They have to follow the same rules we do. As is the case of the poor child killed in an accidental shooting by DPD SWAT officer.

The term constitutional carry is dangerous. Check out the 3 states that have it and how restricted they are in where they can carry. I agree that we should be able to carry without permits everywhere. However the fact is we currently have laws that need to be followed. He broke the law and is another idiot making guns/gun owners look dumb in the media. We need to change the laws not complain about cops enforcing the current ones.

Agreed 100%

If he knew the laws and broke them anyway, then he would be an idiot. The idiocy here, is in the law, not in Mr Wallace.

No, the blame can be on no one but him. Ignorance of the law is NOT a defense, nor is blantant disregard for same. He was 1. drunk 2. illegally transporting a gun. All the blame falls on him in this particular case.

 

[stainless1911]

The drunk part, there is no excuse. Education, commercials, common sense, the list goes on and on. But you get NONE of that with gun laws. I cant expect anyone to know the convoluted mess of what the Michigan legislature has made of the constitution. Its beyond rationality.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

some old but very good advice...

when ordered to get out of your car, roll up the windows, Lock your doors as you exit, leave keys inside!

But how would you then get back into your car if you are later let go?? just throwin that out there,,

qft

What is qtf??

The drunk part, there is no excuse. Education, commercials, common sense, the list goes on and on. But you get NONE of that with gun laws. I cant expect anyone to know the convoluted mess of what the Michigan legislature has made of the constitution. Its beyond rationality.

Well , yes the laws maybe a little hard to grasp for some, but being drunk and haveing a gun in the front seat while driving is IMHO pretty straight forward.:idea: