Disturbing the peace charge

[chaneyd]

imported post

Yes. Again, printing is not against the law. Showing your firearm in a menacing manner is.

 

[springerdave]

imported post

chaneyd, in a previous post you mentioned a civil suit, can you share the outcome of that suit with us? springerdave.

 

[chaneyd]

imported post

I got a letter of apology from the Sheriff's department as well as the prosecuting office. Officer was suspended for 3 days without pay.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

chaneyd wrote:

I participated in an open carry march in Hastings this past summer to show solidarityfor open carry. We had over 100 people show up. We dared the police to arrest anyone for this since it is perfectly legal in Michigan to open carry. The police came, watched and went away. Nothing they could do about it. Some said that open carry is not necessarily a good idea because of the way some LEO's take to this idea, but it was done to show that it is a right, not a privilege that we have. It is not brandishing. Printing is also not against the law, whether it upsets someone or not to see it. There is a law to protect citizens from an illegal arrest. The police cannot arrest you for a made up law. They do have a tendency to do this when they are in doubt you did something wrong. Lawsuits generally take care of this later to prevent further arrests. It worked for me.

AG Opinion 7101 addresses DTP & Brandishing.

Link: 7101

 

[Dan F.]

imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:

Actually, if you're open carrying, and have a CPL, it doesn't matter if the establishment makes more or less from alcohol sales. It's only if you're carrying concealed on a CPL.

Now, if you're carrying openly, and you don't have a CPL, then can't carry in any business that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises, regardless of whether they make most of the money from sales other than alcohol.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor;
penalty.
Sec. 234d. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of
1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that
firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the
permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or
a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

This probably isn't the place for discussing this but I am unclear as to which part of this law prohibits CC in the "prohibited places." Is there another law that is not routinely cited?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

Dan F. wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

Actually, if you're open carrying, and have a CPL, it doesn't matter if the establishment makes more or less from alcohol sales. It's only if you're carrying concealed on a CPL.

Now, if you're carrying openly, and you don't have a CPL, then can't carry in any business that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises, regardless of whether they make most of the money from sales other than alcohol.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor;
penalty.
Sec. 234d. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of
1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that
firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the
permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or
a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

This probably isn't the place for discussing this but I am unclear as to which part of this law prohibits CC in the "prohibited places." Is there another law that is not routinely cited?

Yes. 750.234d prohibits possession of firearms in those places listed (a)--->(h). Unless (2)(c): A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.


28.425o prohibits concealed weapons (firearms) in places listed (a)--->(h).

Link: 28.425o

Hense: OC with CPL.

 

[Dan F.]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Dan F. wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

Actually, if you're open carrying, and have a CPL, it doesn't matter if the establishment makes more or less from alcohol sales. It's only if you're carrying concealed on a CPL.

Now, if you're carrying openly, and you don't have a CPL, then can't carry in any business that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises, regardless of whether they make most of the money from sales other than alcohol.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor;
penalty.
Sec. 234d. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:... <SNIP>

This probably isn't the place for discussing this but I am unclear as to which part of this law prohibits CC in the "prohibited places." Is there another law that is not routinely cited?

Yes. 750.234d prohibits possession of firearms in those places listed (a)--->(h). Unless (2)(c): A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.


28.425o prohibits concealed weapons (firearms) in places listed (a)--->(h).

Link: 28.425o

Hense: OC with CPL.

OK! I got it! Thanks for the citation!

 

[Big Gay Al]

imported post


Never mind.

 

[hatrike]

imported post

I have been charged with disturbing the peace and brandishing. I plead innocent and im waiting for my court date 10/18/09. I was carrying a 270 long rifle but I wasnt brandishing but Im worried about dtp.does anyone have info good or bad. thanks

 

[AbNo]

imported post

hatrike wrote:

I have been charged with disturbing the peace and brandishing. I plead innocent and im waiting for my court date 10/18/09. I was carrying a 270 long rifle but I wasnt brandishing but Im worried about dtp.does anyone have info good or bad. thanks

Need a bit more info there, like where you were, where you live, where the charge is being tried, etc.

 

[hatrike]

imported post

I live in wakefield michigan but I was arrested in Ironwood. I was walking with a friend that didnt think it was legal so we tried to walk to a local cafe. I made it about 2 blocks then I was detained and arrested. I asked what I was being arrested for and they just said, for carrying a rifle. after about 20 minutes of asking around and looking in the books they called the prosecuting attorney I was toled it was for disturbing the peace. I went to court yesterday and I found out it was for brandishing also.

 

[Big Gay Al]

imported post

hatrike wrote:

I have been charged with disturbing the peace and brandishing. I plead innocent and im waiting for my court date 10/18/09. I was carrying a 270 long rifle but I wasnt brandishing but Im worried about dtp.does anyone have info good or bad. thanks

How were you carrying the rifle? Was it slung on your back, or was it in your hand(s)? And most importantly, do you have a lawyer?

 

[Venator]

imported post

hatrike wrote:

I live in wakefield michigan but I was arrested in Ironwood. I was walking with a fried that didnt think it was legal so we tried to walk to a local cafe. I made it about 2 blocks then I was detained and arrested. I asked what I was being arrested for and they just said, for carrying a rifle. after about 20 minutes of asking around and looking in the books they called the prosecuting attorney I was toled it was for disturbing the peace. I went to court yesterday and I found out it was for brandishing also.

Get a lawyer OC is not disturbing the peace. If it was in your hands hunting style, then the brandishing is a bit much. Brandishing is waving it about in a threatening manner. Fight it if you can.

 

[hatrike]

imported post

I had it on my back and I never touched it, I let the police take it off me when they detained me. I plan on geting a lawyer and im 95 percent confident that it will get thrown out.

Can anyone tell me if disturbing the peace is a state law or a local ordinance, and if preemption would negate it in this case. thanks

 

[Venator]

imported post

hatrike wrote:

I had it on my back and I never touched it, I let the police take it off me when they detained me. I plan on geting a lawyer and im 95 percent confident that it will get thrown out.

Can anyone tell me if disturbing the peace is a state law or a local ordinance, and if preemption would negate it in this case. thanks

There is a state law on disorderly person see below. Every municipality can have their own ordinance. You need to get the local ordinance if that is what you were charged with and see where lawful OC comes in...oh it doesn't.

Same with the state statute...no mention of firearms. A law student should be able to get this tossed. Mere harassment on the LEOs part.


I like (b) a common prostitute. That's why I always employ the services of uncommon prostitutes...pays to buy the best.


STATE OF MICHIGAN: An act 328 of 1931

750.167 “Disorderly person” defined; subsequent violations by person convicted of refusing or neglecting to support family. Sec. 167.

(1) A person is a disorderly person if the person is any of the following:

(a) A person of sufficient ability who refuses or neglects to support his or her family.

(b) A common prostitute.

(c) A window peeper.

(d) A person who engages in an illegal occupation or business.

(e) A person who is intoxicated in a public place and who is either endangering directly the safety of another person or of property or is acting in a manner that causes a public disturbance.

(f) A person who is engaged in indecent or obscene conduct in a public place.

(g) A vagrant.

(h) A person found begging in a public place.

(i) A person found loitering in a house of ill fame or prostitution or place where prostitution or lewdness is practiced, encouraged, or allowed.

(j) A person who knowingly loiters in or about a place where an illegal occupation or business is being conducted.

(k) A person who loiters in or about a police station, police headquarters building, county jail, hospital, court building, or other public building or place for the purpose of soliciting employment of legal services or the services of sureties upon criminal recognizance’s.

(l) A person who is found jostling or roughly crowding people unnecessarily in a public place.

(2) When a person, who has been convicted of refusing or neglecting to support his or her family under this section, is then charged with subsequent violations within a period of 2 years, that person shall be prosecuted as a second offender, or third and subsequent offender, as provided in section 168, if the family of that person is then receiving public relief or support.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 84, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 750.167 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 110, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 144, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 328, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 340, Eff. Jan. 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 109, Eff. Jan. 15, 1978

 

[cabman1]

imported post

hatrike could you please put michigan in your profile so we get credit for it

 

[TheRabbitsHole]

imported post

Here's the Midland city ordinance.

Sec. 16-5. Disturbance in public places.
Any person who shall make or incite any disturbance or contention in any tavern, store, grocery, manufacturing establishment, or any other business place, or any street, lane, alley, highway, public building, grounds, or park, or at any election or other public meeting where citizens are peacefully and lawfully assembled or engaged in the pursuit of their occupation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.



It's written in a way where they could pretty much charge you for wearing a shirt that is too bright in color.

 

[hatrike]

imported post

srry I was off for a couple days. I now have a lawyer and I will let you know how the case goes.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Good to hear you have an attorney! I am sure he has told you this but don't post anything on here that might jeopardize your case!

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

hatrike wrote:

srry I was off for a couple days. I now have a lawyer and I will let you know how the case goes.

Do let us know when the lawyer says it's okay to do so.

Make sure your lawyer knows that they gave you the carrying of a rifle as RAS when you asked them. Per Florida v. J.L. there is no firearm exception to Terry.