Posted on 06/22/2012 8:30:20 AM PDT by kevcol
An Oakland County District court judge has decided to allow a criminal case to go forward against a Troy teenager accused of brandishing a rifle in downtown Birmingham.
"This is not a gun-rights case," Judge Marc Barron said during an evidentiary hearing held Wednesday in the case against Sean Michael Combs.
Rather, the case hinged on the city of Birmingham's brandishing ordinance and whether the city has a legal right to regulate firearms.
Defense attorney Jim Makowski had filed a motion to dismiss all the charges, saying his client never should have been stopped in the first place. Michigan is an open-carry state when it comes to firearms. Nor does the state require a person to carry ID or produce it when requested by police.
.
.
He was arrested April 13 after he was stopped in downtown Birmingham with a 1942 M-1 Garand military rifle strapped to his back. The gun was loaded with a round in the chamber.
.
.
Makowski in his brief tried to claim the city's ordinance on disturbing the peace is "overbroad on its face" and infringed on his client's personal right to carry a firearm. The judge, however, said there were other factors that went into the charge, such as Combs refusing to produce ID and attracting a crowd.
(Excerpt) Read more at livingstondaily.com ...
I’m not sure what they mean by “strapped to his back”, but if there is a round in the chamber, you’d better be damn sure no one can come up from behind and wrestle it from you. It’s much safer to open carry with a pistol in a good holster. Anyway, it sounds like he wants to be a test case. Hope he has a great lawyer.
The article repeatedly asserts the rifle was “strapped to his back”. I can only see that as meaning he was carrying the rifle at sling arms. (Picture a WWII or Korean War movie showing a soldier with or formation of soldiers with the rifle(s) on the back or the body, retained there by a sling over the shoulder, leaving both hands more or less free.)
The article states ‘Kucharek stated. “It could only have been his intent that other pedestrians and motorists should see the gun, which is tantamount to brandishing the weapon within the common usage of that term.”’
In my opinion, carrying a rifle at sling arms is actually tantamount to open carrying a handgun in a holster. It’s not like the rifle was in his hands, ready to use quickly or held in a threatening manner.
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
n.
The Attorney General of Michigan previously published an opinion that merely carrying a firearm is not brandishing it.
The article states the guy was a teen, but what was the age?
If under 18 in my state he can’t own a gun not even a long gun nor carry one. If he was over 21 then he/she can own both long guns and hand guns and carry with a CCW permit.
As long as the “teen” was old enough(18+) I don’t see where they broke any laws. But then again, I’m not totally familiar with the gun laws in Michigan.
You are wrong. Here is the wording from MI's own State Constitution:
Art 1, §6 -- Bearing of arms.The prosecution should have to prove that he is not a person... and then things'd get interesting.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
I like your idea, maybe the Defense can bring that up? It’s about time that this issue be decided in the favor of the citizen.
"judge" Marc Barron is nothing but a Police State thug:
“[the] freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
- U.S. District Court Magistrate Craig M. Kellison, March 2011
Whoopsie! Guess we have a Police State in BirmingGestapoham, MI...
Since the government has developed multiple layers of defense to prevent We The Peasants from getting justice in cases like this, we'll just have to skip all the delaying tactics and the burning of taxpayer money and find them responsible for these outrages ourselves.
It's plainly evident. I move that they have maliciously conspired against a defenseless citizen under color of authority.
You know, who really gives a crap what the law is?
The lawless weasel thugs who enforce the law on the peasants could give two sh*ts what the law is.
Did Bill Clinton and the Congress give a rip what the law was when Clinton perjured himself? Did Charlie Rangel give a rip what the law was when he evaded taxes?
Did Eric Holder give a rip what the law was when he got federal agents killed while trying to subvert the Constitution, and while lying to Congress?
THEY DON'T CARE. They want YOU to care, because it makes it easier for them to wag their beetle-brows at you and growl in their gravel-voice that "YEW VIOLATED THE LORE!!!".
They don't care because they have the guns, and they're willing to use them, and they're willing to pin medals on their chests after they shoot you down like a dog for sassing them.
I think you, sir, have the right of it.
So you’re saying that there are no laws in MI saying that a person has to be above a specific age to own or carry a gun?
I was not wrong because my comment was saying (if you read it entirely) what my stats law is. I don’t live in MI so I said that I didn’t know what MI law said. In Iowa the age to own a gun is 18 for long guns and ammo, and 21 for handguns.
I somehow doubt that MI would allow a 10 year old to own and carry a gun.
No, I am saying that any such statute is contra-constitutional and therefore null and void.
I somehow doubt that MI would allow a 10 year old to own and carry a gun.
Not unless they somehow declared a 10 year old not to be a person; and there's a whole kettle of bad fish going the route of allowing the state to [arbitrarily] decide who is or isn't a "person."
I was not wrong because my comment was saying (if you read it entirely) what my stats law is. I don’t live in MI so I said that I didn’t know what MI law said. In Iowa the age to own a gun is 18 for long guns and ammo, and 21 for handguns.
My apologies for "jumping the gun." What state do you live in? I can give your Constitution a quick look and see what it says.
I live in Iowa and currently we don’t have a constitutional right to bear arms. They are working on adding that language to our constitution but it’s a slow process and we have way too many liberals here.
I see. But check out the section on the militia; you probably qualify for that.
Let me clarify.
We have CCW permits and recently the law was changed to allow open carry. So we can own and carry guns.
But our state constitution doesn’t include the language to protect the right to keep and bear arms like the US Constitution does.
We have some senators who are working on getting this changed. I am supporting them in this as are a lot of Iowans.
Do they have text[s] in mind? If not might I suggest the following:
Whereas Article 1, Section 1 affirms that a person has the right to defend life and liberty, and whereas the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is both absurd and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind, the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense shall not be questioned, nor shall any law abridge this right. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the rights to keep, to bear, to manufacture, or to sell arms.
When I was 10 I lived in MI and I had a gun. Everybody did. Had to pass a NRA safety course if I wanted a license to hunt, which I did when I was 11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.