An 18-year-old from Troy, Sean Michael Combs, was arrested Friday night in downtown Birmingham after police found him walking around with a rifle slung across his back.
According to police reports, officers on foot patrol saw Combs with the rifle walking near South Old Woodward and Merrill at around 10:20 p.m.
Officers stopped the man and asked for identification so they could verify if he was old enough to be in possession of the rifle. Birmingham Police Cmdr. Terry Kiernan said adults are allowed to carry firearms in Michigan, though Combs appeared "very young," Kiernan said.
However, police said Combs refused to identify himself, and he was taken into custody for disorderly conduct, brandishing a firearm and obstructing an officer.
Later, police determined the weapon was a M1-.30 caliber rifle that was fully loaded with one round in the chamber. No proof of ownership for the rifle was ever obtained, and Kiernan said the Combs was uncooperative during police questioning. As of Monday, Kiernan said police are not sure of Combs' motives.
Combs posted bond that night and was released. He is scheduled to appear at the 48th District Court at 8:30 a.m. April 25.
Anyone with information about any of this incident may call the Birmingham Police Department at 248-530-1889.
I'll admit up front I do not know Michigan laws. If in fact there is a age restriction for possession of a long gun, the police are within their rights to verify if in doubt. Looking at the kids picture, I would not guess his age at 18. He looks more like 15 or 16. When he refused to identify himself he left the police no other option than to take him in.
Since you admitted that you do not know MI laws, why are you even commenting on this? He did not have to provide ID, and when he did, they arrested him.
The RAS was that he was too young to carry a gun, so he probably should have identified himself.
I don't believe that the mere carrying of a gun is grounds for a brandishing charge in Michigan.
The disorderly conduct charge is usually a blanket charge with open carry, just so they have something to charge them with. I don't know of an instance where a disorderly conduct charge for legally open carrying has NOT been thrown out in court.
I would be interested in seeing audio or video from the encounter.
Stupid to refuse to ID yourself . Sounds like he was looking for attention. I'm all for open carry but refusing to cooperate with PD isn't the smartest way to promote open carry.
Looks like Mi is not a stop and identify state. Tough call. Personally, I would at least provide verbal ID if not photo ID. But he was not breaking any law by not producing it. Interesting case. Notice he is not charged with not ID'ing himself, they had to go with obstructing and officer.
He was within his rights to carry the weapon, however, he was STUPID for not cooperating with Police. That being said, why in gods name do you walk down the street with a rifle on your back. This is not going to go over well for the OC crowd.
He was within his rights to carry the weapon, however, he was STUPID for not cooperating with Police. That being said, why in gods name do you walk down the street with a rifle on your back. This is not going to go over well for the OC crowd.
Most OC-er's will say because they (legally) can, doncha' know. I'm in the, "Just Because It's Legal Don't Make It Smart" camp. There are times and places where OC-ing makes sense, and then there are times/places where it's just down right stoopid.
If they explain the reason for stopping is because you look so young then it's such a simple thing to show your ID.
This is another demonstration of shear stupidity and obstinance.
Believe me, there is no question I am old enough to carry, so if I am walking down the street OCing (legal without a permit) and a cop walks up and asks for ID (baring any stated RAS) I WILL refuse. If the cop says something like "The bank down the street was just robed by someone with a handgun and you fit the description"; then that is undeniable RAS and I would produce ID.
IF he was told the reason he was being stopped is because he appeared too young to carry a firearm the he deserves what he gets. A citizen does have rights; but there are responsibilities that go along with it too.
I'm sure the kid got exactly what he was after - some attention (whether for himself or "the cause" and/or the hopes that he'll find a lawyer that will help him file a suit. I'm not going to say it's smart, but MI is not a "Stop and ID state." I personally don't understand and would never refuse to ID myself...but we aren't talking about my opinions - per the letter of the law, I can't see anything he did that will let any of the charges stick. Of course, I wasn't actually there...
I never heard of such a restriction to possessing a rifle because you are too young. I'm not trying to armchair-lawyer, but come on....... MI is a huge hunting state and promotes hunting among young people. I grew up chasing bunnies and birds as soon as I stepped off the school bus. I would walk through the village where I lived with my shotgun over my shoulder (not loaded of course) with my brother, a friend, or both. NEVER any trouble, never even thought about it. Then again, that was a long time ago in a rural part of Northern Michigan, but I'm certain this sort of thing happens all over the state still.
Illegal? I don't see where he broke any law. Stupid? maybe...definitely poor judgement to carry a M1 with a round in the chamber if not afield.
Well OC is OC but you must admit that OCing a rifle is as much a "unicorn" among OCers as is OCing a pistol among the general public. I wonder if he was taking his rights for a walk or just a stupid adult/kid. 18 year olds aren't overwhelmingly known for making good decisions.
IF he was told the reason he was being stopped is because he appeared too young to carry a firearm the he deserves what he gets. A citizen does have rights; but there are responsibilities that go along with it too.
If I am not mistaken even MOC does not support the OC'ing of rifles in public and have a letter on their website about it.
If that is true, it seems a bit hypocritical to me. A lot of pro 2A people do not support open carry, and open carriers whine about it, so why wouldn't they support the legal carry of long guns?
What appalls me is the overwhelming assumption that the kid was wrong and the Police were right. Ever hear of the 4th amendment? Gun owners are their own worst enemy.
Their reason for stopping him was not conveyed. When asked for ID he presented it, and they still arrested him!!! I am thankful that some of our youngsters know our constitutional rights. We are a dying breed. You need to read the facts in this case
I'm not sure that you are right on your view of the law. Its kind of like the principle that it is illegal for felons to carry guns, yet you do not have to ID yourself to police for them to make sure that you AREN'T a felon in many states.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!