Kid arrested openly carrying rifle in Birmingham, MI - no laws broken that I can tell

[PEF]

Because the article says he was an OC activist and that he wouldn't cooperate with the police. Isn't that looking for trouble?

The article does not constitute "facts." Who knows, maybe the guy was flustered, didn't know what to do. Then perhaps he decided to produce his ID but, the cops arrested him anyway. If you give so much weight to the first article then you should give equal weight to the second article.

Seems like people are making a lot of assumptions as to the motivations of the guy, and about his conduct, all from a article that is light on the facts and tells the story from the point of view of the police.

Kind of a rush to judgment. Not the first time that has happened.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[PEF]

Yes it is illegal to not talk to them. You MUST inform them that you are not going to answer possible incriminating questions and that you do not consent to a search. If you do not inform them it is disorderly conduct.

So if a cop asks me a question, and I cross my arms across my chest and don't say a word, I can be arrested? In other words, you are saying that refusing to provide information to the police in the form of silence gives probable cause for an arrest? That is simply wrong.

[Snatale42]

Maybe in Virginia, but I do not believe that is the case in Michigan.

I doubt there is a state were you can just ignore and not answer the police's questions.

[Snatale42]

So if a cop asks me a question, and I cross my arms across my chest and don't say a word, I can be arrested? In other words, you are saying that refusing to provide information to the police in the form of silence gives probable cause for an arrest? That is simply wrong.

Why? You can plead the 5th, or say your not answering any questions without a lawyer present THEN shut your mouth. Whats so hard about that? Why would anybody just sit there silent? Obviously something is wrong at that point. In the end you don't have to talk, just let them know that's what going on even if your not going to talk to the police which may be the right decision to protect yourself is many cases, there no need to be a douche about it.

[tacman605]

Well many of us presume he had other motives simply because we have seen it over and over and over again of persons OC'ing with the sole purpose of gaining attention, getting LE involved, then videotaping making a scene and shouting "My rights were violated". This was most prevelant in California and Michigan.

I have nothing against open carry whatever floats your boat but you have to use some common sense when doing it. I have nothing against the residents of the two states mentioned above but so many times on here myself and others stated to the residents of California that antagonizing a situation just to get attention was going to get them the wrong type of attention and guess what they lost it all. This is one of the reasons that when someone OC's a rifle at the Western Sizzlin or walking down the street I have no sympathy for them when they get stopped or arrested.
We have discussions on here all the time about not carrying a round in the chamber because you would not have enough time to draw, chamber and engage before the bad guy was on top of you. Now since you cannot carry a rifle in your hands and have it slung how in the hell are you going to unsling it, and engage a target before he gets between you and the rifle and takes it away? You honestly think this is a viable self defense option?

This comes back to common sense always has, always will. I guess some have it and some don't.

[PEF]

Why? You can plead the 5th, or say your not answering any questions without a lawyer present THEN shut your mouth. Whats so hard about that? Why would anybody just sit there silent? Obviously something is wrong at that point. In the end you don't have to talk, just let them know that's what going on even if your not going to talk to the police which may be the right decision to protect yourself is many cases, there no need to be a douche about it.

Regarding the bold quote, that's a rather shocking statement. How many times have statements made by people been used against them? Any inconsistency - however innocent - can be used to question the veracity of the person.

As for not articulating why they are not offering information - some people don't know about particular rights - e.g., they may know that they don't have to talk to the police, but they are uneducated with respect to why they have that right. The inability to articulate that they are relying on constitutional authority should not give rise to probable cause.

Look, I'm not saying what the guy did was prudent. My only point is that I'm surprised at how quick many of this forum are to condemn when the events relate to an act with which they personally disagree.

[sgb]

Yes it is illegal to not talk to them. You MUST inform them that you are not going to answer possible incriminating questions and that you do not consent to a search. If you do not inform them it is disorderly conduct.

[MotorCityGun]

Here's another opinion piece from a local e-rag about this case. In the last sentence of the article, I'm not sure if the writer is referring to herself, the arresting LEO, the atty, or the kid?

Showing off gun rights triggers disapproval in Birmingham | The Detroit News

[cmike]

He had his pre-trial today.

Here is an undate of what is going on.

Rifle-Carrying Troy Teen 'Pretty Confident' at Tuesday Pre-Trial Hearing - Birmingham, MI Patch

[OldeTsgt]

I hope he wins

[Smitty901]

LEO office here prove all the time you do not have to break any laws to be arrested and have your fire arm taken.

[Hopyard]

Somehow I didn't see this thread earlier. As I've said here before I openly carried a rifle on the NYC subways in the 1950s.
I have no clue if it was technically legal or not, but that's what was necessary to get to the rifle range for the school run
rifle club practice. And of course I was underage. I know the laws have all changed in 55 years so my experience is somewhat irrelevant, and maybe I just got lucky, but it gives me a way of looking at this thing.

Now, here's where I have a problem, and no one has mentioned it so far, I think: "Later, police determined the weapon was a M1-.30 caliber rifle that was fully loaded with one round in the chamber."

Never in a bazillion years would I have open carried a rifle in the subway or on a city street with one in the pipe. In fact, I usually removed the bolt so that it was obvious to the most casual observer that the rifle was not loaded or capable of being fired.

Pistols carried by folks for self defense of course must be carried with one in the pipe, but I have a hard time understanding
why anyone would carry a rifle within city limits (that is where this happened?) with one in the pipe.

Maybe it is perfectly legal, but then also it is perfectly stupid. If you must carry a rifle through the streets of the city at least do your utmost to show a peaceful attitude and attention to safety; bolt or slide locked open, mag removed.

Be safety conscious and courteous to other who might observe. I'd have expected to be stopped in my tracks by the first officer who saw me if my rifle had been in any other condition than unloaded and bolt open- locked back.

When dealing with 18 y.o.s its hard to know if their acts such as refusal to state their name are out of ignorance, or naive obstinate attitude. I wish him luck, but really think what was done by him is weird.

[DrTodd]

The cited comment on MOC is a relatively new thing and in response to a bonehead thinking it was a good idea to antagonize in a public library. The organization did have several rallies, picnics, etc... where open carry of long guns was encouraged (one outside the state capitol if memory serves). That really makes no difference though. Whether MOC supports OC of long guns or not does not make it more or less legal.

I'm still on the side of "bad idea" to do this, but I'm wondering about what CMIKE states about being over 18 to open carry a firearm; a handgun yes, but not so sure about a long gun. After all, I think I was 16 when I purchased my first deer rifle on my own. My parents weren't even in the store. Given that even today a minor can hunt without supervision would seem to support that someone who looked a little young could in fact possess and carry a long gun. Can you show in the law where carrying a long gun while under 18 is illegal? It may be there, but I don't see it.

Actually, Michigan law does not prohibit the OC of either a long gun nor a pistol by an 18 y.o.. and it does not matter if there is chambered round. However, if one possess a pistol, it must be properly registered... which one must be 18 to do. The only STATE laws which require one to be 21 are those dealing with getting a CPL (license to cc). Federal law does require one to be 21 to purchase a pistol from an FFL, though. Ianal, but I think that he should have at least stated his name and age. What bothers most of us OCers in Michigan, MOC's position notwithstanding, are the charges. Charge him with obstruction if the behavior is covered under that law. The "brandishing" and other charges are, however, not applicable... at least according to the facts presented by both the person charged and the police report.

[Smitty901]

The point is not weather someone would or would not do it. It is not weather it is a good idea or not. The point is LEO must stop going around arresting people that are not breaking the law. DA's need to stop pushing their liberal politics in the courts.
There are far to many people out there breaking the law that go un-arrested everyday even when the LEO office know who and where they are.
It should scare you a bit the some LEO's and DA is just arresting someone because they disagree with them.
And if the other charges as it appears are just a trumped up charges to justify the arrest in the first place, LEO office needs to be fired.
Not saying a word is taking the 5th you have a right to remain silent .

[tacman605]

This kid who looks 12 carrying a rifle is asked by the police "can I see your ID to confirm your age" he refuses the request and is arrested and it is once again the fault of LE.
Can you honestly look at this kids picture and say he looks 18? That is all they approached him for to confirm his age. All he had to do was show them how old he was and be on his way. I realize carrying is a right and all that but along with that comes responsibility, maturity and common sense none of which was shown here.