carrying two guns concealed [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : carrying two guns concealed


snowdog37
09-02-2007, 19:23
I've wondered if there is any law prohibiting carrying a second, or what we would call a "backup" gun provided the individual has a valid CCW? From time to time I think I'd like to have my P32 in my pocket along with my G23 inside the belt, but I always stop short of doing it because I don't want to do something that might mess up my next renewal.

MakeMineaP99
09-02-2007, 20:30
Perfectly legal. However, both pistols must be inspected (registered).

john_glock_mi
09-02-2007, 20:40
You can carry 20 guns if you want.

PDogSniper
09-03-2007, 05:36
Some would say this is a gray area. When the law first went into effect our license said "Pistols" permit. It now says "Pistol" permit. Oversight...?

It's said that there are some DA's out there that want to make a test case out of this...

All aside, I carry more that one...

Hailstorm
09-03-2007, 07:32
I prefer to carry one good one :supergrin:

My Father carries 3 most times :tongueout: Maybe he needs the extra workout:tongueout:

doublestack9
09-03-2007, 08:02
There is no limit in Nebraska. A fellow shooter is an instructor for CCW, and he had a student who asked that question. When he told the student that there is no limit, the student told him he wanted to carry two 1911s in shoulder holsters, and two J frames in ankle holsters. The instructor told him that it was permitted under NE law. I commented that at least he was balanced :-)

Tito
09-07-2007, 12:15
Originally posted by PDogSniper
Some would say this is a gray area. When the law first went into effect our license said "Pistols" permit. It now says "Pistol" permit. Oversight...?


This is correct. It was not an "oversight." The statute says you may carry "a concealed pistol" with your concealed pistol license. The statute was amended by the legislature and all references to "concealed pistols" (plural) were changed to the singular.

douglasd
09-28-2007, 00:27
The fact that it was changed from "pistols" to "pistol" (which it should have been in the first place, for grammar's sake) does not change the fact that there is no limit in the law.

You can carry as many as you wish...this is NOT a gray area.
And if some idiot DA did try to prosecute, it would NEVER stick.

I wrote to the State Police Reference Desk, and posted the reply somewhere, in which he said that there was no limit.

Ender
10-07-2007, 01:00
no limit. i've carried two more than once.

douglasd
10-07-2007, 15:13
Originally posted by Tito
This is correct. It was not an "oversight." The statute says you may carry "a concealed pistol" with your concealed pistol license. The statute was amended by the legislature and all references to "concealed pistols" (plural) were changed to the singular.


In Michigan, you may carry as many pistols as you wish, and we finally have a letter from the AG's office that says so.

This should put to rest the debate once and for all.

douglasd
10-07-2007, 15:16
Originally posted by douglasd
In Michigan, you may carry as many pistols as you wish, and we finally have a letter from the AG's office that says so.

This should put to rest the debate once and for all.

Oops...I forgot to attach the letter...Ok, THIS should put the debate to rest:

centennial
10-08-2007, 06:31
That letter doesn't clarify anything because it is not an official AG opinion.
It's not signed by Mike Cox.
It carries no legal weight.

douglasd
10-08-2007, 08:55
Originally posted by centennial
That letter doesn't clarify anything because it is not an official AG opinion.
It's not signed by Mike Cox.
It carries no legal weight.

Oh, give me a break! It does come from the AG's office, and from the State of Michigan, Criminal Division. It would certainly get you off if some idiot prosecutor tried to say otherwise. I swear, some people are just plain paranoid.

Apparently you didn't read the whole thing...there is a section in the state statute that says that singular also means plural, for any law on the books, unless it says ONE, and only one, or "limited to one", etc.

And besides, it's not signed by some secretary, it's signed by the Chief Deputy AG, who has the authority to act on his behalf. She could not be giving out opinions that he didn't agree with. I'm sure he has to approve everything going out.

When both the Michigan State Police (I've already posted that letter) and the AG's office say there is no limit, how much more proof do you want? :upeyes:

zbusdriver
10-08-2007, 09:39
Originally posted by douglasd
When both the Michigan State Police (I've already posted that letter) and the AG's office say there is no limit, how much more proof do you want? :upeyes: douglasd,

thank you for taking the time to clarify this issue. :thumbsup:

you'll never convince those with reading comprehension problems. as you and others have already stated: there is NO LIMIT in the michigan CPL statute, and therefore -- THERE IS NO LIMIT!

the two letters you've produced prove your point very well. the law does NOT impose a limit! but reading comprehension and the inability to reason seem to be a big problem here in michigan.

centennial
10-08-2007, 13:45
I don't need any proof. I carry the number of firearms I feel necessary under any given circumstance. In many instances that is more than one.
My reading comprehension is excellent.
I do know for a fact that there are several county prosecutors that are looking for a case of multiple carry with a ccw to try.
That letter and the opinion of the MSP will not stop them from a prosecution if they find one.
People need to know that.
If you knew me, you would NOT say that I'm paranoid.

RS2
10-08-2007, 14:03
Originally posted by centennial
If you knew me, you would NOT say that I'm paranoid.

I know you, and I would agree with both what you said and how you said it.

There is a very fine line separating paranoia from preparedness, both on the street and in the courtroom. I find I cross it frequently.

gsbell
10-08-2007, 14:41
Originally posted by centennial
That letter doesn't clarify anything because it is not an official AG opinion.
It's not signed by Mike Cox.
It carries no legal weight.
+1

douglasd
10-08-2007, 16:35
Originally posted by centennial

That letter and the opinion of the MSP will not stop them from a prosecution if they find one.


Maybe (and that's a stretch...I don't believe you for a moment), but it would most definitely stop them from winning the case, and therefore, they pay court costs.

Please tell me what more proof you're looking for? If the AG and State Police aren't enough authority, what would be??

I've heard this story of prosecutors "looking for a case to try" for a long time, but no one can ever provide proof that it's true. Which prosecutor??? I'd like to give him/her a call. Give me a name and county.

In the meantime, worry about the real threats to our 2A rights...we have enough of those without making up more!

zbusdriver
10-08-2007, 18:59
Originally posted by centennial
That letter doesn't clarify anything because it is not an official AG opinion.
It's not signed by Mike Cox.
It carries no legal weight. we do not need the AG’s opinion because the legal weight is carried in the michigan CPL statute. a bit of paranoia is healthy, but the prosecutor looking for a case sounds like a social rumor. my brother used to be a county prosecutor and is now a federal prosecutor. he and his fellow prosecutors are extremely busy and have little time for such nonsense. there are some rogue prosecutors out there, just as there are rogue cops, teachers and liberians -- but they are the exception.

usually, something is legal until it is made illegal. i read the entire statute two years ago, before i applied for my CPL: there is NO STATED LIMIT in the michigan CPL statute, and therefore -- THERE IS NO LIMIT!

RS2
10-08-2007, 19:20
Originally posted by zbusdriver
...there are rogue cops, teachers and liberians -- but they are the exception.


Oh, come on! We haven't had problems with the Liberians in years.



As far as the statutory construction, you might be right. You might not. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine questions of law. Not the State Police or the Attorney General.

And that letter is NOT an AG Opinion.

douglasd
10-08-2007, 19:40
Originally posted by RS2
Oh, come on! We haven't had problems with the Liberians in years.



As far as the statutory construction, you might be right. You might not. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine questions of law. Not the State Police or the Attorney General.

And that letter is NOT an AG Opinion.


:brickwall:

As the letter said, the courts have already decided that singular also means plural, when not specifically limited, which it most certainly is NOT. :upeyes:

Tito
10-09-2007, 08:17
Originally posted by douglasd
:brickwall:

As the letter said, the courts have already decided that singular also means plural, when not specifically limited, which it most certainly is NOT. :upeyes:


RS2 is correct. That having been said, I don't see the point in attempting to discuss legal issues with those who cannot distinguish between "the courts", the legislature, the Liberians or the librarians, much less the impact they have on legal precedent.

Incidentally, that AG letter is extremely persuasive if not legally binding. Thanks for posting it douglasd. It's unfortunate that it didn't take the form an opinion thereby putting the matter to rest.

gsbell
10-09-2007, 09:37
Originally posted by Tito
It's unfortunate that it didn't take the form an opinion thereby putting the matter to rest.
This is the second time Cox has done this, is he sending us a message?

Tito
10-09-2007, 12:23
Originally posted by gsbell
This is the second time Cox has done this, is he sending us a message?

I'd bet he gets a ton of requests for formal opinions on a myriad of issues from all sorts of groups and individuals. I'd also bet that these opionion letters are sent out regularly. I wouldn't read anyhting into it. :)

douglasd
10-09-2007, 17:41
Originally posted by Tito
I don't see the point in attempting to discuss legal issues with those who cannot distinguish between "the courts", the legislature

I would like to know exactly who you're talking about there.
Thanks.

PDogSniper
10-10-2007, 16:01
Originally posted by gsbell
This is the second time Cox has done this, is he sending us a message?

Naw, IIRC, for him to deliver a formal opinion the request has to come from an attorney, judge or lawmaker...

I got the same kind of letter when I asked for clarification on the legal size of pepper spray...

douglasd
10-10-2007, 16:22
Originally posted by PDogSniper
Naw, IIRC, for him to deliver a formal opinion the request has to come from an attorney, judge of lawmaker...

I got the same kind of letter when I asked for clarification on the legal size of pepper spray...

But that request did come from a lawmaker.

RS2
10-10-2007, 17:22
Originally posted by PDogSniper
Naw, IIRC, for him to deliver a formal opinion the request has to come from an attorney, judge of lawmaker...

Attorneys? Nah, he won't answer to me either.



Here is the statute ...


MCL 14.32 Opinions for state officials; failure of prosecutors to file annual reports.

It shall be the duty of the attorney general, when required, to give his opinion upon all questions of law submitted to him by the legislature, or by either branch thereof, or by the governor, auditor general, treasurer or any other state officer, and also to notify the county treasurer of the proper county, of the neglect or refusal of any prosecuting attorney to make the annual report to the attorney general required of him by law.

douglasd
10-10-2007, 21:13
That request came from a member of the State Legislature. Why, then, didn't he answer with an "official" opinion? I must be missing something.

Does it have to come from the whole legislature, and not just one representative? I don't get it.

zbusdriver
10-10-2007, 22:12
Originally posted by douglasd
That request came from a member of the State Legislature. Why, then, didn't he answer with an "official" opinion? ... may i ask a stupid question? (see my signature line)

why do we need an "official" opinion from the AG? the michigan firearms CPL statue does not state a limit and therefore there is no limit.

RS2
10-10-2007, 22:29
Originally posted by douglasd
That request came from a member of the State Legislature. Why, then, didn't he answer with an "official" opinion? I must be missing something.

Does it have to come from the whole legislature, and not just one representative? I don't get it.

(A) It has been my understanding that a request for a formal AG Opinion may come from an individual legislator.

(B) I dunno.



Originally posted by zbusdriver
may i ask a stupid question (see my signature line)?

why do we need an "official" opinion from the AG? the michigan firearms CPL statue does not state a limit and therefore there is no limit. :upeyes:


There are no stupid questions ...


We don't technically "need" an AG Opinion. Personally, I'm reading the same statutory provisions you are. Nonetheless, there have in fact been one or more county prosecutors who have expressed an interest in charging someone carrying more than one pistol, although to my knowledge, there have been no such prosecutions as of yet. An AG Opinion might be helpful in clarifying the issue, however, statutory construction is ultimately a judicial function, thus the courts can interpret the statute without regard to the AG's Opinion, formal or otherwise.

douglasd
10-10-2007, 22:32
Originally posted by zbusdriver
may i ask a stupid question (see my signature line)?

why do we need an "official" opinion from the AG? the michigan firearms CPL statue does not state a limit and therefore there is no limit.

zbusdriver, I completely agree with you. But as you've seen, there are some on this forum who are paranoid and who don't seem to be able to comprehend the wording of the CPL statute.

Also, they seem to think that because the license says "Pistol License" instead of "Pistols License", that it means only one. When in fact, the singular is proper grammar and the "Pistols" is not, which is why they changed it. Most folks with common sense can see that...some cannot.

As you said, the law states no limit, therefore, there is none, as both the AG's office and the State Police have already said.

I believe they're waiting for God Himself to give them a tablet of stone saying it's ok to carry more than one handgun. It seems that's the only thing that will satisfy them.

douglasd
10-10-2007, 22:38
Originally posted by RS2
the courts can interpret the statute without regard to the AG's Opinion, formal or otherwise.

Wrong...if it's an OFFICIAL AG's opinion, that IS the law. Courts enforce the law, they do not interpret it. Only the Supreme courts can do that, and then only when it's not clear.

It's the AG's job to clarify laws that are unclear. That's what he's there for.

zbusdriver
10-10-2007, 22:39
Originally posted by RS2
Nonetheless, there have in fact been one or more county prosecutors who have expressed an interest in charging someone carrying more than one pistol, although to my knowledge, there have been no such prosecutions as of yet. do these prosecutors have nothing better to do, or are they related to Mike Nifong?

how will they capture their victim. have any police officers arrested a CPL holder for carrying more than one pistol?

RS2
10-10-2007, 22:46
I have heard only the rumors. I haven't heard of any arrests or prosecutions.


The point of these discussions is to make sure that people are aware that there is a potential issue out there.

We can all read the statute for ourselves, but no one - not even Doug - can tell us what the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court might do if the matter came before them.

The only thing dumber than giving legal advice over the internet, is taking legal advice over the internet.

douglasd
10-10-2007, 22:54
Originally posted by RS2
Nonetheless, there have in fact been one or more county prosecutors who have expressed an interest in charging someone carrying more than one pistol, although to my knowledge, there have been no such prosecutions as of yet.

WHO? WHICH PROSECUTOR??

Again, I just want ONE...one name, one county. So far all I've heard is myth and rumor.

I would truly like to give them a call and talk to them...but no one can even provide me with ONE prosecutor who "has been waiting to charge someone" for carrying more than one pistol.

zbusdriver
10-10-2007, 23:03
Originally posted by douglasd
I believe they're waiting for God Himself to give them a tablet of stone saying it's ok to carry more than one handgun. It seems that's the only thing that will satisfy them. :rofl: that's good!

i live by the golden rule: i'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission. i apply this to all facets of my life. :supergrin:

you "would-if" guys need to learn to read and understand the english language - and give it a rest! i'm done with you worrywarts! :tongueout:

zbusdriver
10-10-2007, 23:11
Originally posted by RS2
The only thing dumber than giving legal advice over the internet, is taking legal advice over the internet. :rofl:

Ron, this is priceless - you need to make this your signature line.

zbusdriver
10-10-2007, 23:23
Originally posted by RS2
I have heard only the rumors. I haven't heard of any arrests or prosecutions. i believe these to be social rumors. i doubt that any prosecutor is dumb enough to waste time, money and effort on this. after Mike Nifong (criminal) they would have to be retarded to make such an attempt.

bassplayer
10-13-2007, 09:21
Originally posted by douglasd
WHO? WHICH PROSECUTOR??

Again, I just want ONE...one name, one county. So far all I've heard is myth and rumor.

I would truly like to give them a call and talk to them...but no one can even provide me with ONE prosecutor who "has been waiting to charge someone" for carrying more than one pistol.

Might I make a suggestion? Why dont you call the ones in the tri county area and ask??? No one here will answer your questions as to which one or which county....:upeyes:





On a side note, why the heck cant I type an apostrophe with out the browser going into search mode (quick find?)??? strange!!!

centennial
10-13-2007, 11:54
I'd start with Wayne.

douglasd
10-13-2007, 22:46
Originally posted by bassplayer
Might I make a suggestion? Why dont you call the ones in the tri county area and ask??? No one here will answer your questions as to which one or which county....:upeyes:

I'm not going to waste my time calling around--I KNOW it's legal. Those guys are the ones who keep talking about these mysterious phantom prosecutors who supposedly are just looking to prosecute someone.

But just as I thought...no one can name even ONE.

bassplayer
10-14-2007, 16:45
Originally posted by douglasd
I'm not going to waste my time calling around--I KNOW it's legal. Those guys are the ones who keep talking about these mysterious phantom prosecutors who supposedly are just looking to prosecute someone.

But just as I thought...no one can name even ONE.

Ok, in that case -- All the nay-sayers, pick a county and call and report here! :thumbsup: Let's see the inconsistencies between the counties!

douglasd
10-14-2007, 18:31
And if you do, I want the County, prosecutor's name, and phone number...along with any evidence you have that they are "just looking for a case to prosecute". (What have they said that you have in writing that makes you think that.)

Tack
10-20-2007, 21:24
hahaa... I haven't seen this much tinfoil hat theory in a while.

No prosecutor is looking for a case to try on folks with CPLs. They would have a hell of a time trying to get that case to stick. Any decent lawyer could turn that around on them and not only would they have to pay court costs, but it would open them up to a civil lawsuit. The laws on the books do not specify "only one pistol may be carried". The only thing the word "Pistol" in "Concealed Pistol License" means is just that... You can carry a pistol and not rifles/shotguns.

If you are gonna be so technical on the wording of the license, then you should also tell people that they can't conceal a revolver since it is not technically a pistol, it's a handgun. Pistol is a handgun which has a chamber integral to the barrel. A revolver has a cylinder that lines it's chambers in line with the barrel.

douglasd
10-20-2007, 22:08
hahaa... I haven't seen this much tinfoil hat theory in a while.

No prosecutor is looking for a case to try on folks with CPLs. They would have a hell of a time trying to get that case to stick. Any decent lawyer could turn that around on them and not only would they have to pay court costs, but it would open them up to a civil lawsuit. The laws on the books do not specify "only one pistol may be carried". The only thing the word "Pistol" in "Concealed Pistol License" means is just that... You can carry a pistol and not rifles/shotguns.

If you are gonna be so technical on the wording of the license, then you should also tell people that they can't conceal a revolver since it is not technically a pistol, it's a handgun. Pistol is a handgun which has a chamber integral to the barrel. A revolver has a cylinder that lines it's chambers in line with the barrel.

+1...Good Post!

who_dat
11-16-2007, 18:07
Oops...I forgot to attach the letter...Ok, THIS should put the debate to rest:

Attached Files
File Type: pdf multiple-gun-carry.pdf (80.8 KB, 62 views)

Well, that didn't copy and paste, so for the link go from douglasd on post #11.

Thanks for that reference. I asked about this and got several answers/opinions. This will get printed and go in my carry file with several other items of interest for the gendarmes who know not what they speak.