• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can Out-of-state licensees CC in Michigan PFZs?

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
Well, you certainly seem to believe you know more than me.

Adieu, and good luck to you, and anyone who retains you for legal advise.

So, you can't back up what you're saying. Got it.

So I guess people in Indiana who are 18 with an LTC can't carry in MI because they are not 21, I guess the legislature intended for it to be that way even though 12(h) says nothing to support it.

I guess people who are licensed to carry by another state per 28.432 are not really exempt from 28.422

And I guess you really can't open carry in a PFZ's because the legislature could not have intended for someone to open carry in a school.

When you actually have that case law cite for legislative intent that lets a judge rewrite a law, please come back to share that with us. Until then, fight the good fight by passing out MOC fliers with your roomate in Kalamazoo.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,544
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
MGO is not much different...

You're wrong. This forum is much worse. At least on MGO there are confirmed lawyers moderating the legal section. Instead you have Jared, the lawdog who apparently failed his middle-school civics course and forgot what the duty of the judicial branch is when it comes to checks and balances over the legislative.

Who instead thinks that there is no such thing as legislative intent, and that a plain reading of any law referring to another must refer to it in its current form, even though the law has been amended many times since it was written 9 decades ago...
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
You're wrong. This forum is much worse. At least on MGO there are confirmed lawyers moderating the legal section. Instead you have Jared, the lawdog who apparently failed his middle-school civics course and forgot what the duty of the judicial branch is when it comes to checks and balances over the legislative.

Who instead thinks that there is no such thing as legislative intent, and that a plain reading of any law referring to another must refer to it in its current form, even though the law has been amended many times since it was written 9 decades ago...

It is unprecedented for a court to rewrite a law an apply it to a defendant in a criminal manner. The legislature rewrote the law and the law is now different. But I've already tried to get you to cite where a judge can do as you suggested.

It seems like you failed civics class.

Oh, and you're wrong about the MGO forum. I'm actually on there and you and I conversed earlier about how LEOSA doesn't just apply to handguns.

You see the difference is that on MGO you didn't come out swinging at people with no cites to back up what you claim, instead you insult and want others to bow down because you printed some MOC fliers.

Legislative intent is considered, but never to rewrite a law in a court and then reapply it to convict someone.

It's always assumed that a legislature knows what they are doing and that each statue is properly addressed,
 
B

brainless1911

Guest
So a Kentucky permit will be good to go here in Michigan? How about tinted windows on a car registered in Kentucky driven in Michigan?
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,544
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
It is unprecedented for a court to rewrite a law an apply it to a defendant in a criminal manner. The legislature rewrote the law and the law is now different. But I've already tried to get you to cite where a judge can do as you suggested.

It seems like you failed civics class.

Oh, and you're wrong about the MGO forum. I'm actually on there and you and I conversed earlier about how LEOSA doesn't just apply to handguns.

You see the difference is that on MGO you didn't come out swinging at people with no cites to back up what you claim, instead you insult and want others to bow down because you printed some MOC fliers.

Legislative intent is considered, but never to rewrite a law in a court and then reapply it to convict someone.

It's always assumed that a legislature knows what they are doing and that each statue is properly addressed,

If you take this same assumption (that out-of-state concealed licensees are not subject to our laws, because the citation in 28.425o is now pointing to the wrong subsection heading) over to MGO's lawyers, They'll tell you the same thing as I have.

Do you honestly think that the legislature intended, in 2006, to completely exempt out-of-staters from our PFZs when they modified the law to exempt corrections officers?
 
Last edited:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
780
Location
Fayetteville NC
From the outside: I have a Concealed Handgun Permit from my state of residence. Michigan recognizes that and affords me the same priviledges MI residents have. I also have the same restrictions. Additionally, even when not dealing with NC LEOs, I still have the "duty to inform" of my CHP and whether or not I am armed.

A MI state court cannot revoke my CHP, but I can be charged and tried for related offenses. My Sheriff must do the revocation IAW NC law.
As far as OC, it matters not where I am from; in MI, I have to abide by MI law.

Conversely, an MI resident may carry openly in NC with the same exact authority and restrictions I have (no permit or license required). Your concealed carry permit is also afforded the same recognition mine but with the exception that you may not purchase and take possession of a handgun here. You can purchase, but an FFL has to be involved and the gun will be shipped to MI.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,494
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
So a Kentucky permit will be good to go here in Michigan? How about tinted windows on a car registered in Kentucky driven in Michigan?

Pat, I don't think that is an analogy that works. You don't need a license to tint windows. Licensing is a different animal. Traffic laws apply across state lines and the states have power to enforce them.

What is the penalty for CCing in a PFZ in Michigan, civil infraction, fines and suspension of your license. I suppose the out of stater could be fined, but how can they suspend his CPL?
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,494
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
This is an interesting topic. Much like OCing in PFZ with a CPL. I'm sure the legislatures intent was not to allow it, yet here we are. The arguments are the same. Wording of statutes mean things. Sometime legislative intent is taken into account, based on notes, etc.. But sometimes it's not clear and you are left with what the law says. It takes the legislature to correct these types of things.

My spin is that the OP is correct and non-residents are exempted from PFZs.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,157
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
And I guess you really can't open carry in a PFZ's because the legislature could not have intended for someone to open carry in a school.

Isn't that exactly what the judge in MOC v. CADL said? Didn't she rule that OCing in a PFZ with a CPL was not the legislative intent because that would lead to the "ridiculous" ability to openly carry a gun in a school?

Bronson
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
Isn't that exactly what the judge in MOC v. CADL said? Didn't she rule that OCing in a PFZ with a CPL was not the legislative intent because that would lead to the "ridiculous" ability to openly carry a gun in a school?

Bronson

She never said that as part of her ruling, it was dicta. Even she wasn't stupid enough to make a ruling on that because an appelate court would tear that apart.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
If you take this same assumption (that out-of-state concealed licensees are not subject to our laws, because the citation in 28.425o is now pointing to the wrong subsection heading) over to MGO's lawyers, They'll tell you the same thing as I have.

Do you honestly think that the legislature intended, in 2006, to completely exempt out-of-staters from our PFZs when they modified the law to exempt corrections officers?

If the MCRGO lawyers told you that, they are incorrect and they are welcome to come here and cite their position.

People are expected to know the law, they are not expected to know the history of each law and modify the letters that are codified in code based upon what they were thinking.

Did the legislature intend to do that? Probably not.

Does the law read as it reads and subsection f is now subsection h? Yes

The legislature never intended for OC in PFZ's, but that's what they passed. If legislative intent could be used to modify a law and convict someone, Nick from Grand Rapids would have is butt in jail for OC'ing in a school while voting.

The best part about Michigan Law (at least firearms law) is that it is so poorly written that even Eugene Volokh (2nd amendment scholar who's works have been cited by higher courts) said Michigan's laws are convoluted nonsense.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
She was still trying to legislate from the bench.

Neil,

Google search dicta, it will be self explanatory. A court will only rule on the issue at hand, the CADL case had to do with the state preemption law MCL 123.1102 (hopefully she is reversed on appeal). None of the facts of the case had to do with pistol free zones or anything of that nature.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,494
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Neil,

Google search dicta, it will be self explanatory. A court will only rule on the issue at hand, the CADL case had to do with the state preemption law MCL 123.1102 (hopefully she is reversed on appeal). None of the facts of the case had to do with pistol free zones or anything of that nature.

I think these guys are talking about her ruling and statements on the Watson appeal. About OCing at MSU Pavilion, not CADL.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,544
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
If the MCRGO lawyers told you that, they are incorrect and they are welcome to come here and cite their position.

People are expected to know the law, they are not expected to know the history of each law and modify the letters that are codified in code based upon what they were thinking.

Did the legislature intend to do that? Probably not.

Does the law read as it reads and subsection f is now subsection h? Yes

The legislature never intended for OC in PFZ's, but that's what they passed. If legislative intent could be used to modify a law and convict someone, Nick from Grand Rapids would have is butt in jail for OC'ing in a school while voting.

The best part about Michigan Law (at least firearms law) is that it is so poorly written that even Eugene Volokh (2nd amendment scholar who's works have been cited by higher courts) said Michigan's laws are convoluted nonsense.

Thank you. You said exactly what I wanted you to say.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
If you take this same assumption (that out-of-state concealed licensees are not subject to our laws, because the citation in 28.425o is now pointing to the wrong subsection heading) over to MGO's lawyers, They'll tell you the same thing as I have.

Do you honestly think that the legislature intended, in 2006, to completely exempt out-of-staters from our PFZs when they modified the law to exempt corrections officers?

This bill (see below),from a previous session of the legislature, attempted to rectify the situation... notice it did not pass. So, would knowing that, under the law,a person exempt under Section 12a(1)(h) does not have to adhere to the aforementioned restrictions AND doing nothing about it indicate to you that 1) the legislature is aware of the issue and 2), they don't think it is worthy of dealing with legislatively? I would claim it strongly supports my argument...

Analysis: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/House/pdf/2009-HLA-5471-1.pdf

see this link for all of the documents: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cm...ge=getobject&objectname=2009-HB-5471&query=on
 
Last edited:

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
Thank you. You said exactly what I wanted you to say.

Legislative intent does not equal the striking down of a law and reinterpreting and applying it by rewriting the law accordingly to convict someone.

It simply doesn't happen, it used to happen a long time ago before common law was introduced in the western world.

Years ago, the New Hampshire General Court accidentally repealed the law that criminalizes running a toll on the interstate. Guess what? People ran the toll with impunity until the General Court fixed the issue.

Still waiting on the court case that defends your claim in respect to criminal law against a defendant.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
This bill (see below),from a previous session of the legislature, attempted to rectify the situation... notice it did not pass. So, would knowing that, under the law,a person exempt under Section 12a(1)(h) does not have to adhere to the aforementioned restrictions AND doing nothing about it indicate to you that 1) the legislature is aware of the issue and 2), they don't think it is worthy of dealing with legislatively? I would claim it strongly supports my argument...

Analysis: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/House/pdf/2009-HLA-5471-1.pdf

see this link for all of the documents: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cm...ge=getobject&objectname=2009-HB-5471&query=on

I have also seen a bill that added an "s" to the concealed "pistol" law so it would be clear that one with a CPL can carry concealed pistols and not just a singular pistol. Just saying.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Michigan, USA
I have also seen a bill that added an "s" to the concealed "pistol" law so it would be clear that one with a CPL can carry concealed pistols and not just a singular pistol. Just saying.

I remember there was a D.A. in Wayne County that threatened that very issue but section 3a-5b in Michigan Law explains that issue in full. I don't think it was Kim Worthy, I believe it was her predecessor; nevertheless, that person mine as well be added to the list of incompetent attorneys.

The only place I've seen that has bureaucrats (not including the MSP) that seem to only understand Japanese when it comes to gun laws beside some in Michigan would be the zombie's they have in Philadelphia.
 
Top