Just moved to Michigan. Need to register pistols (complicated)

[Big Gay Al]

Why would you leave Oklahoma?

ECS


Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

This is just a guess, but I'd say, off the top of my head, too many tornadoes.

 

[TheQ]

Tell me the last time you didn't have to fill out an RI-60 when buying a handgun? The registration wasn't eliminated, only the so-called "safety inspection."

And with certain exceptions, it's all listed in HB5225 also known as Public Act 377 of 2012

I don't have a foreign CPL. See MCL 28.432(f). Ergo I have to register.

 

[Bronson]

And with certain exceptions, it's all listed in HB5225 also known as Public Act 377 of 2012

But, but the strict letter of the lasw, 28.422 (the law requiring a PP & registration) is rendered null if you meet any of the requirements listed in 28.432.

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as "Janet Kukuk act".

Sec. 12.


(1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following:

"Section 2" is 28.422 in its entirety.

So if you meet one of the qualifiers in 28.432 you are exempt, completely, from 28.422.

It just so happens that sub-heading (f) in 28.432 is:

(f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.

So what Jared is getting at is that by the strict wording of the law if ANY U.S. citizen has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by ANY other state then they would be exempt from the entire MI PP/registration scheme. Notice it doesn't say "state of residence" but simply "another state." That's the kicker.

I'm too poor to be the test case on that one.

Bronson

 

[TheQ]

So what Jared is getting at is that by the strict wording of the law if ANY U.S. citizen has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by ANY other state then they would be exempt from the entire MI PP/registration scheme. Notice it doesn't say "state of residence" but simply "another state." That's the kicker.

I'm too poor to be the test case on that one.

Bronson

No more of a legal stretch than OC in a PFZ with a CPL...

 

[Big Gay Al]

But, but the strict letter of the lasw, 28.422 (the law requiring a PP & registration) is rendered null if you meet any of the requirements listed in 28.432.



"Section 2" is 28.422 in its entirety.

So if you meet one of the qualifiers in 28.432 you are exempt, completely, from 28.422.

It just so happens that sub-heading (f) in 28.432 is:



So what Jared is getting at is that by the strict wording of the law if ANY U.S. citizen has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by ANY other state then they would be exempt from the entire MI PP/registration scheme. Notice it doesn't say "state of residence" but simply "another state." That's the kicker.

I'm too poor to be the test case on that one.

Bronson

Yeah, that's the problem. I'm sure certain county prosecutors would be happy to get someone trying to utilize that statement. And I'm too poor as well to test it.

 

[Big Gay Al]

No more of a legal stretch than OC in a PFZ with a CPL...

That may be true, but there is at least an AG's Opinion on that. At least with regard to schools. And it apparently bugs the governor enough, he wanted to eliminate in the failed attempt to allow concealed carry in PFZs.

 

[TheQ]

Yeah, that's the problem. I'm sure certain county prosecutors would be happy to get someone trying to utilize that statement. And I'm too poor as well to test it.

Have you ever open carried In a pistol Freezone? Have your done so in Ingham county? That has actually been prosecuted in Ingham at least once before.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Have you ever open carried In a pistol Freezone? Have your done so in Ingham county? That has actually been prosecuted in Ingham at least once before.

I have several times, at the school my sons go to. Never had a problem.

 

[TheQ]

I have several times, at the school my sons go to. Never had a problem.

How is Jared's proposal any different?

 

[DrTodd]

But, but the strict letter of the lasw, 28.422 (the law requiring a PP & registration) is rendered null if you meet any of the requirements listed in 28.432.



"Section 2" is 28.422 in its entirety.

So if you meet one of the qualifiers in 28.432 you are exempt, completely, from 28.422.

It just so happens that sub-heading (f) in 28.432 is:



So what Jared is getting at is that by the strict wording of the law if ANY U.S. citizen has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by ANY other state then they would be exempt from the entire MI PP/registration scheme. Notice it doesn't say "state of residence" but simply "another state." That's the kicker.

I'm too poor to be the test case on that one.

Bronson

I agree with Jared. I believe Michigan has no right to determine whether a person meets the residency requirements of another state. Although they can determine if a person is a resident of Michigan, that's where their power ends. For instance, Florida has a form (affidavit) at their county offices that determines their residency.

 

[DrTodd]

Have you ever open carried In a pistol Freezone? Have your done so in Ingham county? That has actually been prosecuted in Ingham at least once before.

Was the prosecution successful?

 

[TheQ]

Was the prosecution successful?

No. But we all know the story. It's been rehashed dozens of time.

 

[Jared]

I agree with Jared. I believe Michigan has no right to determine whether a person meets the residency requirements of another state. Although they can determine if a person is a resident of Michigan, that's where their power ends. For instance, Florida has a form (affidavit) at their county offices that determines their residency.

What you say about residency is true; however, keep in mind that 28.432(f) does not mention residency. The law applies to any person who meets the requirements laid out in that section. And they are

1. U.S. Citizenship
2. License that allows someone to carry a concealed pistol.
3. That license must be issued by a state other than Michigan


This is why all my handguns are not registered

 

[DrTodd]

What you say about residency is true; however, keep in mind that 28.432(f) does not mention residency. The law applies to any person who meets the requirements laid out in that section. And they are

1. U.S. Citizenship
2. License that allows someone to carry a concealed pistol.
3. That license must be issued by a state other than Michigan


This is why all my handguns are not registered

I am aware of the noticeable absence of reference to "residency". I was obliquely referring to the current interpretation of the exception by the MSP... an interpretation on very shaky grounds imho. (See MSP Legal Update #86) But alas, I'm not an attorney so my opinion is just my understanding of the issue and in no way serves as legal advice.

BTW, Michigan's exception to their concealed-carry law also was similarly worded...and then subsequently changed to reflect an Attorney General opinion (#6798) and Appeals court memorandum which said that a Michigan resident could not carry a concealed pistol under a license issued by another state. That law too only stipulated the 3 requirements you mention above . But...I think you knew that... as evidenced by your reference to "legislative intent".
Carry On

 

[Big Gay Al]

How is Jared's proposal any different?

Is there an AG's opinion on it?

 

[Jared]

I am aware of the noticeable absence of reference to "residency". I was obliquely referring to the current interpretation of the exception by the MSP... an interpretation on very shaky grounds imho. (See MSP Legal Update #86) But alas, I'm not an attorney so my opinion is just my understanding of the issue and in no way serves as legal advice.

BTW, Michigan's exception to their concealed-carry law also was similarly worded...and then subsequently changed to reflect an Attorney General opinion (#6798) and Appeals court memorandum which said that a Michigan resident could not carry a concealed pistol under a license issued by another state. That law too only stipulated the 3 requirements you mention above . But...I think you knew that... as evidenced by your reference to "legislative intent".
Carry On

Opinion 6798 was Frankie boy making up the law because it rendered his coveted may-issue law useless; however, I am not aware of any conviction for a MI resident who carried on an out of state permit under the old may-issue law. the bureaucrats just threatened arrest but that was before the Internet and video cameras were as advanced and as prevalent as they are today

 

[TheQ]

Is there an AG's opinion on it?

Do AGOs have the force of law?

 

[Jared]

Is there an AG's opinion on it?

Yep, the same AG opinion that assures a driver that having a drivers license will act as an exemption to the crime of operating a motorized vehicle on a public road.

Because even though the exemption is spelled out in black and white, you can't be too safe until the bureaucrats tell you

 

[Jared]

Do AGOs have the force of law?

No, they do not at all.

 

[autosurgeon]

No, they do not at all.

They do on the agency that requests them until such time as there is legislation or case law.

Sent from my Optimus G using Tapatalk 2