MSP legal update NEW INFO!

[PDinDetroit]

Also, PD, why don't you send this over to Royal Oak's city council, once the official copy comes out

I hold no grudge against them AND I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. They know their actions will go nowhere, even they referred to them as "spitting into the wind".

I am thinking this should go to the City Of Warren instead...

And I know you are just kidding, but I wanted to make sure that those who read our Forum understand where we are at (you know who you are "chin music"!).

 

[Bronson]

I don't have the laws in front of me, nor do I have time to look them up right now, but my understanding is that a non resident license (Utah, Florida, etc...) to carry concealed would qualify a person from, say, Wisconsin to carry the same ways a Michigan resident of a registered handgun can carry.

I can dig up the specifics later, or if someone else can rattle off specifics of why I'm right or wrong in the mean time, that would be good too...

MCL 28.432, The Janet Kukuk Act, exempts a person with a conceald carry permit issued by any state from the requirements of obtaining a License To Purchase/Possess. So, somebody with a non-resident out of state permit would still be able to possess (OC) their pistol in MI.

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; citation as “Janet Kukuk act”.

Sec. 12.

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

(a) A police or correctional agency of the United States or of this state or any subdivision of this state.

(b) The United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps.

(c) An organization authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state.

(d) The national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization.

(e) A member of an entity or organization described in subdivisions (a) through (d) for a pistol while engaged in the course of his or her duties with that entity or while going to or returning from those duties.

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

(g) The regular and ordinary transportation of a pistol as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms or a licensed dealer.

(h) Purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm. As used in this subdivision, "antique firearm" means that term as defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.

(i) An individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting a pistol belonging to another individual, if the other individual's possession of the pistol is authorized by law and the individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting the pistol has obtained a license under section 5b to carry a concealed pistol or is exempt from licensure as provided in section 12a.

(2) The amendatory act that added subsection (1)(h) shall be known and may be cited as the "Janet Kukuk act".

Personally I think we should hold off on the high-fives until it's published. There's a chance the top brass might say "no way."

Bronson

 

[DrTodd]

Please convey to Sergeant Aimee Maike my thanks in putting this together. Overall, it is a great document and just requires a few "tweaks" to make it SOLID.

Here are my changes:

1. Page 1, "Open carry of firearms" Section: Text in question - "You will not find a law that states that it legal to openly carry a firearm." A case could be made that the Michigan Constitution Article 1 Section 6 comprises the law that allows Open Carry, as Concealed Carry is illegal without as license so Open Carry would be legal based upon the Michigan Constitution Article 1 Section 6.

Not really, as the Michigan Constitution does not allow or disallow carrying firearms rather acknowledges a right that exists no matter what the "law" says.

2. Page 1, "Open carry of firearms" Section: Text in question - "A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or credit union)". This is missing the complete definition of MCL 750.234d (1) (a) - "A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution." Agreed

3. Page 1, "Open carry of firearms" Section: Text in question - "A CPL holder may carry a pistol concealed or visible." I would remove the word "visible" and replace it with "openly in a holster".

This one I would not advocate. I believe that the AG opinion about carrying a pistol openly in a holster suffices. I think limiting what "visible" means, although clearly allowing carrying a pistol in a holster due to the AG opinion, MAY include other modes of "carrying". Why further restrict OC to ALWAYS mean "in a holster"? Perhaps in the future some (not many, but some) could argue a drop leg rig truly may not meet the definition of a holster. Why unnecessarily expand what could be considered "concealed" (anything other than OC in a holster)?

4. Page 1, "Open carry of firearms" Section: Text in question - "A private property owner has the right to prohibit individuals from carrying a visible or concealed pistol on his or her property." I would change this to be "... carrying a firearm concealed or openly on his or her property". This better covers "Long Gun OC" and Pistol is defined as a Firearm in MI according to MCL 28.421 (just a subset of the superset).
Once again, your suggestion, by default, may expand what constitutes "concealed" because currently, there is no CCW charge for carrying a long gun concealed.

5. Page 2, "Transporting firearms" Section: Text in question - "One such exception allows for transportation of pistols in a vehicle for a “lawful purpose."". I would change this to be "One such exception allows for transportation of pistols in a vehicle for a “lawful purpose", not all "lawful purposes" are defined in MCL 750.231a.".
Nope, I would keep "all lawful purposes" because by using "all lawful purposes" solidifies the fact that there are a number of "lawful purposes" which are attached to the transportation involved.
6. Page 2, "Transporting firearms" Section: Text in question - "There is no way to “open carry” a pistol in a vehicle. An individual, without a CPL or otherwise exempted (e.g., a police officer), who transports a pistol in a vehicle to an area where he or she intended to “open carry” may be in violation of MCL 750.227." I would remove this text, as the information presented in that section already addresses transportation of firearms properly, with exceptions to MCL 750.227 noted in MCL 750.231a.
Although the author is correct, the only time this would be correct is if the end purpose of transportation would be an illegal act... I agree that it should be removed.

7. Page 2, "Carrying concealed weapons" Section: Text in question - "MCL 750.227 also makes it a felony for a person to carry a concealed pistol on or about his or her person." I would change this to "MCL 750.227 also makes it a felony for a person to carry a concealed pistol on or about his or her person without a Concealed Pistol License (CPL)."

As there are other exceptions besides a permit, I would either keep it the same or, even better, state somewhere in this sentence that there are exceptions... and leave it at that. That way, the list of exceptions can hopefully be expanded upon without the Legal Update becoming "dated"

8. Page 2, "Firearms Act" Section: Text in question - "Public or private day care center". This is missing the complete definition of MCL 28.425o (1) (b) - "A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency."
Agreed.

9. Global Change: Change "visible pistol" to "pistol carried openly in a holster".

Once again, your suggestion, by default, may expand what constitutes "concealed".

10. Should Federal PFZ Areas be described in this document as well or leave these out of the MSP Update?

Since the MSP may provide legal updates only on Michigan State law, not federal law, I would leave this out.

11. Should Long Gun OC be described in this document as well or leave this out of the MSP Update? It probably shoud be... but

Please read comments in Red

 

[DrTodd]

MCL 28.432, The Janet Kukuk Act, exempts a person with a conceald carry permit issued by any state from the requirements of obtaining a License To Purchase/Possess. So, somebody with a non-resident out of state permit would still be able to possess (OC) their pistol in MI.




Personally I think we should hold off on the high-fives until it's published. There's a chance the top brass might say "no way."

Bronson

Good point and am surprised, as much as I argue for this understanding at times, that I missed it...thanks!

 

[autosurgeon]

I agree with Dr Todd and only discussed the Transportation to OC issue in depth.

Be aware there is no way a legal update can hit everything BUT one by one they can over time build on the topic. If this is approved it will be #3.

 

[DrTodd]

I agree with Dr Todd and only discussed the Transportation to OC issue in depth.

Be aware there is no way a legal update can hit everything BUT one by one they can over time build on the topic. If this is approved it will be #3.

Although it is somewhat "covered" by reference to CPL holders carrying openly in any of the prohibited places they did mention, one fell through the cracks. It would be "nice" if they added reference to MCL 750.237a(4) (Michigan's "Weapon-Free School Zones") and the exceptions (MCL 750.237a(5)) too, but I guess one can't ask for everything!

 

[stainless1911]

We can and should, at least, ask.
Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Please read comments in Red

I will reply here instead of copying all that.

1. That is fine. In any event, we have the RIGHT to Carry which is what I was trying to point out. Since Concealed requires a license, then Open could be construed as part of the RIGHT enumerated and is then "covered" within the MI Constitution Article 1 (Declaration of Rights).

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

3. You completely misread what I suggested. The author introduced the term "visible", which is not used in the Firearm MCL's nor is it used in the MI AG Opinions on Firearms. Since this term has not been used, I believe introducing it in this MSP Legal Update does not make good sense. I agree that the MI AG opinion about carrying a pistol openly in a holster should suffice, which I why I suggested replacing "visible" with "openly in a holster" as this text comes directly from that MI AG Opinion (7101). It could also be listed as "openly" instead of "visible", which may help in the future.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

4. That is fine, I was hoping to cover "long gun OC" in some way. I now suggest "... carrying a pistol concealed or openly on his or her property".

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

5. You completely misread what I suggested. I never suggested removing "all lawful purposes". I suggested adding "not all "lawful purposes" are defined in MCL 750.231a" to the end of the text I copied in (highlighted it in BOLD). Although it should be self-evident that not all Lawful Purposes are defined in MCL 750.231a, it is a good opportunity to remind Police Officers of this as some were taught the old "to-from" rules were the only lawful transport "locations".

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

7. The author did not list any exemptions and should have, hence why I added "without a Concealed Pistol License (CPL)" (highlighted it in BOLD). Interestingly enough, the only exemption listed in MCL 750.231a (1) is the one I added.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

9. See #3 above.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

10. I have mixed feelings about it. If local Police Departments are called for MWAG in a Federal PFZ, then it would be good to have them properly informed. OTOH, this is supposed to be just MSP Legal Updates about MI Laws AFAIK. I have not looked at the other MSP Legal Updates to see if they cover any Federal Law info.

11. I have mixed feelings about it.


Critiquing my suggestions does nothing to provide EXACT TEXT SUGGESTED CHANGES that autosurgeon can then take to the MSP Person! Please provide EXACT TEXT SUGGESTED CHANGES!

 

[autosurgeon]

At this point based on my discussions I don't think we are going to get any major changes or additions to this legal update.

We may have gotten some minor changes however only time will tell.

 

[stainless1911]

I'm not sure how to best word the schools issue into the text, my apologies for this.

 

[autosurgeon]

I'm not sure how to best word the schools issue into the text, my apologies for this.

There are no plans to discuss K-12 schools in this update as it is to much to add.. they like to keep them to 2 or 3 pages max... so people will actually read them.

 

[DrTodd]

There are no plans to discuss K-12 schools in this update as it is to much to add.. they like to keep them to 2 or 3 pages max... so people will actually read them.

Immediatly after the section on the 1st page detailing MCL750.234d the The sentence: "Likewise, MCL 750.237a(4) of the Penal Code prohibits possession of a firearm in a weapon free school zone" could be added.

Then, the next paragraph listing the exceptions could be made plural: "The above sections...

Like I said, though, it is somewhat evident in the end of the 1st whole paragraph on the last page (see below). Inserting my suggestion on the 1st page would only make the legality of OC on school property explicitly clear by placing it near MCL750.234d

Therefore, a person with a valid CPL may carry a visible pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o and MCL 750.234d ergo, because schools are listed in MCL 28.425o, CPL holders carrying openly is legal.

 

[autosurgeon]

To us it seems so simple... but... this does have to be approved as well...

 

[DrTodd]

I will reply here instead of copying all that.

1. That is fine. In any event, we have the RIGHT to Carry which is what I was trying to point out. Since Concealed requires a license, then Open could be construed as part of the RIGHT enumerated and is then "covered" within the MI Constitution Article 1 (Declaration of Rights).

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?

Since my comments were in reference to your suggestion, I am saying that no change be made. Therefore, I can not suggest "EXACT TEXT" to apply to that with which I have no problem.

3. You completely misread what I suggested. The author introduced the term "visible", which is not used in the Firearm MCL's nor is it used in the MI AG Opinions on Firearms. Since this term has not been used, I believe introducing it in this MSP Legal Update does not make good sense. I agree that the MI AG opinion about carrying a pistol openly in a holster should suffice, which I why I suggested replacing "visible" with "openly in a holster" as this text comes directly from that MI AG Opinion (7101). It could also be listed as "openly" instead of "visible", which may help in the future.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?
Since my comments were in reference to your suggestion, I am suggesting no change be made. Therefore, I can not suggest "EXACT TEXT" to apply to that with which I have no problem. If I were inclined to change it, which I am not sure I am, I can see the inherent value of your response... changing "visible" to "openly". No change need be made to your suggestion; "exact text" is therefore not applicable.


4. That is fine, I was hoping to cover "long gun OC" in some way. I now suggest "... carrying a pistol concealed or openly on his or her property".

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?
Since there is no law in Mich which prohibits Long Gun CC nor OC outside of general firearm restrictions, I am suggesting no change be made. Therefore, I can not suggest "EXACT TEXT" to apply to wording with which I have no problem.


5. You completely misread what I suggested. I never suggested removing "all lawful purposes". I suggested adding "not all "lawful purposes" are defined in MCL 750.231a" to the end of the text I copied in (highlighted it in BOLD). Although it should be self-evident that not all Lawful Purposes are defined in MCL 750.231a, it is a good opportunity to remind Police Officers of this as some were taught the old "to-from" rules were the only lawful transport "locations".

Point taken... I agree.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?
That would mean I see the value in your argument and your text regarding this is fine.

7. The author did not list any exemptions and should have, hence why I added "without a Concealed Pistol License (CPL)" (highlighted it in BOLD). Interestingly enough, the only exemption listed in MCL 750.231a (1) is the one I added.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update? If one feels compelled to add the cpl exemption, one probably should then add the exemptions to the cpl itself, which in effect serve as exemptions to MCL 750.231. Just too much... my opinion is leave it alone. Therefore, no suggestion of "exact text" would apply

9. See #3 above.

What is your EXACT TEXT suggestion, if any, for changing this language in the MSP Legal Update?
See #3 above.

10. I have mixed feelings about it. If local Police Departments are called for MWAG in a Federal PFZ, then it would be good to have them properly informed. OTOH, this is supposed to be just MSP Legal Updates about MI Laws AFAIK. I have not looked at the other MSP Legal Updates to see if they cover any Federal Law info.
Although reference may be made to Federal Law, my understanding is this only happens when Mich. law explicitly references Federal law. Eg: Motorcycle helmets meeting DOT standards. I most certainly could be wrong.
11. I have mixed feelings about it.
As do I. I certainly do understand that the absence of prohibition in many people's minds does not mean it is legal. But, that is a basic legal concept in the US. It would be good to change people's minds about the issue, but I think if we include it here it "muddies the waters". Look at what happens if anyone dares discuss the subject here; it turns into a "extremely good/extremely bad" positioning which appears to devolve into name-calling and personal attacks. At this point in time, I think it is wise to decline including long-gun OC in any discussions. Baby steps, although at times frustrating, may sometimes be prudent.


Critiquing my suggestions does nothing to provide EXACT TEXT SUGGESTED CHANGES that autosurgeon can then take to the MSP Person! Please provide EXACT TEXT SUGGESTED CHANGES!

I must first state that I thought that I understood the reasoning which compelled you to suggest the changes you did and, although somewhat presumptive at the time, I feel that in reading your response, I DID in fact understand why you made the suggestions you did. I was not disagreeing because I thought that your suggestions were poorly constructed, rather that I considered the possible negative ramifications if your suggestions were acted upon. I have since changed my opinion to #5 not from a point of disagreement to agreement regarding your motive, but rather the idea that perhaps your suggestion outweighed the inherent problems that could come from such changes.
Let me add that I assumed that a reader would understand that, if I made no suggestions to the MSP Update or agreed with you, I thought no suggestions ("exact text") were needed. Perhaps I should have made that more explicit. Since I have changed my opinion regarding #5, no changes would need to be made to your text... once again, I don't feel that any suggestion from me is needed when I agree with the wording. Pardon my inherent inability to communicate... my bad for assuming that not supplying "exact text" would imply that I agree with the wording. Next time, I will add a statement to that effect in every one of my replies so that I am not taken to task for something that is, at least to me, evident by it's ommision in my response. My apologies.

 

[The Expert]

I dunno if anyone here has a direct contact to the people making these things, but it might be a good idea to ask them to include the guidelines about there being no guns allowed (OC or CC, with or without a CPL) on the University of Michigan, MI State, and Wayne State.

It is my guess that many people will end up downloading this who are not police officers and having this included in the document would help inform students who want to carry when there is very little on the power of these schools to make up their own enforceable laws floating around out there on the internet.

I almost tried to OC there with my CPL before I found info here....that would have ended up badly for me.

 

[autosurgeon]

I dunno if anyone here has a direct contact to the people making these things, but it might be a good idea to ask them to include the guidelines about there being no guns allowed (OC or CC, with or without a CPL) on the University of Michigan, MI State, and Wayne State.

It is my guess that many people will end up downloading this who are not police officers and having this included in the document would help inform students who want to carry when there is very little on the power of these schools to make up their own enforceable laws floating around out there on the internet.

I almost tried to OC there with my CPL before I found info here....that would have ended up badly for me.

That may be discussed in a future update... however the State Police does not generally concern themselves with local ordinance as they very seldom enforce them.

I have been in direct contact with the Author and that is what she said.

 

[army74]

MSP legal update

Ive seen the document ive got it printed out the full 3 pages and it does mention school and school property. It says the statue only applies to a cpl holder carrying concealed. If the cpl holder is carrying a visible pistol the statue does not apply. I went to my sons Parent teacher confrence OCing no problems except the main principal and the 9th grade principal went looking for me. A close friend who is the 10th grade principal said we cant do anything so they said i was wrong and i cant carry there. They are going to call MSP and find out if this is correct because it scares him. Then they would like Msp to come in and explain it to the administrators

 

[stainless1911]

Do me a favor and have them send MSP to Waterford when they are done, It could be a great icebreaker for us. Are you still in? I'm planning on starting this up again next week. Had to scrap out the old car, and put another one on the road, so I haven't had time.

 

[scot623]

Printing out and using a document that has not yet been published is bad form.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

agreed we need to wait for it to be posted by the MSP then we can use it. also we need to let this document work for us. instead of trying to make changes to it, this is very nearly the holy grail of proof that we have been right, before the MSP finally agreed were were right.

this has been a dream document to use as proof of what we have been fighting for. we can work on the minor tweaks later, and IMO we can get rid of the tri-folds entirely and use this legal update. this could save MOC money on tri-folds, thanks MSP!:banana: