The 4 MSP Legal updates that explain the legality of Open Carry in MI

[autosurgeon]

The first legal update that mentions open carry of a pistol.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_-_April_2007_198953_7.pdf


The second legal update the mentions open carry of a pistol.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_-_May_2007_198956_7.pdf


The third legal update to mention open carry….

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._66_238184_7.pdf



The newest legal update specifically dealing with the carry open or concealed of a pistol.

And this is the big one as the entire update is completely and totally focused on carry law!

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

 

[TheQ]

Sticky! Sticky!

...or incorporate into the Open Carry Guide project sticky thread.

 

[stainless1911]

Sticky! Sticky!

...or incorporate into the Open Carry Guide project sticky thread.

Option #2

 

[autosurgeon]

Sticky! Sticky!

...or incorporate into the Open Carry Guide project sticky thread.

That is what we are going to do Malig and I have already discussed doing just that!

 

[Wglide90]

This is fantastic news. These updates validate All OCrs have been stating and for which we have been fighting all along. This is maJor victory. Congratulations to all involved in directing Michigan to issue these updates.

These documents rate right up there with Constitution and Bible with me, at least close third to them. But for OCr it is extremely important. Question is: When are all LEO agencies required to train on these updates?

 

[SIGfreed]

This is a great step for sure. But I don't like the way they stuck banks and credit unions in with depositories. IMO banks and credit unions don't fit the legal discription of a depository.

 

[malignity]

I plan on adding these to the OCGP, and also plan on adding relevant carry laws. I gotta talk to SAC to see if I can incorporate his post in it too.

 

[mudvr1212]

...

This does give the non col holder something to think about if they are asked why or how they got to said location open carrying. On the second page, it specifies that non col holders cannot transport a weapon to open carry said weapon to a location outside of the exempt locations.
Non cpl holders must ALWAYS be going to or from one of the exempt locations

 

[stainless1911]

I think that it is imparative that this issue be immediately adressed with the author, and corrected. open carry does fall in line with 231a under (vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

What is not illegal in Michigan, is by default, a lawful activity.

 

[TheQ]

This does give the non col holder something to think about if they are asked why or how they got to said location open carrying. On the second page, it specifies that non col holders cannot transport a weapon to open carry said weapon to a location outside of the exempt locations.
Non cpl holders must ALWAYS be going to or from one of the exempt locations

Don't talk to police. Wash/Rinse/Repeat.

I believe the law says (?) "en route", which could have several stops in between. Also, the author underlined the word "include".

I do agree it is a bit troubling, the paragraph she included about "may be violating..."

Again, WRR, folks.

 

[autosurgeon]

I think that it is imparative that this issue be immediately adressed with the author, and corrected. open carry does fall in line with 231a under (vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

What is not illegal in Michigan, is by default, a lawful activity.

This was already brought up with the author. I too can read and comprehend... they chose not to change that spot.. however they did adjust several others.

 

[stainless1911]

Oh my, this could go very badly for someone.:uhoh:

 

[stainless1911]

If any of you are following this thread, you might want to look at what has been said on the Waterford Schools thread.

 

[Scooter]

This is huge! What a great update to see!

 

[Billy]

Thanks kindly for the informative post, Mr. Auto Surgeon.

Respectfully,
Billy

 

[k_rasmussen]

Pleased to be able to celebrate this legal update of 10/26/2010 with my first post.

 

[quarter horseman]

Pleased to be able to celebrate this legal update of 10/26/2010 with my first post.

Welcome to OC k_ras! carry on!

 

[xd shooter]

Went to the second part of my CCW class, a MSP trooper giving the class on the Laws of the State of Michigan.

He DID have a copy of bulletin #86, and touched on it briefly during his discussion.

Later, while discussing the PFZ's, he mentioned all the places you could NOT carry weapons into, at which point I asked for clarification, asking if that meant carrying CONCEALED into these PFZ's, he stated that meant you could NOT carry into these places period.

I pointed out the paragraph that stated that with a CPL and OPEN carrying that this statute "does not apply". He then stated that this was a confusing statement and that he had an e-mail to Lansing, asking for further clarification.

We breifly discussed Open Carry, and why HE as a LEO didn't think that it was a good idea, citing scaring the Public and causing MWAG calls which COULD, he stressed COULD, cause some embarrasing situations for you as the gun carrier.

I gave him my card and asked that when he received any clarification from Lansing to contact me with the results. I hope that he does, as it could then also be added to his discussion at these classes.

Thoughts?

 

[stainless1911]

That's the same line that the Waterford PD gave me about the Waterford schools thing.

 

[Bronson]

I pointed out the paragraph that stated that with a CPL and OPEN carrying that this statute "does not apply". He then stated that this was a confusing statement and that he had an e-mail to Lansing, asking for further clarification.

CRIPES MAN! What the hell is he talking about? It's not confusing, it's plain as day and anybody with a 6th grade reading level should be able to understand it. He just doesn't like it so he's looking for ways to go on teaching the same old BS that he's always spouted. I'd ask for my money back since he's teaching incorrect/false information.

Bronson