How many people here OC without a CPL?

Move to a state that is "shall issue" or is "Constitutional Carry or Permit-less Carry", their is well paying jobs in those states. Less crime, and friendly people.

jimd_21 said:

Move to a state that is "shall issue" or is "Constitutional Carry or Permit-less Carry", their is well paying jobs in those states. Less crime, and friendly people.

Click to expand...

Michigan is "Shall Issue"

Bikenut said:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4l...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234d

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
-snip-

Possess means, among other things, to have under your control. So if a gun is in a case in your vehicle.... a vehicle you own/drove to get there and have the keys that allow access to that gun... you "possess" it.

Premises means.... every bit of property... all of it... buildings, lawn, and parking lot.

With a plain reading of the law (and I am NOT an attorney... just another schmuck reading the law) it appears to me that without a CPL or the owner's/his agent's permission it is illegal to have a gun of any kind (it says "firearm" not just pistol!) anywhere on the property of a place that has a liquor license.

Please note that law also only deals with a place that has a liquor license... the store/gas station/whatever doesn't have to actually sell booze.. it just has to have the license so just because there isn't any booze for sale there that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have the license.

Other folks might read that differently and, as always, the advice of an attorney is suggested.

Click to expand...

^^^

Above post is a must read for non-cpl OC. There are some [CV67PAT/1Adam12] who question the need to avoid Michigan Liquor Control Commission [MLCC] Licensee properties for non-cpl citizens with a properly *stored* firearm in transport mode. He notes [correctly] that there is no case law on this. So the question is - are you willing to chance getting jammed up *possibly* by a overzealous PD/DA? If you answer no, the safest bet is to park on the nearest public street and walk to the place in question.

It pains me to quote the Q but if you can find a lawyer that says it is legal he can find a DA that says they will try to prosecute you for it none the less [paraphrasing here].

I'd like to see that argument.

The law reads plainly enough, it says you shall not be on the premises.

Its just a misdemeanor, but it will prohibit a CPL for 3 years.

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

^^^

Above post is a must read for non-cpl OC. There are some [CV67PAT/1Adam12] who question the need to avoid Michigan Liquor Control Commission [MLCC] Licensee properties for non-cpl citizens with a properly *stored* firearm in transport mode. He notes [correctly] that there is no case law on this. So the question is - are you willing to chance getting jammed up *possibly* by a overzealous PD/DA? If you answer no, the safest bet is to park on the nearest public street and walk to the place in question.

It pains me to quote the Q but if you can find a lawyer that says it is legal he can find a DA that says they will try to prosecute you for it none the less [paraphrasing here].

Click to expand...

I am aware there are some folks who suggest that if a person is legally "transporting" the firearm then, since it is legal to transport, it would be legal to possess a firearm on the premises of an establishment that has a liquor license because the firearm is in the process of being "transported"....

However, I cannot find any exemption for "transport" in 750.234d (see the law in posts above) that would mean "transporting" is legal. After all 750.234d states ...

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
-and a list of exemptions follow but I do not see any exemption in that list for "transporting"....

And, although I do not have any legal cite/link for this... which means it is my opinion only and I am NOT an attorney... if a person has control of the firearm (it's locked in your car, you know it is there, and you have the keys) then that fits the definition of "possess".... and even if a person is "transporting" a firearm they still "possess" it... and 750.234d says "shall not possess" but does NOT say ... "unless transporting". So, at least to me (again, my opinion), there isn't any need for case law to interpret what appears to be plain English black letter law.

Again... that paragraph above is only my uneducated and definitely only my personal opinion since I am NOT an attorney... as always.. for legal advice seek legal counsel.

Bikenut I too support your position on this and I attempted to advice a member on MGO about this as well, while getting into a discussion with Pat about the legality of 750.234d while transporting.

Having no CPL myself, MCL 750.234d reads that the only exemptions are if you have a CPL, permission, or are employed by the entity, I am none of the above so I do not take the risk while having my firearm with me. I also advise that someone with no CPL does not either, because like you said and like Pat said, there is no case law to prove anyone has been cited for this alone. However, the law states exactly what it states and nowhere in there is any exemption for "transporting in accordance with MCL 750.231a" So without a CPL its probably better judgment not to press your luck, JMO. I'm sure Pat will chime in about this before too long.

OT: I complain about having to unload and put my gun in my trunk every chance I get, however knowing that I can still have a means to protect myself far outweighs the extra effort I have to put into transporting it and unloading/loading at the trunk of my car. Going to places and going out to eat definitely have to be pre planned so I can make sure that I'm not taking my firearm any place I cannot legally have it. At first I was slow and unloading/loading, but now I can probably open my trunk, unload, put my chambered round in my mag, shut the case and trunk in less than 10 seconds, which I would say is pretty quick. Loading and holstering of course is a lot easier. Its something that gets used to and takes a lot of pre planning when going places but you get used to it and if you ever have to use your firearm it makes it all worth it.

MOC is working on getting a better understanding of parking lots and 234d. If we don't like the understanding we get, we're gonna try to "fix" it.

TheQ said:

MOC is working on getting a better understanding of parking lots and 234d. If we don't like the understanding we get, we're gonna try to "fix" it.

Click to expand...

From whom?

DrTodd said:

From whom?

Click to expand...

I could only tell members of our lobbying team that -- I sent them an email about it last week.

Based on your post, I'd say not everyone has read their email. Maybe they should

Not when it is supposed to forward... and it obviously doesn't. Hmmm.

Update: Problem solved... Thanks

Not sure if this is the time or place to ask, but is MOC planning to discuss the the places off limits in 234d or are the parking lots the current point of focus at this moment?