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

[DrTodd]

I posted this a few years ago, but since Venator asked for support of my statement that out-of-state license to conceal holders can CC in Michigan PFZs in another thread, I thought I would prominently place my response here so that everyone can be aware of this apparent anomaly....

Michigan law requires anyone who wishes to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan to either a) get a Michigan concealed pistol license or b), be covered under an exception. The exceptions are listed in MCL 28.432a


MCL 28.432a Persons to whom requirements inapplicable; "local corrections officer" defined.Sec. 12a.
(1) The requirements of this act for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol do not apply to any of the following:


(a) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States or of this state or a political subdivision of this state, who is regularly employed and paid by the United States or this state or a subdivision of this state, except a township constable.


(b) A constable who is trained and certified under the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203, MCL 28.601 to 28.616, while engaged in his or her official duties or going to or coming from his or her official duties, and who is regularly employed and paid by a political subdivision of this state.


(c) A person regularly employed by the department of corrections and authorized in writing by the director of the department of corrections to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties or while going to or returning from his or her duties.


(d) A person regularly employed as a local corrections officer by a county sheriff, who is trained in the use of force and is authorized in writing by the county sheriff to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties.


(e) A person regularly employed in a city jail or lockup who has custody of persons detained or incarcerated in the jail or lockup, is trained in the use of force, and is authorized in writing by the chief of police or the county sheriff to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties.


(f) A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty.


(g) A member of the national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization while on duty or drill or while going to or returning from his or her place of assembly or practice or while carrying a concealed pistol for purposes of that military organization.


(h) A resident of another state who is licensed by that state to carry a concealed pistol.






Notice that exemption, 12a(1)(h), is the one which concerns out-of-state residents.


Now, we go to the statute which prohibits concealed carry on certain premises


MCL 28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined;
exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.
Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:....


Notice which people are covered... those who have been issued a license (residents) and those carrying under exemption 12a(1)(f) ie A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty.


Since the only "exempt" individuals who are subject to the MCL 28.425o restrictions are those who are carrying under 12a(1)(f) A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty, people from other states carrying under a 12a(1)(h) exemption are free to cc in the pfz's, and are also exempt from many other restrictions to a cpl holder. I'd look those up and cite them too, but I think you are as equally able.


BTW SB59 does change the 12a(1)(f) to 12a(1)(h)... thereby requiring that out-of-state residents carrying under the 12a(1)(h) exemption would also come under all of the restrictions in the same manner as a person who is licensed by Michigan, but as it stands right now, they may cc in the 28.425o restricted areas.

[SpringerXDacp]

Since the only "exempt" individuals who are subject to the MCL 28.425o restrictions are those who are carrying under 12a(1)(f) A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty, people from other states carrying under a 12a(1)(h) exemption are free to cc in the pfz's, and are also exempt from many other restrictions to a cpl holder. I'd look those up and cite them too, but I think you are as equally able.

In my opinion, Section 12a, is simply exempting folks from other states who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol in their state of residence and not requiring them to obtain a Michigan CPL while visiting here. Anyone from another state who choses to carry (OC and/or CC) here in Michigan, must abide by our rules. I really don't think that Section 12a allows those folks to CC in our Concealed PFZ's.

[TheSzerdi]

In my opinion, Section 12a, is simply exempting folks from other states who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol in their state of residence and not requiring them to obtain a Michigan CPL while visiting here. Anyone from another state who choses to carry (OC and/or CC) here in Michigan, must abide by our rules. I really don't think that Section 12a allows those folks to CC in our Concealed PFZ's.

While I agree your interpretation is probably the intent, the actual written word specifies differently. And isn't the actual written word how we interpret the law to our current benefit? (OC'ing in PFZ's.)

Edit to add: Don't out-of-staters have to follow their own CPL's restrictions in any case?

[Jared]

In my opinion, Section 12a, is simply exempting folks from other states who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol in their state of residence and not requiring them to obtain a Michigan CPL while visiting here. Anyone from another state who choses to carry (OC and/or CC) here in Michigan, must abide by our rules. I really don't think that Section 12a allows those folks to CC in our Concealed PFZ's.

You are not reading the law correctly. The exemption in 12a does not exempt a non-resident from the CPL law (28.425).

It exempts one from the prohibitions of carrying a concealed pistol and 750.227 has the exemption stated again, mainly for vehicle carry.

Dr. Todd is correct in his post, it doesn't matter if it's an anomaly or an oversight. It's a criminal statute; therefore, the interpretation is strict and benefit of the doubt is given to the person charged.

Similar to how if a Michigan resident who is licensed by another state to carry, they are exempt from 28.422, meaning they do not need a purchase permit nor do they have to register a pistol. It wasn't intended that way but criminal statutes always have strict standards. A prosecutor can't claim " well, he is technically exempt, but it wasn't meant to be that way so we are asking the court to remove the exemption and prosecute."

[Jared]

Dr. Todd,

It gets better because as you iterated above. A non-resident with a carry license isn't considered licensed by Michigan like some other states do, instead they are exempt from the prohibitions in general.

Non-residents also do not needed to carry a second form of ID.

Non-residents also do not have to notify a LEO when carrying either.

A non-resident doesn't have to be 21 or older since that restriction only applies to applying for a license and not carrying as it does in Virginia and other places.

A non-resident is also exempt from implied consent. Even if they change this, if someone is 0.02 or 0.08, they do not have a CPL to suspend or revoke.

All the restrictions on CPL holders are in 28.425, since non-residents are not CPL holders, these restrictions do not apply to them.

[DrTodd]

Dr. Todd,

It gets better because as you iterated above. A non-resident with a carry license isn't considered licensed by Michigan like some other states do, instead they are exempt from the prohibitions in general.

Non-residents also do not needed to carry a second form of ID.

Non-residents also do not have to notify a LEO when carrying either.

A non-resident doesn't have to be 21 or older since that restriction only applies to applying for a license and not carrying as it does in Virginia and other places.

A non-resident is also exempt from implied consent. Even if they change this, if someone is 0.02 or 0.08, they do not have a CPL to suspend or revoke.

All the restrictions on CPL holders are in 28.425, since non-residents are not CPL holders, these restrictions do not apply to them.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

[autosurgeon]

And that folks is the kicker!

[WilDChilD]

I think you just blew my mind. I only had to read it a couple times but I see where your going.

[zigziggityzoo]

In 2006, MCL 28.432a was amended, but MCL 28.425o was not.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2006-HB-6394

This happens quite often. The judge will look at the laws as they were originally written, and find out what section 12a (1)(f) said when MCL 28.425o was passed had said when interpreting the law.

And here is what it said:

A resident of another state who is licensed by that state to carry a concealed pistol.

So no, OP, you are wrong.

[Jared]

In 2006, MCL 28.432a was amended, but MCL 28.425o was not.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2006-HB-6394

This happens quite often. The judge will look at the laws as they were originally written, and find out what section 12a (1)(f) said when MCL 28.425o was passed had said when interpreting the law.

And here is what it said:



So no, OP, you are wrong.

The exemptions read as they are written if subsection (f) was moved to (h) and the other sections of law were not updated, then they read as they read. If you have any case law to the contrary please share it with us because only a kangaroo court would take whiteout to a section of law because of how it reads.

They do so on constitutional grounds but not in the reverse to convict someone.

Even if they did amend the law to properly reflect subsection (h); a state court has no ability to suspend or revoke a license issued outside of Michigan, nor is there any penalty.

Some states will revoke licenses by decisions of other state's convictions, this is common with some states for drivers licenses due to interstate compact agreements; however, there is no system in place for that type of process for carry licenses in the 49 states (not Illinois), Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In fact, Delaware has no provision to revoke a CCDL (carry concealed deadly weapons). The only option they have is to not renew due to a disqualifier.

[zigziggityzoo]

The exemptions read as they are written if subsection (f) was moved to (h) and the other sections of law were not updated, then they read as they read. If you have any case law to the contrary please share it with us because only a kangaroo court would take whiteout to a section of law because of how it reads.

No, that's not how it works. Boy you must be a legal expert.

Courts decide the intent of the legislature.

They do so on constitutional grounds but not in the reverse to convict someone.

Even if they did amend the law to properly reflect subsection (h); a state court has no ability to suspend or revoke a license issued outside of Michigan, nor is there any penalty.

Some states will revoke licenses by decisions of other state's convictions, this is common with some states for drivers licenses due to interstate compact agreements; however, there is no system in place for that type of process for carry licenses in the 49 states (not Illinois), Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In fact, Delaware has no provision to revoke a CCDL (carry concealed deadly weapons). The only option they have is to not renew due to a disqualifier.

This isn't about revoking other licenses, this is about Pistol-free zones, and whether out-of-staters have to abide by them.

They do. That's what the legislature intended.

And a court can indeed force you to surrender your out-of-state license.

[Jared]

No, that's not how it works. Boy you must be a legal expert.

Courts decide the intent of the legislature.



This isn't about revoking other licenses, this is about Pistol-free zones, and whether out-of-staters have to abide by them.

They do. That's what the legislature intended.

And a court can indeed force you to surrender your out-of-state license.

Again, you made a claim but you can't cite to any authority. Instead you act childish and attack me as a "legal expert".

Show me a criminal prosecution where the law as written did not make the act illegal, but the judge decided to do so on his own?

You can't because you have nothing to back it up.

As far as making a court surrender an out of state license, again, show me a court case? A state court has no authority over another state matter. They could request that the other state revoke, but that's different from forcing you to "surrender" it.

I understand attacking someone may be okay on cop forums; however, OCDO holds posters to a higher standard and you made the claim that courts can cut and paste laws and make a legal exemption suddenly illegal. Mike and John require that you cite to the authority.

Let me know when you find that legal precedent.

The penalty for violating PFZ's is a suspension of a license. So how does that work with an out-of stater.

Arizona and Wisconsin only disqualify someone for a license for criminal matters if they are prohibited from owning guns.

A Rhode Island Pistol Permit issued under 11-47-11 or 11-47-18 is not subject to suspension per State v Capwell in Providence County. So again, how does that work?

If an Arizona Concealed Weapons Permit can only be revoked due to being prohibited by Arizona (A.R.S 13-3102) or Federal law from owning a gun, how could some judge in fly-over country Michigan suspend a license that is issued by another state subject to that state's law?

[zigziggityzoo]

I JUST CITED the original change to the law.

The forum admins, one of them being a lawyer himself, understands exactly how courts work.

There is nothing to cite there. Courts jobs are to interpret the intent of the legislature. Courts don't do, as you just described an "as they are written" plain reading of the law. They interpret the legislative intent.

And my CITE from earlier shows the original intent of the legislature was to include out-of-state licensees in the pistol-free-zone law.

I know you may not know me, but I'm a founding member of MOC dating back to 2007, and some of the stickies here in the Michigan forums are filled with content I created, like the OC info cards, the PFZ info cards, among other things.

I'm not here trying to stir up trouble. I'm here to tell you that giving out-of-staters bad advice like this is going to land out-of-staters in a world of hurt should they get caught carrying concealed in a PFZ listed in 28.425o.

[mrjam2jab]

Non-residents also do not have to notify a LEO when carrying either.

Maybe I missed it...but how do you get this?

[PDinDetroit]

I JUST CITED the original change to the law.

The forum admins, one of them being a lawyer himself, understands exactly how courts work.

There is nothing to cite there. Courts jobs are to interpret the intent of the legislature. Courts don't do, as you just described an "as they are written" plain reading of the law. They interpret the legislative intent.

And my CITE from earlier shows the original intent of the legislature was to include out-of-state licensees in the pistol-free-zone law.

I know you may not know me, but I'm a founding member of MOC dating back to 2007, and some of the stickies here in the Michigan forums are filled with content I created, like the OC info cards, the PFZ info cards, among other things.

I'm not here trying to stir up trouble. I'm here to tell you that giving out-of-staters bad advice like this is going to land out-of-staters in a world of hurt should they get caught carrying concealed in a PFZ listed in 28.425o.

+1

Good to see you here Zig!

[zigziggityzoo]

All it took was one thread to remind me of why I left in the first place.

[PDinDetroit]

All it took was one thread to remind me of why I left in the first place.

MGO is not much different...

[Jared]

Maybe I missed it...but how do you get this?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mia...me=mcl-28-425f

28.425f says a person licensed under this act must notify, a non-resident is not licensed under this act. Simple plain reading of the law.

Detroit PD arrested a resident for carrying because they could not verify his CPL due to a clerical error on behalf of the competent County Clerks Office.

How would it go for a New Hampshire resident whose license was issued by his town manager? There is no database available to verify and the town manager could be in Paris on vacation?

I wouldn't want to spend the night in jail because they can't "verify" the license.

Since 28.425f doesn't apply to non-residents due to a plain reading of the statute, I wouldn't bother.

At the end of the day, it's your choice.

[Jared]

I JUST CITED the original change to the law.

The forum admins, one of them being a lawyer himself, understands exactly how courts work.

There is nothing to cite there. Courts jobs are to interpret the intent of the legislature. Courts don't do, as you just described an "as they are written" plain reading of the law. They interpret the legislative intent.

And my CITE from earlier shows the original intent of the legislature was to include out-of-state licensees in the pistol-free-zone law.

I know you may not know me, but I'm a founding member of MOC dating back to 2007, and some of the stickies here in the Michigan forums are filled with content I created, like the OC info cards, the PFZ info cards, among other things.

I'm not here trying to stir up trouble. I'm here to tell you that giving out-of-staters bad advice like this is going to land out-of-staters in a world of hurt should they get caught carrying concealed in a PFZ listed in 28.425o.

Yes, you cited to how the law was changed and doesn't read the way it did in 2006. You didn't explain how a judge can say " well the legislature forgot to change that, so your guilty". I simply asked for precedent on the matter. Also you claimed that a judge in state A can unilaterally revoke a license issued by state B when they simply can't and you have no case to cite where they can.

As far as this forum being hostile, you threw the first insult so don't cry when it's thrown back at you.

I took heat on this forum back in 2006 for saying in Michigan that you can open carry in PFZ's when everyone else said Gray Peterson and I were wrong.

Oh, and thanks for promoting MOC back in 2007. It has definately helped with a paradigm shift in relation to police and public perception of gun owners.

[zigziggityzoo]

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.

[Jared]

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]

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]

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,

[brainless1911]

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?

[stainless1911]

Yes, to both.

Did you see my sig?