• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Non CPL OC in National Parks in Michigan

Y

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
I plan to camp (for probably up to a week) on South Manitou Island this summer which is a part of Leelanau County and the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. I was wondering about the legalities of open carrying on a National Park with no CPL, I know that MCL 324.504 covers state parks or rather any property under the control for the DNR and it states:

(6) The department shall not promulgate or enforce a rule that prohibits an individual who is licensed or exempt from licensure under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, from carrying a pistol in compliance with that act, whether concealed or otherwise, on property under the control of the department..

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rf...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-324-504

I googled around and havent found anything that makes me 100% positive I can in a Federal park so I thought I would ask so I can be sure before I make the trip since someone on here I'm sure will know an answer or where I can find it.

Thanks in advance guys.
 
SpringerXDacp

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
http://worldexaminer.com/2010/02/27/nra-ila-right-to-carry-takes-effect-in-national-parks/

  • Under the new law, every park is subject to all the firearms laws of the state (or states) where the park is located.
  • Park visitors must know and obey state laws, including knowing which state laws apply in parks (such as Yellowstone) that cross state boundaries. (For information on state laws, go to www.nraila.org/gunlaws.)
  • The new law affects firearms possession, not use. Laws regarding hunting, poaching, target shooting or any unlawful discharge remain unchanged.
  • It will remain unlawful to carry in certain locations, under a separate law that prohibits possession of any firearm in a "federal facility."
Click to expand...

Read also:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...ittee-on-energy-and-water-appropriations.aspx
 
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
I once CC'd at the dunes -- until I took my outer shirt off, then I was "Virginia tuck".

Then again, I haz CPL
 
Last edited:
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Yance said:
(6) The department shall not promulgate or enforce a rule that prohibits an individual who is licensed or exempt from licensure under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, from carrying a pistol in compliance with that act, whether concealed or otherwise, on property under the control of the department..
Click to expand...

28.422

Since 28.422 is the law that spells out the License to Purchase/Possess/Transport and MI's registration scheme and it falls within the range of laws in the cite my personal opinion would be that you'd be legal. However, Venator has had several discussions with at least one DNR officer who disagreed. I know V was working on getting him to understand but I don't know if he succeeded.

Bronson
 
Y

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
I was thinking about printing off a copy of 324.504 and 28.422 just in case I get hassled I could have the information right there with me.
 
PDinDetroit

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Bronson said:
28.422

Since 28.422 is the law that spells out the License to Purchase/Possess/Transport and MI's registration scheme and it falls within the range of laws in the cite my personal opinion would be that you'd be legal. However, Venator has had several discussions with at least one DNR officer who disagreed. I know V was working on getting him to understand but I don't know if he succeeded.

Bronson
Click to expand...

IMO, it will take a Michigan Attorney General Opinion on MCL 28.422 as being the "Michigan Open Carry Law" before Lawyers, Police, Citizens, etc to refer to it as such. It SEEMS very Self-Explanatory to me...
 
Yooper

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/Firearms-in-IMRparks2-2010.pdf

Don't pay much attention to the DNR regs. The DNR doesn't have control over federal land, thus MCL 324.504 doesn't apply there. MCL 324.504 was put in place to stop the DNR from restricting CPL holders where they (DNR) DOES have jurisdiction. Again, the DNR has no jurisdiction to control NPS property (the wildlife they might, such as fishing regs).
 
S

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
"• For national security reasons, guns cannot be carried into federal facilities within national parks. Notice of this rule will be clearly displayed outside all federal facilities. If you are unsure if a park building is a federal facility, look for a sign or ask a park ranger."

National Security reasons?? That's a stretch.
 
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
scot623 said:
"• For national security reasons, guns cannot be carried into federal facilities within national parks. Notice of this rule will be clearly displayed outside all federal facilities. If you are unsure if a park building is a federal facility, look for a sign or ask a park ranger."

National Security reasons?? That's a stretch.
Click to expand...

I've heard such buildings could include restrooms...
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I thought those were allowed due to the fact that .gov personnel dont occupy them.

The only threat to National security in the bathrooms is the explosions of toxic gasses in there, chemical warfare old school.
 
Last edited:
TheQ

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
That's a great citation. I'll use it myself.

"According to Stainless' memory -- there was a Forum posting on MGO where someone said"

HEARSAY!
 
griffin

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
TheQ said:
I've heard such buildings could include restrooms...
Click to expand...
Restrooms are not included in the federal restriction. I should find a cite but I am a million messages behind on catching up on the OC forums.

I will state that Stainless1911 was right. :banana: :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top