house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

Jared said:

. . . last time I looked in my desk draw, I saw a Massachusetts Class A License to Carry Firearms and a Rhode Island Pistol Permit.

Click to expand...

Not on topic, just for sake of my curiosity: do you pay the $100 a year for a non-resident Mass. LTC? I ask for clarity, because a resident LTC is invalid as soon as you move out of MA.

Jared said:

I'm sure the police and gun board would have lied to you. Police lie all the time and I can tell you for a fact they are trained to do so.

Back in the 1990's, there was no Internet like today, no YouTube, no advanced audio and video recorders. So basically, you were lied to and they successfully intimidated you into not carrying.

The same tactic goes on today. How many police would say 4 or 5 years ago that open carry was illegal and that you would be arrested for disorderly conduct?

If I lived in MI in pre-shall issue days, I would have carried On a Florida permit, and of arrested, I would have sued the arresting officials and would have tried to take their house.

Click to expand...

In 85',when I recieved my FFL,I asked the sherriff depts in Monroe,Wayne,lenawee and Washtenaw counties if open carry was legal.All 4 said yes and 2 said if grandma calls they would show up with their guns drawn and pointed at me.

Do you mean like this?

Let's get rid of LTPs and registration first. Then let's clean up the other issues that this will create. Regaining freedoms is a good thing. Over the years a web of infringements have been built. Taking these apart will take some time. Look at the progress we have made here is Michigan!

The one thing I would suggest, quite strongly, is that if we lobby for this, and it passes, that we be ready to donate to the cause of someones court battle if they find themselves in federal court. A successful defense against the GFSZA could end up being exceptionally expensive. And since we're talking about something that will as a rule effect 18-20 year olds, most of who'm have the grimmest of job options at this point, not to mention the undesired effect of heavy police attention based on age, the financial burden aspect of this has a potential to be pretty bad.

If we can't all agree on that, what we're instead agreeing on is to say "**** you non CPL holders, I'm sick of registration".

Again, it would be ideal if we could have some kind of system that would automatically license people 18 and up along with their state ID's, or at least give them the option of taking the 10 question dumb ass test while getting their drivers license for some silly endorsement. But since our reps in Lansing seem incapable of that, and since we all seem to want the registration gone, let's please be ready to donate a painfully large amount of money to a defense attorney, in case someone gets popped.

Michigander said:

Those who thought gun handling getting in and out of cars was excessive are in for a rude awakening when non CPL holders, to include everyone below 21, will have to start carrying a case and lock, and upon getting to a borderline of 1,000 feet from a school (which of course they will have no choice but to guestimate), will have to draw and unload their gun, then put it in a locked case to transport it across the "school zone". I suppose it may be difficult for someone to understand how bad this is unless they've experienced it.

Even if you choose to violate a gun law, it causes an added unhealthy stress. If you choose to be an activist that breaks gun laws, you're essentially painting a target on your back that says arrest me. Poke around the PRK and Wisconsin forums for a look at how much this type of thing sucks.

It's really not complicated, and I'm sure the legislators understand it. Progress in this regard would be eliminating the vehicle carry bans, "licensing" everyone for the purpose of the GFSZA so long as they are 18+ with no felonies. But instead they just want to look cool to the majority of the voters while they partially neuter activists.

Click to expand...

Or they can simply buy a gun manufactured in the state they reside that has never crossed state lines. They can also carry a antique firearm while in or near a school zone. The law has no jurisdiction on private property within the Zone. I stopped paying my state the concealed fees a long time ago, I only open carry. I keep my gun in the trunk loaded which is acceptable, while driving I keep a loaded antique firearm on my person in a holster. We are lucky to have gun manufacturers within the state, check for a manufacturer within Michigan.

KBCraig said:

Not on topic, just for sake of my curiosity: do you pay the $100 a year for a non-resident Mass. LTC? I ask for clarity, because a resident LTC is invalid as soon as you move out of MA.

Click to expand...

I'm the only Mass instructor in Michigan. To keep that valid I need to have a Mass LTC, so yes it's $100 a year.

As far as a LTC (resident) expiring when you move out of state, there in nothing in the law in Chapter 140 that makes a license void when you move out of state. Some chiefs are just ignorant of the law and revoke it when you move out of state, but all you are required to do is let the Firearms Record Bureau know, and the chief of you current town know where you moved to.

Michigander said:

The one thing I would suggest, quite strongly, is that if we lobby for this, and it passes, that we be ready to donate to the cause of someones court battle if they find themselves in federal court. A successful defense against the GFSZA could end up being exceptionally expensive. And since we're talking about something that will as a rule effect 18-20 year olds, most of who'm have the grimmest of job options at this point, not to mention the undesired effect of heavy police attention based on age, the financial burden aspect of this has a potential to be pretty bad.

If we can't all agree on that, what we're instead agreeing on is to say "**** you non CPL holders, I'm sick of registration".

Again, it would be ideal if we could have some kind of system that would automatically license people 18 and up along with their state ID's, or at least give them the option of taking the 10 question dumb ass test while getting their drivers license for some silly endorsement. But since our reps in Lansing seem incapable of that, and since we all seem to want the registration gone, let's please be ready to donate a painfully large amount of money to a defense attorney, in case someone gets popped.

Click to expand...

People really aren't lobbying on anything at this point. I'm just sick of registration. I'm not that concerned about non-CPL holders, it sucks for them and I wish it wasn't so, but I wouldn't trade registration so Stainless and 18-20 year olds can carry in a school zone.

If I was going to save money for a GFSZ defense, it would be for my dad in Vermont because they have no carry license and therefore, he has no GFSZ exception.

Keep in mind the GFSZ buffer zone will be gone in 2 years. Once carry is recognized as a right at SCOTUS, the buffer zone will be gone. Also, the national reciprocity language (thanks to a long time member of OCDO) is specifically worded so a carry license counts as a GFSZ waiver nationwide.

The other thing you are all forgetting is that currently today, even with a CPL or exemption from GFSZ, it is still illegal to discharge a firearm for any reason in a school zone. So you could still be jammed up for carrying if you ever had to use it.

Before you say no one has ever been charged with a self defense shooting inside a GFSZ, remember that no one has been charged with violating the GFSZ as a stand alone charge.

WalkingWolf said:

Or they can simply buy a gun manufactured in the state they reside that has never crossed state lines. They can also carry a antique firearm while in or near a school zone. The law has no jurisdiction on private property within the Zone. I stopped paying my state the concealed fees a long time ago, I only open carry. I keep my gun in the trunk loaded which is acceptable, while driving I keep a loaded antique firearm on my person in a holster. We are lucky to have gun manufacturers within the state, check for a manufacturer within Michigan.

Click to expand...

That doesn't work in Michigan.

According to this site's rules, when spouting off about what a law says or doesn't say, then cite's are required.

With that given I then have to assume that your statement's are more your "opinion" vs any actual fact of law, correct?

You said,

The law then automatically extends the license from 10 days to 30 days for the purpose of transporting the gun that was just acquired on your purchase license. The license is no longer valid in any manner after 30 days. You simply just have a lawful handgun.

Click to expand...

Which to me looks like you are quoting a fact of law. I asked for a cite I might read this for myself. But if it's just your OPINION, then please state so.

28.422. . The law says you must carry the license with you for 30 days after issuance, but it still has an expiration date on it. You must obtain the handgun in 10 days and carry the license for 30 days after purchase.

I can't cite what doesn't exist. Look at a purchase permit, the damn thing expires, which means its no longer valid. And once it's used, it's used.

I really wish people would let go of this purchase permit pipe dream, it's not a New Jersey FID card.

Ths purchase permit fantasy will get HB 5225 killed if enough people call their senators.

To all purchase permit fans, it's possible a court could rule on the purchase permit lifetime fantasy favorably; however, a plain reading of the GFSZ is against everyone with this fantasy. And I can tell you that people close to Alan Gura laughed at the purchase permit fantasy.

Click to expand...

I happen to have a LTP in front of me. Yes, it has an expiration date on it, 10 days from the date of issue. Your opinion is that this license is now void. My opinion is that since the licensing authority shall retain the other copy of the license as an official record for not less than 6 years, it apparently does NOT expire. I suspect that at some point this information is entered into a computer database, so they then no longer need the Paper copy.

I would be curious to see what a license that a person who brings a pistol into this state who is on leave from active duty with the armed forces of the United States or who has been discharged from active duty with the armed forces of the United States shall obtain a license for the pistol within 30 days after his or her arrival in this state would look like? Possibly the very SAME LTP? If it's simply a "Purchase Permit", why would someone who already owns the pistol need to obtain a license to purchase?

MY opinion is that an LTP is actually the license for the Pistol, therefore never expiring until the Pistol is sold AND someone else licenses it.

Probably not such a "pipe dream" or "fantasy", now is it?

I'm not a big fan of this LTP because I simply see it as gun registration and I'm wary of the pitfalls associated with such registration. But this discussion is about it's validity as a defense to GFSZ violations.

So the license may still be valid, even if used. That should count as a GFSZ exception. The last part of subsection 6 would seem to make it valid beyond expiration as you pointed out.

I always focused on the expiration date and the word "used".

Click to expand...

Are you now going to take this back to Alan Gura for a new chuckle?

xd shooter said:

According to this site's rules, when spouting off about what a law says or doesn't say, then cite's are required.

With that given I then have to assume that your statement's are more your "opinion" vs any actual fact of law, correct?

You said,



Which to me looks like you are quoting a fact of law. I asked for a cite I might read this for myself. But if it's just your OPINION, then please state so.



I happen to have a LTP in front of me. Yes, it has an expiration date on it, 10 days from the date of issue. Your opinion is that this license is now void. My opinion is that since the licensing authority shall retain the other copy of the license as an official record for not less than 6 years, it apparently does NOT expire. I suspect that at some point this information is entered into a computer database, so they then no longer need the Paper copy.

I would be curious to see what a license that a person who brings a pistol into this state who is on leave from active duty with the armed forces of the United States or who has been discharged from active duty with the armed forces of the United States shall obtain a license for the pistol within 30 days after his or her arrival in this state would look like? Possibly the very SAME LTP? If it's simply a "Purchase Permit", why would someone who already owns the pistol need to obtain a license to purchase?

MY opinion is that an LTP is actually the license for the Pistol, therefore never expiring until the Pistol is sold AND someone else licenses it.

Probably not such a "pipe dream" or "fantasy", now is it?

I'm not a big fan of this LTP because I simply see it as gun registration and I'm wary of the pitfalls associated with such registration. But this discussion is about it's validity as a defense to GFSZ violations.



Are you now going to take this back to Alan Gura for a new chuckle?

Click to expand...

Would you rather I just pretend I didn't read what PD in Detroit wrote, I could have done that as most people online do. Feel free to complain to John or Mike since I didn't quote 28.422a since I only gave a reference to the section of law. Feel free to read some of my posts about Michigan from 2006, I guess that was just my opinion as well.

This discussion is more than just being about GFSZ violations.

It would be one thing if this was Virginia or North Carolina where you could actually open carry without a license. Michigan is a useless open carry state for the non-CPL holder.

It's completely asinine to hold on to a purchase permit and the Klu Klux Klan registration system over a GFSZ for an open carrier. Lets see where an open carrier under state law (without a CPL) can legally go with a unconcealed handgun...

they can walk down the street as long as they don't,

get into a vehicle
walk into a CVS
walk into a 7 Eleven
walk into a bank
walk into any establishment that sells liquor (most pool halls, most restaurants, most grocery stores)

or basically, goes anywhere except to the local park


So I fail to see how killing a registration system is not worth it so non CPL holders can walk to the park and back with their gun.

Sorry, but this state is an embarrassment to the 2nd Amendment, I don't think people on here realize how bad registration is. Most states do not have it. Maybe I find it abhorrent because I come from a state where it is a 10 year felony for a government official to register a firearm unless it's recording a firearm that was used in a crime.

And this notion that registration and a license to possess should continue because a few people may want to walk from their house to a park and back (just avoid the the millions of 234d zones) who do not have a CPL.

Out of all the unlicensed open carry states, Michigan is the worst because it's pretty useless to open carry without a CPL. It's not like Nevada or Virginia. Some people on here act like you won't be able to open carry anywhere (non-CPL holders) if HB 5225 passes, but the more important questions is Where the hell can you open carry (without a CPL) anyway since almost everywhere you would go would involve a vehicle and/or is a 234d zone?

The Legislature is obviously working under police direction on this law. This could be a back door gun control policy. If it is the intent of the police and the legislature to end open carry in Michigan by following the example set by the tactics used by police against lawful medical marijuana patients, reporting those caught to the feds, then it will effectively eliminate open carry for non CPL holders in the state.

stainless1911 said:

That doesn't work in Michigan.

Click to expand...

As far as the federal government it does work, read the gun zone statute. It only concerns 'firearms' that have been in interstate commerce. A antique firearm is not considered a firearm by federal statutes. And a gun manufactured within the state has not been in interstate commerce. This is due to a SCOTUS decision that threw out the first version of the law. Now Michigan laws may have their own relation to gun zone, but as far as a federal crime they must stay within the confines of the SCOTUS ruling, and the law.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise
affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that
the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to
believe, is a school zone.

WalkingWolf said:

As far as the federal government it does work, read the gun zone statute. It only concerns 'firearms' that have been in interstate commerce. A antique firearm is not considered a firearm by federal statutes. And a gun manufactured within the state has not been in interstate commerce. This is due to a SCOTUS decision that threw out the first version of the law. Now Michigan laws may have their own relation to gun zone, but as far as a federal crime they must stay within the confines of the SCOTUS ruling, and the law.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise
affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that
the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to
believe, is a school zone.

Click to expand...

A permit to purchase is valid for 5 years in North Carolina. That may be worth looking into, that way you can carry a gun that's not made in North Carolina.

stainless1911 said:

The Legislature is obviously working under police direction on this law. This could be a back door gun control policy. If it is the intent of the police and the legislature to end open carry in Michigan by following the example set by the tactics used by police against lawful medical marijuana patients, reporting those caught to the feds, then it will effectively eliminate open carry for non CPL holders in the state.

Click to expand...

Really? Police direction. Has it cross your mind that the NRA is pushing this and so are other gun owners because Michigan has a draconian registration law that only a small handful of states have, so maybe we want to repeal it.

Only people in Michigan would say repealing registration is a back door gun control policy. Only people who never bought or had a gun in a state that doesn't register would think this way.

The registration law completely violates peoples rights to privacy and their dignity inside and out.

Missouri repealed their permit to purchase years ago, I don't recall the Feds swooping in for mass arrest on GFSZ.

This has never happened anywhere, you are being paranoid.

Don't forget that medical marijuana happened in Michigan through the ballot initiative process. The state doesn't seem to be a fan of it. Comparing the two seems a little far fetched.

The entire city of Phoenix is basically a school zone. I don't remember the feds cracking down when constitution carry passed.

I can imagine the day in the future where congress wants to repeal the National Firearms Act.... and I can almost picture people opposing it because the tax stamp would count as a license under the GFSZ.

Remember, ALL your registered handguns populate the screen on LEIN with a click of a button. Should people or the police really have access to that?

If police have access to all your registered guns simply by running your license plate (something Michigan courts have allowed police to do without any reason due to the plain sight doctrine). Don't you think maybe a private investigator could get this information, or a dirty cop could use this information to sell to burglars?

Jared said:

A permit to purchase is valid for 5 years in North Carolina. That may be worth looking into, that way you can carry a gun that's not made in North Carolina.

Click to expand...

North Carolina has a section in the law invoking federal firearm law when carrying either concealed or open. A PP is worthless in a school zone by NC law. The GFSZ is rarely enforced, but I take no chances, I know I am covered under the law by carrying a antique firearm. I have not bought a 1911 yet from Para, Pineville, NC, but at some point I intend to. Until then I trust either my Navy or my 58 Remy to get the job done. I have fired thousands of rounds through both without a misfire. Not to mention the exceptional accuracy of both.

I realize NC is a lot more gun friendly than your state, but it makes no difference when there are options around the federal law. Give me a bit and I will research for Michigan firearms manufacturers. My advice for you is buy a quality Remy, have a gunsmith go over it for reliability, purchase two spare cylinders for speedy reloads. The Remy is also safe to carry with six rounds, there are indents in between the cylinders for safe carry. Heck if you shoot it regularly you may be get hooked on the dark side of firearms(black powder). Did I mention that at close range it sets fire to a attacker as well as putting a hole in them.

WalkingWolf said:

North Carolina has a section in the law invoking federal firearm law when carrying either concealed or open. A PP is worthless in a school zone by NC law. The GFSZ is rarely enforced, but I take no chances, I know I am covered under the law by carrying a antique firearm. .

Click to expand...

North Carolina is one of those states that references federal law; however, I don't see how a PP or CHP would not exempt you from GFSZ.

Federal law always takes precedent over state law.

For example,

NC law says you can not carry a gun in violation of federal law as you mentioned. The federal school zone would not be applicable because you would be exempt from it with a carry permit or PP; therefore you would not be carrying in violation of federal law.

The way you read it gives precedent to state law over federal law.

If federal law exempts you, the state can't then in turn say you are carrying in violation of federal law.

Jared said:

Really? Police direction. Has it cross your mind that the NRA is pushing this and so are other gun owners because Michigan has a draconian registration law that only a small handful of states have, so maybe we want to repeal it.

Only people in Michigan would say repealing registration is a back door gun control policy. Only people who never bought or had a gun in a state that doesn't register would think this way.

The registration law completely violates peoples rights to privacy and their dignity inside and out.

Missouri repealed their permit to purchase years ago, I don't recall the Feds swooping in for mass arrest on GFSZ.

This has never happened anywhere, you are being paranoid.

Don't forget that medical marijuana happened in Michigan through the ballot initiative process. The state doesn't seem to be a fan of it. Comparing the two seems a little far fetched.

The entire city of Phoenix is basically a school zone. I don't remember the feds cracking down when constitution carry passed.

I can imagine the day in the future where congress wants to repeal the National Firearms Act.... and I can almost picture people opposing it because the tax stamp would count as a license under the GFSZ.

Remember, ALL your registered handguns populate the screen on LEIN with a click of a button. Should people or the police really have access to that?

If police have access to all your registered guns simply by running your license plate (something Michigan courts have allowed police to do without any reason due to the plain sight doctrine). Don't you think maybe a private investigator could get this information, or a dirty cop could use this information to sell to burglars?

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you have said, especially the part in red

Jared said:

Really? Police direction. Has it cross your mind that the NRA is pushing this and so are other gun owners because Michigan has a draconian registration law that only a small handful of states have, so maybe we want to repeal it.

Only people in Michigan would say repealing registration is a back door gun control policy. Only people who never bought or had a gun in a state that doesn't register would think this way.

The registration law completely violates peoples rights to privacy and their dignity inside and out.

Missouri repealed their permit to purchase years ago, I don't recall the Feds swooping in for mass arrest on GFSZ.

This has never happened anywhere, you are being paranoid.

Don't forget that medical marijuana happened in Michigan through the ballot initiative process. The state doesn't seem to be a fan of it. Comparing the two seems a little far fetched.

The entire city of Phoenix is basically a school zone. I don't remember the feds cracking down when constitution carry passed.

I can imagine the day in the future where congress wants to repeal the National Firearms Act.... and I can almost picture people opposing it because the tax stamp would count as a license under the GFSZ.

Remember, ALL your registered handguns populate the screen on LEIN with a click of a button. Should people or the police really have access to that?

If police have access to all your registered guns simply by running your license plate (something Michigan courts have allowed police to do without any reason due to the plain sight doctrine). Don't you think maybe a private investigator could get this information, or a dirty cop could use this information to sell to burglars?

Click to expand...

+1
I can see the Brady Campaign headlines now... "Michigan gun owners support gun registration"
The sad part is, a lot here wouldn't be able to deny it...

A Person can be FOR Repealing Pistol Registration while being AGAINST the Current Bill.

The GFSZ Laws not being enforced does not make it OK for Non-CPL Holders to Carry Openly in such an area as it is an illegal activity. We, as OCDO Members, do not advocate illegal activity, even Tacitly.

OCDO Forum Rules said:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Click to expand...

I have created a version of the Bill that includes an Optional License and provided such to the Bill's Sponsor, but to date the Optional License is not included in the changes. Maybe more people should be contacting the Bill's Sponsor and their own State Representatives/Senators so we can get the Optional License covered for those in need...