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?
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?