OC / Liquor License / CPL / Repealed?

imported post

Edit so noone reading this assumes they can possess a firearm on the premises of a business licensed by the liquor control commission... http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-58-of-1998.pdfstates: (5) A reference in any other law to the Michigan liquor control act, 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, being MCL 436.1 to 436.58, is considered to be a reference to this act.

Ok, so here it goes... I've never seen this covered here.

MCL 750.234d states a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of:

(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.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(astjesrg5mrutp453i5jrl45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234d

So, I got to looking this morning for this liquor control act of 1933, 436.1 - 436.58. Couldn't find much by just searching the MCL, but eventually ended up at MCL 436.2301. Here's what it has to say:

436.2301 Repeal of acts and parts of acts.



Sec. 1301.

The following acts and parts of acts are repealed:

(a) The Michigan liquor control act, 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, MCL 436.1 to 436.58.

(b) 1959 PA 94, MCL 436.101 to 436.103.

(c) 1962 PA 218, MCL 436.121 to 436.125.

(d) 1972 PA 213, MCL 436.131 to 436.133.

(e) The tourism and convention facility promotion tax act, 1985 PA 107, MCL 436.141 to 436.148.

Click to expand...

https://legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcijda555z3iwj45bc5dzh45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-436-2301

So, what does this mean for 750.234d? Is that section still enforceable since 436.2301 is repealed?

Edit: Technically, these business are not licensed under the old act any more--they are licensed under the new act. I'm guessing their liquor license says this right on it. Even if it was enforceable, they're licensed under a different act. If I'm completely wrong here... well, it wouldn't be the first time.

imported post

i would be curious to delve into this further. the thought has crossed my mind as well.

imported post

Just out of curiosity, is there another law saying you can't possess a firearm on the premises, making this topic pointless? I was just searching this morning to show someone you couldn't even possess a firearm at a place licensed to sell alcohol without a license, and 750.234d is what I came across when searching Google (which led me here).

imported post

Ive been curious about this too.

imported post

Maybe what we need is a picture of a current liquor license to see what act they are licensed under.

imported post

Look under the new law. There's a section that states that any other portion of the law referring to the old liquor code is equivalent to pointing to the new liquor code.

I don't have a cite because I'm too lazy to cite tonight. Look it up.

imported post

I don't have the cite either but Brian researched this and basically the new law encompasses the 1933 law as in effect with the new law.
Contact Brian, I'm sure he has it.

imported post


[align=left](5) A reference in any other law to the Michigan liquor control act, 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, being MCL 436.1 to 436.58, is considered to be a reference to this act.[/align]
[align=left]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-58-of-1998.pdf[/align]
[align=left]Page 79 of 79. I think it's pretty ridiculous that someone trying to understand the law would look it up and see it was repealed... without the help of this site, I probably would have assumed 750.234d(h) was no longer applicable.[/align]

imported post

yep, law is very complicated. if it were easier to understand a lot of people would be representing themselves and a lot of lawyers would be out of jobs. hey... do you think the lawmakers, who are mostly lawyers do this on purpose??? can't imagine such a thing. ::bloody sarcasm::

imported post

No, I don't. I think the politicians are the ones making the laws and they're only in politics because they couldn't make it in the real world. Thus, they'll get no benefit from it unless they're taking money on the side.

imported post

politicians are by and large, lawyers