• 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.

MCRGO ENews pertaining to OC in a PFZ with CPL (by Stephen Dulan)

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
Monday, July 26, 2010


When The Law Doesn't Mean What It Says

One of the interesting things about teaching and practicing gun law is the fact that this area of law is not well-settled. It is cutting-edge, developing law. For example, readers may be aware that only very recently did the US Supreme Court rule, in McDonald v Chicago, that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Rather than being the end of the debate, that ruling led to Chicago adopting the most restrictive gun control regime in the United States, which was almost immediately challenged in court. The new case, and others like it, will help to define the outlines of our Second Amendment rights by forcing courts to rule on what restrictions are reasonable.

We have similar issues of Michigan law currently being played out in Michigan courts. One of them is the right of CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holders to carry openly in places where others are prohibited from possessing firearms. Back in 1931, Michigan adopted MCL 750.234d which lists places where citizens may not possess firearms.

"(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(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."

Note the language "Except as provided in subsection (2)." Well, subsection (2) says:

"(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon."

So, for quite some time, many in Michigan have concluded that, according to the plain, direct language of MCL 750.234d(2)(c), a person with a valid CPL is not subject to the prohibited list and may carry openly in the places listed. In fact, the Michigan Attorney General issued an opinion stating so and it has been the consistent position for some time of the Michigan State Police that a CPL holder may enter one of these places while openly carrying. The plain language of the law supports such an interpretation. This information is shared via various websites and posted and reposted in places on the Internet where interested citizens discuss these issues.

One of my clients recently learned that there is another interpretation. He was carrying openly in a place that the court ruled is a "sports arena" under subsection (1)(e) of the above statute. We disagree with that interpretation. But, we'll save that issue for a future discussion (and his appeal.) The court also ruled that the plain language of the statute is not what the law really means. The court adopted the prosecution's interpretation which basically says that because MCL 28.425c (2) says:

"(2) Subject to section 5o and except as otherwise provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee to do all of the following:

(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.

(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed, anywhere in this state."

that the legislature must really mean that the only exception for CPL holders under MCL 750.234d must be when the CPL holder is carrying concealed and not openly. The court adopted this interpretation, even after being made aware that it is contrary to the relevant official opinion of the Attorney General and other commentators on this issue. My client was found guilty and fined. We are appealing the conviction on a number of grounds, including this specific ruling. However, it should be noted that those who choose to carry openly are subject to a number of practical and legal risks, the full extent of which is not currently clear. Reliance on opinions of law enforcement officers, legislators and others does not mean that a court will not interpret the law differently.

My client in this case was arrested and his gun and ammo were confiscated. He has missed several days of work over a period of months, and has incurred significant legal bills. If not for the generous contribution by the MCRGO Foundation Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund (www.MCRGOFoundation.org) his bills would have been potentially unmanageable. There have been literally hundreds of pages of legal documents generated so far in this case, and it is likely to continue for several more months as we appeal.

Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the MCRGO Foundation to help support this kind of work as we move forward toward clarity in Michigan gun law.
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
while not yet case law, this is a startling reminder that the law is only as good as the judge who interprets it. hopefully, we see a positive outcome from this through the ruling of a higher court.
 

fozzy71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
921
Location
Roseville, Michigan, USA
So, that court is trying to say we as CPL holders can carry concealed in all those places but not OC in those places:question:
 
Last edited:

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
"The court also ruled that the plain language of the statute is not what the law really means."

Go figure. Whoever the judge is, he/she must be a complete idiot to not understand this law. I am confident this will be overturned in the appeal.
 
Last edited:

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I've been going into the bank quite often OC lately. This descision has made me think twice about doing that again...
If you have a CPL you can CC or OC in a bank. This case was about a person that had a CPL and OCed in a "sports arena" under the exemption in 750.234d. The judge got it wrong in my opinion and most other rational people.

If you do not have a CPL you can't possess a firearm in a bank without permission.
 

Jblack44

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
291
Location
Westland, Michigan, USA
If you have a CPL you can CC or OC in a bank. This case was about a person that had a CPL and OCed in a "sports arena" under the exemption in 750.234d. The judge got it wrong in my opinion and most other rational people.

If you do not have a CPL you can't possess a firearm in a bank without permission.

But a bank falls under 234d as well. I totally agree that the judge got it wrong...but how many other places are going to come up "suspect" when OCing with a CPL??
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
But a bank falls under 234d as well. I totally agree that the judge got it wrong...but how many other places are going to come up "suspect" when OCing with a CPL??

But you can CC in a bank under 5o and since there is no requirment to "CC only" with a CPL you can OC in a bank. You would be covered under both statutes.
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
The attorney general (now governor) put out a statement stating you can openly carry in a PFZ with a CPL.

HOW HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND. :banghead:


Not only would I be setting up a legal fund for defense, but I would be currently writing letters to both Mike Cox and Jennifer Granholm. This judge needs a new profession.
 

Jblack44

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
291
Location
Westland, Michigan, USA
Sorry for my confusion! I guess I didn't read the whole thing completely.....my bad. I thought he was saying that all PFZ's were off limits to OC (even with a CPL) carry on..
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
But you can CC in a bank under 5o and since there is no requirment to "CC only" with a CPL you can OC in a bank. You would be covered under both statutes.

I took the ruling, which is being appealed, to mean what Jblack44 said: the judge is saying that the only time that a CPL holder is exempt under MCL 750.234d is when they are carrying concealed.
Since Jblack OCs into a bank and therefore probably has a CPL, the judges logic would mean that, at a bank, he must CC otherwise he violates the law. CC is not prohibited at a bank under the CPL Act, so he would be good to go.
In the other PLZs, under MCL 750.234d, he must conceal, to do otherwise violates MCL750.234d. However, if a CPL holder carries concealed in these places, he/she violates section 5o of the CPL ACT.

So in a nutshell: In order to use the "benefit" of any of the general no-firearm area CPL exemptions under 750.234d, one MUST CC. But, by CCing in all the places except a bank, one violates section 5o of the CPL Act. Not good at all! This needs to fought intensely.
If this ruling is allowed to stand, could armored-car companies face huge issues as they usually OC under a CPL while carrying money into and out of Firearm-Free Zones under either act? I understand it is the only way to be exempt from any carry restrictions as the business owner is not allowed under the law to give them permission for an exemption.
 
Last edited:
Top