Michigan Law and Open Carry / Concealed Carry

Bronson · Dec 25, 2010

smithman said:
The next sentence adds additional information, for people who live in another state, yet own a firearm which is stored in MI:
Additionally, MCL 28.422 exempts residents of other states from Michigan’s pistol registration requirements therefore, allowing them to possess a pistol in Michigan, if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The person is licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, transport, or carry a pistol,
2. The person is in possession of the license while in Michigan,
3. The person owns the pistol possessed in Michigan,
4. The person possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as defined in MCL 750.231a, and
5. The person is in Michigan less than 180 days and does not intend to establish residency here.

Not quite.

Those exemptions are not for non-MI residents to store pistols in MI. Those are for non-MI residents who will be visiting MI with their non-MI registered pistol.

In order to be in possession of a pistol in MI it must be registered in MI. In order to have it registered in MI the owner/possesser must be a MI resident. The above posted exemptions allow a non-resident to be in possession of their pistol in MI without having to get it registered here, and you must meet ALL of the above OR have a concealed permit from your home state (which will allow you to conceal while here) OR have a concealed permit from ANY state which will allow you to possess the pistol (but not conceal it), OR be a law enforcement officer carrying under the LEOSA. AFAIK the above exemptions do NOT allow a non-MI resident to leave a pistol in storage here.

Bronson

Bronson · Dec 25, 2010

protias said:
I've often wondered about #1. Since WI does not have licenses, how does this affect us?

Since WI does not have a license to purchase/possess you cannot have your pistol in MI unless:

you have WI concealed license (you don't have these yet do you?), which would allow you to conceal here.
you have a concealed license from any other state, which would allow you to OC here.
you are a LEO carrying under the LEOSA.

If you do not fit into one of those categories you may not possess your pistol in MI.

Bronson

smithman · Dec 25, 2010

Bronson, thank you for the clarification. You are correct indeed. A WI resident having a carry permit from ANY state, may possess and open carry in MI. IN fact, the open carry law in MI with a permit is quite liberal, with those gun free zones disappearing with a permit holder.

protias · Dec 25, 2010

Bronson said:
Since WI does not have a license to purchase/possess you cannot have your pistol in MI unless:

you have WI concealed license (you don't have these yet do you?), which would allow you to conceal here.

you have a concealed license from any other state, which would allow you to OC here.

you are a LEO carrying under the LEOSA.

If you do not fit into one of those categories you may not possess your pistol in MI.

Bronson

Thank you for the clarification.

xd shooter · Dec 25, 2010

You can't carry openly in pistol free zones with your CPL.

Stainless, I disagree. Both the AG's opinion AND MSP update 86 state that you CAN OC in PFZ's WITH a MI issued CPL.

An individual with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed firearm in the above listed premises.

Those premises are listed as,


A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or credit union)

A church or other place of religious worship

A court

A theater

A sports arena

A day care center

A hospital

An establishment licensed under the Liquor Control Code

IN addition,

MCL 28.425o provides that a person with a valid CPL shall not carry a concealed pistol in a pistol-free zone. First offense is a state civil infraction. The following is a list of the premises (excluding parking lots) included in the statute:

School or school property, except a parent or legal guardian who is dropping off or picking up a child and the pistol is kept in the vehicle

Public or private day care center

Sports arena or stadium

A bar or tavern where sale and consumption of liquor by the glass is the primary source of income (does not apply to owner or employee of the business).

Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless authorized by the presiding official

An entertainment facility that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

A hospital

A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university

A casino (R 432.1212, MCL 432.202)

Added bold red underlined for emphasis.

HOWEVER...

Note, the above statute applies to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. If the CPL holder is carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does not apply. As noted above, the unlawful premises listed in MCL 750.234d do not apply to persons with a valid CPL. Therefore, a person with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o and MCL 750.234d.

Clear?

Bronson · Dec 25, 2010

xd shooter said:
Clear?

You misread Stainless' reply. When he said "you" he meant residents of WI could not OC in WI PFZs with a WI CPL.

His reply was in response to Cobbersmom's reply:

Cobbersmom

Their open carry sounds like ours, its not forbidden. Notice the last sentence tho, if you don't have a CPL (described elsewhere as from you state of residence) then you cannot have a pistol at all in Michigan. Not as nice there as I used to think. Hmmm, also sounds like a licensed person can open carry in a vehicle tho (not us up there).

It took me a couple of readings before I figured out what he meant since he knows that in MI we can OC in PFZs with a CPL and I know he knows it.

Clear?

Bronson

stainless1911 · Dec 25, 2010

Thanks for clearing that up Bronson.

Nutczak · Dec 26, 2010

"If all of the following requirements are met!"

I have read the attached pamphlet on pistol possession in Michigan countless times now, although I would like to believe that a WI resident can possess a pistol in MI with a non-resident permit issued from another state, but when I read this snippet posted below (which I have put in quotation marks) I am just not seeing it being legal according to current MI laws

This is the exact reason I research laws myself before acting solely on Internet forum hearsay, I do visit MI quite often since it is less than a 1/2-hour drive for me to get into the U.P. and just another 10-15 minutes to the streams I frequent while panning for gold. I would love to be able to have a sidearm with me due to the area's I visit with abundant toothy wildlife, and the economy falling apart and me possessing gold worth over $1K/ounce right now.

"MCL 28.432 makes it legal for non-residents of Michigan who hold valid CPLs issued by another state to possess a non-concealed pistol in Michigan without complying with Michigan’s pistol registration requirements. Additionally, MCL 28.422 exempts residents of other states from Michigan’s pistol registration requirements therefore, allowing them to possess a pistol in Michigan, if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The person is licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, transport, or carry a pistol,"

The key words here are "licensed by his or her state of residence" The section I quoted above is not about carrying a concealed pistol, or a pistol which is Openly carried, it is for mere possession the way I see the law as written!

When you end up in court, it does not matter how you understood the law, or what you think the law was supposed to mean, it is what is written.
If you believe that I am wrong in my understanding of this law, go right ahead and carry in MI, maybe you'll get nabbed, maybe you won't. I am just saying that I personally will not take a chance like that being out of state.

MCL 28.432 does not specify Concealed, or carried openly, it states "Possession"

Then we get into the Janet Kukuk" Act;
and I copied this from the state statutes;

***** 28.432 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 2011: See 28.432.amended *****

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.

So as of February 15th, 2011 is when the law takes effect, not until then!

So if a WI resident is in MI, and they O-C , they are violating current law as it is written! in a few months, that may be different.

apjonas · Dec 26, 2010

Er, Um

Nutczak said:
I have read the attached pamphlet on pistol possession in Michigan countless times now, although I would like to believe that a WI resident can possess a pistol in MI with a non-resident permit issued from another state, but when I read this snippet posted below (which I have put in quotation marks) I am just not seeing it being legal according to current MI laws

This is the exact reason I research laws myself before acting solely on Internet forum hearsay, I do visit MI quite often since it is less than a 1/2-hour drive for me to get into the U.P. and just another 10-15 minutes to the streams I frequent while panning for gold. I would love to be able to have a sidearm with me due to the area's I visit with abundant toothy wildlife, and the economy falling apart and me possessing gold worth over $1K/ounce right now.

"MCL 28.432 makes it legal for non-residents of Michigan who hold valid CPLs issued by another state to possess a non-concealed pistol in Michigan without complying with Michigan’s pistol registration requirements. Additionally, MCL 28.422 exempts residents of other states from Michigan’s pistol registration requirements therefore, allowing them to possess a pistol in Michigan, if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The person is licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, transport, or carry a pistol,"

The key words here are "licensed by his or her state of residence" The section I quoted above is not about carrying a concealed pistol, or a pistol which is Openly carried, it is for mere possession the way I see the law as written!

When you end up in court, it does not matter how you understood the law, or what you think the law was supposed to mean, it is what is written.
If you believe that I am wrong in my understanding of this law, go right ahead and carry in MI, maybe you'll get nabbed, maybe you won't. I am just saying that I personally will not take a chance like that being out of state.

MCL 28.432 does not specify Concealed, or carried openly, it states "Possession"

Then we get into the Janet Kukuk" Act;
and I copied this from the state statutes;

***** 28.432 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 2011: See 28.432.amended *****

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.

So as of February 15th, 2011 is when the law takes effect, not until then!

So if a WI resident is in MI, and they O-C , they are violating current law as it is written! in a few months, that may be different.

What takes effect in February 2011 is the amendment which has to do with FFL's purchasing pistols as merchandise. The rest of this section has been and is in effect.

stainless1911 · Dec 26, 2010

when does the second amendment come into effect?

DrTodd · Dec 26, 2010

apjonas said:
What takes effect in February 2011 is the amendment which has to do with FFL's purchasing pistols as merchandise. The rest of this section has been and is in effect.

100% correct apjonas. What Nutczak has difficulty with is the update put out by the state police. I've corresponded with Nutczak on here before and I'm 100% sure that Nutczak is a fine person and I mean no disrespect with what follows, but WHY on earth are you (Nutczak) basing what you do with what the state police have promulgated?
Yes, it is the best information to date that THEY have published, but as was mentioned by many here when feedback was given to MSP... IT IS INCOMPLETE.

I liken it me traveling to Wisc. and stopping in at the local PD(s) as I travel through your state and ask "Is OC legal". I'm sure that I would get everything along the continuum from "Yep, it's legal" to "No, it is Illegal". In the case of Wisconsin and Michigan, the law, however, is very clear. Some PD's though, the MSP included, sometimes fail to mention every part of the law about carrying a firearm: in this case, the MSP has only provided one of the two "exemptions" to registration for non-residents. Oh well.
The law however, is very clear. By continuing to refer back to a document which has NO legal standing is pointless. The legislation is made by the legislature, not the MSP. Looking at the actual words contained in the legislation, there are TWO exemptions and the fact that the MSP does not mention the second, older, exemption in no way makes it any less valid.

You stated correctly that one needs to actually look at the law ("This is the exact reason I research laws myself before acting solely on Internet forum hearsay...") well, the MSP document is "hearsay"... you've read the law but continue to refer to a document which has NO legal standing (the MSP update). You are choosing to follow the MSP's word instead of the actual law... thereby negating your "This is the exact reason I research laws myself before acting solely on Internet forum hearsay" statement.
Now, COULD you be stopped and cited for violating the law by having the LEO ignore the actual law and instead choose to rely on the MSP to direct what is correct or not? Certainly. Just as when we in Mich. first started to OC we faced arrest and/or harassment for OCing a firearm. But, the actual law trumps what an individual officer or PD THINKS the law should be... and the actual law allows BOTH the exemptions.

Nutczak · Dec 27, 2010

Then either post a link to the statutes, or cut and paste them here, I looked at the statutes on the MIGOV page which are linked in the PDF document, I am not seeing anything different, If I am missing something, provide here what I am missing so I may scrutinize it again, and hey, my answer may change when I see something different.

I am seeing conflicting statements, which statement will the arresting officer and the prosecutor use? Then how will the judge interpret these conflicting pieces?

Is that PDF what the police are using as a cheat-sheet? If so, I have a valid guess at what they will use to determine legality too.

DrTodd · Dec 27, 2010

The 2 exemptions in no way conflict. There are two exemptions: the exemption found in MCL 28.422 and the exemption found in MCL 28.432. The two exemptions are both available. Remember that there may be any number of laws that cover carrying a firearm. Also, the two licenses are really 2 different licenses. In Michigan, we of course have the CPL, which allows one to carry a pistol concealed on or about one's person. In order to utilize the recognition that Michigan gives to other state's permits to carry concealed, one must be a resident of the issuing state.
In addition to the CPL, Michigan also has a License to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol, which is Michigan's registration scheme. Any person who wishes to bring a pistol into Michigan must have a license to purchase, carry, or transport. Exemptions to this requirement are that a person has one of these from their state of residence or a CPL equivalent from any state.
So, in effect, 2 exemptions are listed in the law; both are valid and has no effect on the other. One can choose to use the MCL 28.422 or MCL 28.432 exemption, as circumstances warrant.

This whole thread is really a problem with what the state police published, not with the law itself. We brought this up when the author asked for our feedback but the exception found in the Janet Kukak Act was left out. Just remember that as good as this publication is and is pretty accurate, it is nonetheless incomplete.

Bronson · Dec 30, 2010

Nutczak said:
"MCL 28.432 makes it legal for non-residents of Michigan who hold valid CPLs issued by another state to possess a non-concealed pistol in Michigan without complying with Michigan’s pistol registration requirements."

OR

Nutczak said:
"Additionally, MCL 28.422 exempts residents of other states from Michigan’s pistol registration requirements therefore, allowing them to possess a pistol in Michigan, if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The person is licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, transport, or carry a pistol,"

Either or, not both are required.

Bronson

jpm84092 · Dec 30, 2010

I Was Not Trying to Start a Fight

When I found the Michigan State Police Information Guide, I posted it to try to be helpful to my friends in Wisconsin. Accurate or inaccurate, right or wrong, it is an official publication from the State of Michigan. I did not mean for it to generate this much controversy.

I have no "dog in this fight". I am a former WI resident, now a resident of UT, with a UT (resident) CFP.

Carry on...

xd shooter · Jan 2, 2011

Ah HA!! After reading it AGAIN, I understand and stand corrected! Carry on..

ccav · Apr 16, 2011

WI general permission vs license

IANAL, however my understanding of "license" is permission from authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal or not permitted.

If WI does not have a licensing requirement for possession, then it could be argued that "ALL" WI residents have carte blanc license to possess and therefore fall under the exemption. A WI ID card or DL would be sufficient license.

XDFDE45 · Apr 16, 2011

ccav said:
IANAL, however my understanding of "license" is permission from authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal or not permitted.

If WI does not have a licensing requirement for possession, then it could be argued that "ALL" WI residents have carte blanc license to possess and therefore fall under the exemption. A WI ID card or DL would be sufficient license.

Care to explain a little more? We don't have a license requirement to own or possess and the statement that ALL WI residents would have carte blanc to possess a firearm is false. People convicted of felonies and domestic abuse, among other things, are barred from possessing firearms.

apjonas · Apr 17, 2011

This Isn't That Complicated

We start out will all WI residents and begin the filtering process (a law that excludes or includes). We filter out illegal aliens, most felons, some misdemeanants, etc. You could call this a "blacklist" - anybody on the list is excluded. In WI, there is no licensing requirement (I'll go with a license being a permission slip to do something that is otherwise prohibited). So let's assume a license to possess is required in WI. This is a positive filter or "whitelist" - only those on the list get to possess. The reality in WI is that if you pass the negative filters you are good to go (you still have to jump through some hoops (once) to purchase - but there is no ongoing licensing requirement to own/possess).

The issue in WI, as I understand it, is whether or not a new concealed carry ability would be via negative filter (what many call "Constitutional Carry") or a postive filter (some CCW licensing scheme). Open Carry in WI is a negative filter for person and place. Constitutional Carry would simple add concealed carry to the mix. I am not sure if removal of the negative filters for place (government buildings, etc.) is part of the plan.

I know that GFSZ removal is sought. A fairly straightfoward process on the state level (still politically complicated) but a real non-starter on the Federal GFSZ. The concept of declaring all law-abiding WI citizens to be licensed won't fly as the federal law has some specific, explicit requirements for a "license" to be valid. This is one issue (at least) that favors a plastic card system.

phred · Apr 17, 2011

For some insight into the GFSZ law and how it "works" in other states:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...t-around-the-Federal-Gun-Free-School-Zone-law

Michigan Law and Open Carry / Concealed Carry

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member