Black powder pistols-> requirements to carry under MI laws?

crosspistlos posted this in another forum [MOC] Black Powder and Antiques (as of May of 2004)
Sections 2 (MCL 28.422) and 9 (MCL 28.429) of Public Act 372 of 1927, the concealed weapons law, do not apply to antique firearms. MCL 28.432 now says that purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm is not be subject to the licensure requirements under section 2 (purchase permits) or the requirements that a pistol be subject to a safety inspection conducted by the local police department under section 9.

However, I cannot find any current law? Are they now treated just like a modern pistol in regards to being registered?

28.429 Repealed. 2008, Act 195, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009."
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lj...leg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-429

Thanks for any help - G9OS

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html

2. I have a replica of an antique pistol. Is a License to Purchase or Pistol Sales Record required in Michigan? Is it necessary that I obtain a Michigan Concealed Pistols License?

MCL 28.422 No, antique pistols made before 1898 and replicas of antiques that use black powder, matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system do not require a License to Purchase. The pistol is still subject to all concealed pistol licensing laws.

Thanks

Thanks Smellslikemichigan. The law on these is a bit confusing, funny the state removed all references from the site? Glad MSP is on the ball.

G9OS.

i wouldn't take MSPs word for it. they are not always right. they get it right a lot of the time, but i wrote them a message asking for a cite for this:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10941--,00.html
"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

they were unable to furnish one, but it still remains on the website. most other areas they post the cite, but not this one.

smellslikemichigan said:

i wouldn't take MSPs word for it. they are not always right. they get it right a lot of the time, but i wrote them a message asking for a cite for this:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10941--,00.html
"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

they were unable to furnish one, but it still remains on the website. most other areas they post the cite, but not this one.

Click to expand...

Uhm....the plot thickens? Thanks for the follow up SLM. Please post any updates I guess I'll hold off on my BP pistol purchase until I can get some answers. Leave it to our law makers to turn everything into an Apollo Moon Shot

I think it is not a particular law, rather a Supreme Court Decision (MICHIGAN v. LONG, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)), which allows the police to take temporary possession of a firearm during a stop.

"...it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right to neutralize the threat of physical harm..."

But, as I am not an attorney, I may be wrong. But, even if it's not this specific cite, my guess is that it is based upon case law.

good cite, but...
if they classify a lawfully carried firearm as "the threat of physical harm" then that would apply to all OC situations. that would turn lawful OC into brandishing and a litany of other charges wouldn't it? i think that if the police arrive on scene and the individual is carrying a gun and threatening to shoot someone, that would qualify as "the threat of physical harm". but otherwise, no.
but then again, i'm not a lawyer either...