Hello everyone!
Out of curiosity, have we discussed or is there a discussion for changing the CPL laws that place excessive additional regulations to issuance of a CPL? I mean, if you can legally purchase and own a firearm, shouldnt you be able to get a CPL (after an approved training course)?
Also, what about the motor vehicle rule? I understand the definition of "concealment" as given by Webster, but then...anytime you are not in direct total view of a person, or blocked by an object you are technically "concealed" by said object. It would seem that open carry is open carry...regardless of whether it's on the street, in yolur house, or in your vehicle. Saying that there cannot be open carry in a vehicle seems to be an infringement.
Any thoughts?
Todd,
Glad you are here. I know that many refer to anything in a vehicle as concealed, but technically that is not correct. The charge really is carrying a pistol in a vehicle which IS also listed under the concealed law.
750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person,
or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.227 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 206, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 8, Eff. July 1, 1986
Constitutionality: The double jeopardy protection against multiple punishment for the same offense is a restriction on a court's ability to impose punishment in excess of that intended by the Legislature, not a limit on the Legislature's power to define crime and fix punishment. People v Sturgis, 427 Mich 392; 397 NW2d 783 (1986).
Former Law: See section 5 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 16753.
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Also, the CPL law:
28.425c License; form; authorized conduct.
Sec. 5c.
(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.
And, in regards to something just blocking a pistol, I refer you to:
Office of the Attorney General State of Michigan
Opinion No. 3158 February 14, 1945
CONCEALED WEAPONS - General discussion relative to concealed weapons.
Mr. Clyde H. Edgar, Sheriff, Jackson County, Jackson MI
Dear Sir:
Your letter addressed to the Michigan State Police and dated January 31, 1945 has been referred to me for reply. In your letter you ask substantially the following questions on weapons or firearms:
1. Is a weapon considered concealed when carried in a holster outside of all the clothing of a Person? 2. Is it necessary to have a license to carry a concealed pistol when such pistol is being transported from a city home to a place in the country, each of which places is owned by the party transporting the pistol, when the purpose of such transportation is target practice? Would the answer be the same if the place to which the pistol was being transported was owned by a near relative?
3. If a pistol is carried concealed or openly, with clip or cylinder removed, must a license be obtained?4. A number of our local factories hire men for guard work only and furnish them with guns while on duty only. Is it necessary for them to have licenses to carry such guns?
The late Wm. W. Potter rendered an opinion in April of 1927 on the subject of your first questions and I quote the following from that opinion:"The statute does not mean or import that no part of the weapons should be concealed, but the offense is only committed when the weapon is so concealed that it is impossible for one approaching in view of the person carrying the weapon to see any part of it. All that the Legislature meant when it prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons was to compel persons to so wear them that others who might come in contact with them might see that they were armed and dangerous persons, who were to be avoided in consequence, for, if it should be required that no part of the weapon should be concealed, the statute would amount to an infringement of the constitutional right of citizens to have and bear arms, since it would be impossible for one to have and bear about his person a pistol or weapon of any kind without having some part of it concealed. (Stockdale v. State, 32 Ga. 225, 227).
"I am, therefore, of the opinion that if a pistol is carried in a holster or belt, on the outside of the clothing so as to be in plain view, it does not constitute carrying a concealed weapon. If it is worn under a coat, it would be, in my judgment, a violation of the statute, as the same would then not be in plain view." I agree with the conclusions reached in that opinion.
Relative to your second question, it is my opinion that Section 231 of Chapter 27 of the penal Code of the State of Michigan (Sec. 28.428, Mich. Stat. Ann.) fairly defines the exceptions to the licensing act and therefore it is quoted:"The provisions of the second, third, sixth and seventh sections of this chapter shall not apply to any peace officer of the state or any subdivision thereof who is regularly employed and paid by the state or such subdivisions, or to any member of the army, navy or marine corps of the United States or of organizations authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state, nor to the national guard or other duly authorized military organizations when on duty or drill, nor the members
thereof in going to or returning from their customary places of assembly or practice, nor by another state, nor to the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise, or to any person while carrying a pistol unloaded in a wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his home or place of business, or in moving goods from one place of abode or business to another."This section does not except the case of a person transporting a pistol from his city to his country home for target practice and it is therefore my opinion that it would be illegal to do so without the license to carry concealed weapons. The same would certainly be true in case the pistol was being transported to a place owned by a near relative.
Answering your third question, it is my opinion that, if carried, openly, no license would be required since the weapon would not be concealed. However, if carried concealed, a license would be required regardless of whether the clip or cylinder were removed.
People v. Williamson, 200 Mich. 342.Replying to your fourth question, Opinion No. 0-926, dated July 6, 1943, copy of which is enclosed, relative to plant protection men who are members of the auxiliary military police, seems to cover that situation adequately. However, as to plant protection men who are not members of military police auxiliary, it is my opinion that a license to carry concealed weapons is required.
No license would be required if the weapons are carried openly.
Very truly yours,
JOHN R. DETHMERSAttorney General
I think the definitions usually rely on the "reasonable man" view. 
