Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Open carry with non-resident permit

  1. #1
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490

    Open carry with non-resident permit

    Most of us know about "750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty." I have a permit to carry concealed firearms from Maine and a North Dakota CCW (both non-resident). As most of us know this statue is really the one that deals with where one cannot open carry without a permit but it seems to me my non-resident permit may actually allow me to open carry in these places. "(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon." The only thing I can find in Michigan law which requires a resident permit is "750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
    Sec. 231a. (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.

    750.227(2): (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.

    I'm assuming I can't and if I can't say so but if you think so let me know.
    Last edited by xmanhockey7; 06-30-2011 at 10:52 PM.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    When you're here for school are you considered a MI resident? If so your out of state permits won't do anything for you (see AG opinion below). If you are NOT a MI resident while you're here for school then I'd say yes you could OC with your out of state permits under the same rules as a MI resident that does NOT have a CPL, i.e., no vehicle carry, no carry on premises of establishments licensed to sell alcohol, etc.

    MCL 28.432 allows a non-MI resident to use their out of state concealed license in lieu of having to get Permits to Purchase/Possess and register their guns, since only MI residents may do so.

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

    Sec. 12.

    (1) Section 2 (is the License to Purchase/Possess law) does not apply to any of the following:

    (f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.
    Here's an AG opinion that deals somewhat with this issue. It is really about whether or not a MI resident may conceal carry with only an out of state concealed license. I think the state would apply what the AG wrote in the last paragraph for your scenario.

    http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op06798.htm

    Here, the Legislature has created local gun boards with the exclusive authority to issue concealed pistol licenses. The Legislature has imposed specific statutory requirements applicants must meet to obtain these licenses. In addition, whether applicants have good reasons and are suitable persons to be licensed is within the sound discretion of a board of local professionals who apply their knowledge of community needs and problems in evaluating applications. It is inconceivable that the Legislature, after crafting these statutory requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license, intended to permit Michigan residents to avoid them by obtaining a concealed pistol license in another state that may not impose many of the Michigan requirements. That construction of the statute would result in the absurd consequence that a Michigan resident could avoid the legislatively imposed requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license in Michigan by obtaining that type of license in another state without having to meet the Michigan requirements. Thus, it must be concluded that a Michigan resident with a concealed pistol license obtained in another state may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan unless the resident first obtains a concealed pistol license in Michigan by meeting the requirements for obtaining the license imposed by Michigan law.
    So (this is all just my opinion, ask a lawyer...which I'm not) if you are NOT a MI resident you may use your non MI concealed license in place of getting Licenses to Purchase/Possess and register your guns. You are then bound by the same laws regarding carry as a MI resident that does NOT have a CPL.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  3. #3
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    When you're here for school are you considered a MI resident? If so your out of state permits won't do anything for you (see AG opinion below). If you are NOT a MI resident while you're here for school then I'd say yes you could OC with your out of state permits under the same rules as a MI resident that does NOT have a CPL, i.e., no vehicle carry, no carry on premises of establishments licensed to sell alcohol, etc.

    MCL 28.432 allows a non-MI resident to use their out of state concealed license in lieu of having to get Permits to Purchase/Possess and register their guns, since only MI residents may do so.



    Here's an AG opinion that deals somewhat with this issue. It is really about whether or not a MI resident may conceal carry with only an out of state concealed license. I think the state would apply what the AG wrote in the last paragraph for your scenario.

    http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op06798.htm



    So (this is all just my opinion, ask a lawyer...which I'm not) if you are NOT a MI resident you may use your non MI concealed license in place of getting Licenses to Purchase/Possess and register your guns. You are then bound by the same laws regarding carry as a MI resident that does NOT have a CPL.

    Bronson
    Well I am a Michigan resident as I am from Portage and go to school at Ferris. Thank you for the AG opinon and your insight into this. I intend to look further into this especially since being able to carry in places with a liqour license would be so nice. Since I won't be back in Michigan until near the end of August I have time to figure it out. I know even if my permits work for exempting me from those places car carry is still not an option but being able to carry in those places would be great.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Well I am a Michigan resident as I am from Portage and go to school at Ferris.
    Sorry but I thought you were a non-MI resident that only came here for school...my goof.

    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    I intend to look further into this especially since being able to carry in places with a liqour license would be so nice. Since I won't be back in Michigan until near the end of August I have time to figure it out. I know even if my permits work for exempting me from those places car carry is still not an option but being able to carry in those places would be great.
    I'm actually a little surprised that other states will issue non-resident permits if the person has a resident permit available to them in their home state but doesn't have one.

    Personally I wouldn't risk it. With the AG opinion and the fact that if you get nailed for illegal possession in a firearm free zone it will keep you from getting a CPL for 8 years, I just don't see it as being worth the risk.

    Are you too young for a MI CPL or is cost the limiting factor?

    Just my take.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  5. #5
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Sorry but I thought you were a non-MI resident that only came here for school...my goof.



    I'm actually a little surprised that other states will issue non-resident permits if the person has a resident permit available to them in their home state but doesn't have one.

    Personally I wouldn't risk it. With the AG opinion and the fact that if you get nailed for illegal possession in a firearm free zone it will keep you from getting a CPL for 8 years, I just don't see it as being worth the risk.

    Are you too young for a MI CPL or is cost the limiting factor?

    Just my take.

    Bronson
    Its all age. I've taken a CPL class (needed something for my Maine permit and I wanted it for liability reasons). The only thing preventing me from getting it is the fact I'm not yet 21 which is kind of annoying when you see people who can barely handle and shoot a firearm get it but I can't (don't consider myself anything special but I can send rounds down range with a fair amount of accuarcy and speed). I'm only about 2 years away from it though.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  6. #6
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.

    (8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:
    (a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.

    So really the non-residents wouldn't help with having the pistol in Michigan but since I already have the license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport the pistol and am not carrying concealed we would have to look at 750.234d which says all you need is a license by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. Looking at the fact I have found 2 other spots in the Michigan firearms laws that specially require one to have a RESIDENT permit I would say that as long as I am carrying under 750.234d I am exempt.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    That AG opinion is clearly outdated and no longer applicable because of how dramatically the law has changed since it was written. It is no longer the case that the gun boards have significant power, and the only practical difference would be the state collecting their treasonous taxes on CPL's.

    HOWEVER, because of the fact the AG's office hasn't updated it since that criminally tyrannical Frank Kelly wrote it, it should be considered a gray area, or at least a fertile area for a very expensive legal battle to pave the way through case law to establish this as a legally permissible practice. Even Dean Greenblatt wouldn't give me a solid opinion on this, because there is no good way to go about it. When in doubt, go the route of caution.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  8. #8
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    That AG opinion is clearly outdated and no longer applicable because of how dramatically the law has changed since it was written. It is no longer the case that the gun boards have significant power, and the only practical difference would be the state collecting their treasonous taxes on CPL's.

    HOWEVER, because of the fact the AG's office hasn't updated it since that criminally tyrannical Frank Kelly wrote it, it should be considered a gray area, or at least a fertile area for a very expensive legal battle to pave the way through case law to establish this as a legally permissible practice. Even Dean Greenblatt wouldn't give me a solid opinion on this, because there is no good way to go about it. When in doubt, go the route of caution.
    Thank you for your imput. Is Dean Greenblatt a firearms attorny?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  9. #9
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Thank you for your imput. Is Dean Greenblatt a firearms attorny?

    Yes he is the lead Attorney for MOC on the CADL issue.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Sorry but I thought you were a non-MI resident that only came here for school...my goof.



    I'm actually a little surprised that other states will issue non-resident permits if the person has a resident permit available to them in their home state but doesn't have one.

    Personally I wouldn't risk it. With the AG opinion and the fact that if you get nailed for illegal possession in a firearm free zone it will keep you from getting a CPL for 8 years, I just don't see it as being worth the risk.

    Are you too young for a MI CPL or is cost the limiting factor?

    Just my take.

    Bronson
    What are basing this on? There is no basis for this. The old carry law mentioned similar language, the former AG said in his opinion that you had to have a MI permit if you were a MI resident; however, this was ONLY his opinion as there have been NO convictions on anyone carrying pre 2001 on an out of state license. When the shall issue law passed, they specifically wrote in the concealed carry law that you must have a home state permit. So the AG's opinion is mooted anyway.

    750.234d was never questioned, it was never challenged, there was never an AG opinion on it, and there is no case law stating that you must have a home state permit.

    The plain reading of 750.234d says what it says. You are exempt if you are licensed to carry a pistol by "this state or another state".

    Don't read any more into than what it says.

    The law says what it says.

    I understand that people want to be cautious but to what extent? By that logic, never ever open carry because someone could say you threatened them and pulled your gun out and it's their word versus yours so you may go to jail.
    Last edited by Jared; 07-04-2011 at 04:47 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    What are basing this on? There is no basis for this. The old carry law mentioned similar language, the former AG said in his opinion that you had to have a MI permit if you were a MI resident; however, this was ONLY his opinion as there have been NO convictions on anyone carrying pre 2001 on an out of state license. When the shall issue law passed, they specifically wrote in the concealed carry law that you must have a home state permit. So the AG's opinion is mooted anyway.

    750.234d was never questioned, it was never challenged, there was never an AG opinion on it, and there is no case law stating that you must have a home state permit.

    The plain reading of 750.234d says what it says. You are exempt if you are licensed to carry a pistol by "this state or another state".

    Don't read any more into than what it says.

    The law says what it says.

    I understand that people want to be cautious but to what extent? By that logic, never ever open carry because someone could say you threatened them and pulled your gun out and it's their word versus yours so you may go to jail.
    Did anyone try or was charged pre 2001 for carrying on an out of state permit?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Did anyone try or was charged pre 2001 for carrying on an out of state permit?
    "At first glance, the language of MCL 750.231a(1)(a) appears
    unambiguous. "A person holding a valid license to carry a pistol
    concealed upon his or her person issued by another state" appears
    to apply to any person, and not only a resident of the state that
    issued the license. However, when read together with the licensing
    requirements for Michigan residents, and in light of the general
    purpose of the CCW statute, we find that the legislature intended
    the exemption to apply only to nonresidents of Michigan."
    and
    "It is more reasonable to assume that the exemptions in MCL 750.231a; MSA28.248(1) are designed to apply to persons not covered by the
    licensing procedure in place for Michigan residents."

    So it seems pretty clear to me that a resident of Michigan would not be able to avoid registration because of having a NR permit. If you wanted to argue that Michigan CAN'T regulate if, say a person from Alabama carried concealed here on a Florida permit, I think you would have a valid point because why should Michigan get to decide something that is between Alabama and Florida?



    To whomever believes that some here are being too "conservative": If the point of these discussions is just to do as you want, then why ask?



    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_williams.txt


    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-11-2011 at 06:02 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  13. #13
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Also interesting that a person with an out-of-state permit could carry concealed in our GFZs... they are trying to change this:

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-HB-4591
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-11-2011 at 06:15 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  14. #14
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Yeah I've been looking more into AG opinions and stuff like that to get some reference. While I'd be nice to be able to carry in the firearm free premises I will sadly have to wait until I get my CPL which won't be for a
    couple more years. Funny how all I have to do is drive south in Michigan get to Indiana where I can carry it in my car, places that have liquor license, and many other places openly or concealed just not Michigan.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    How much you wanna bet they do that before eliminating PFZ?

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    It's actually been brought up before. What I expect, or wish, will happen at some point a CCer will be charged with carrying in a GFSZ and will try to use the 14 th amendment to get the charges dropped. I don't know how it would come out, but it definitely appears to be a violation of the equal protection clause, as is the fact that they don't need to register their firearms.
    In the case I listed above, the justices seem to be saying if you just stayed here in Michigan, but a had a permit from another state, a DL from that state, owned a house there, etc, that person could be considered a resident of that state and, could therefore carry concealed in our GFSZs and also be exempt from registration.... hmmm.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •