Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Janet Kukuk Act

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343

    Janet Kukuk Act

    I haven't seen this discussed, and was recently brought up on MGO's board..

    28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.
    Sec. 12.
    (1) Section 2 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.

    So what is Section 2 that does not apply?

    That would be Sec. 2 of MCL28.422, which the law that requires you to register your pistols.


    So if you meet 28.432, then 28.422 does not apply to you.

    If this does not sound familiar, it is because this change has only been in effect since this past February.
    I also have a UTAH CFP, it appears this means that I do not have to register my handguns....

    Discussion?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    100 views, no thoughts?

    Maybe it's not clear what I'm asking.

    In MI, under MCL 28.422 you are required to register a handgun. Either by getting a license to Purchase ahead of time, then sending in the paperwork, or by using your CPL to purchase, then sending in the paperwork.

    But according to the exceptions under MCL 28.432, if you have a concealed license from another state, you are not required to register your handgun.

    Correct?

  3. #3
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    My $0.02 is this, (seeing as I have not dove into the issue) that this is talking about people holding a CPL from their home state, and they are visiting here. Think about it, Michigan only recognizes HOME-STATE permits for concealed carry, and it does say concealed carry permit, not carry permit, registration or some other non-sense. Again, this is just my quick $0.02, I have done no research on this topic, this is just me reading what you have provided. So in a nut shell it is IMHO that the legislator was referring to visitors not MI residents.

    ***IANAL***
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Ah yes, I see your point.

    Though the wording is "A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state."

    If your point were what they meant, maybe it should state, "A NON-Michigan resident who is a United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state."

    As it stands though, I am a US Citizen, and I hold a Utah CFP.

    I have also written a letter to MI AG Bill Schuette, maybe he can help clarify, and if necessary propose an amendment to reflect this.

    To add, has anyone purchased a handgun in MI with an out of state concealed permit? Not asking for anyone to incriminate themselves...

  5. #5
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Ah yes, I see your point. Though the wording is "A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state." If your point were what they meant, maybe it should state, "A NON-Michigan resident who is a United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state." As it stands though, I am a US Citizen, and I hold a Utah CFP. I have also written a letter to MI AG Bill Schuette, maybe he can help clarify, and if necessary propose an amendment to reflect this. To add, has anyone purchased a handgun in MI with an out of state concealed permit? Not asking for anyone to incriminate themselves...
    The AG usually won't respond to us lonely citizens, only people in "authority", good luck though. As for purchasing with an out of state CCW, I don't see any FFL doing this, with out a PPP (pistol purchase permit) or MI CPL. Maybe a private seller... I won't do it, not until they repeal registration.
    Last edited by eastmeyers; 07-11-2011 at 03:49 PM.
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Ask your rep to pose the question to the AG on your behalf.

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hill1.htm

    This should explain the issue. The first section is perhaps the most important to the discussion. See references in the article.
    BTW, the cpl law was changed to prohibit non-resident out-of-state licensees to carry concealed, the section regarding registration was not changed.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-11-2011 at 04:49 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.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Btw, the general feeling is that our present AG is NOT a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. As I understand it from general discussion, his voting record while a legislator was poor regarding 2A issues... but I haven't verified anything.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Boy, While I appreciate the response, it appears to me that document is so outdated as to be non relevant, EXCEPT that I see it is discussing the point of Michigan resident and out of state licenses.

    Here is a good example,

    B. Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan [98]

    Two years after Wingle, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Michigan found that the term "person," as it is used in Michigan's concealed weapons laws, "includes within its meaning all Michigan residents." [99] Therefore, according to the court, because persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws, [100] and the term "persons" includes Michigan residents, Michigan residents who carry out-of- state concealed weapons [Page 83] licenses are also exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws. [101]

    In Urbanik, the Attorney General argued that a strict literal interpretation of Michigan's concealed weapons law would totally eliminate the effectiveness of Michigan's "comprehensive statutory scheme of concealed weapons licensing." [102] According to the Attorney General, residents would have no incentive to apply for concealed weapons licenses from their local licensing boards because residents could easily obtain out-of-state licenses from states that require a moderate fee and "issue on demand . . . without even the appearance of need." [103] The Attorney General further argued that "the spirit and purpose of a statute must prevail over its strict letter where a strict literal interpretation of the statute would result in absurdities or inconsistencies with other laws." [104]

    The court, however, found the Attorney General's arguments unpersuasive. Instead, the court remarked that "the [c]ourt's duty is not to enact, but to expound the law; not to legislate, but to construe legislation and to apply the law as we find it." [105] According to the court, it was bound to give effect to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. [106] The court held that under the plain and unambiguous language of the concealed weapons statute, persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses were exempt from Michigan's licensing requirements. [107] According to the court, this exemption clearly and unambiguously applies to "any person, including a Michigan resident." [108]
    But seems to make MY point....

    While I agree with this "absurdity" statement,

    I. Introduction

    Michigan law regarding the validity of out-of-state concealed weapons licenses is ambiguous. Under Michigan law, persons who hold valid concealed weapons licenses issued by other states are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons licensing requirements. [4] The exemption clearly applies to a resident of another state who obtains a valid license to carry a concealed weapon in that state and then comes to Michigan. The question is, whether the exemption also applies to a Michigan resident who obtains a license to carry a concealed weapon from another state and then, on the basis of the out-of-state license, claims an exemption from the licensing requirements of Michigan's concealed weapons laws.

    Michigan's concealed weapons laws do not expressly distinguish between a Michigan resident and a non-resident for purposes of the exemption. [5] In 1994, a Michigan Attorney General Opinion [6] interpreted [Page 69] the statutory exemption as applying only to non-residents. In ascertaining the legislative intent behind Michigan's concealed weapons licensing statute, the Attorney General noted that absurd consequences would result if a Michigan resident could circumvent Michigan's specific statutory requirements regarding concealed weapons licensing by simply obtaining a concealed weapons license from another state, which may not impose many of the same licensing requirements as Michigan. [7]
    it would seem to me that it would be easier to simply STATE the intention, rather than leave us to read their minds...
    Last edited by xd shooter; 07-11-2011 at 10:08 PM.

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...v_williams.txt
    I actually posted this in another thread and thought I posted it here too. In this case the defendant was deemed NOT to be a resident and the person was found "not guilty". However, the court seems to be saying that if he was a resident, he could not use an out-of-state permit. This is a Mich Appeals Court decision which found that Michigan can require Michigan residents follow the Michigan licensing scheme and not circumvent it with an out-of-state permit. The thread concerns OC on a permit from another state.
    BTW, age of a decision is not important, rather it is more important that it is promulgated last by a higher court; an AG opinion that is often cited in regards to OC is dated 1945 and we and the MSP still use it to support the belief that OC in a visible holster is legal.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-12-2011 at 01:55 AM.
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    4
    Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    18/7?

  13. #13
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse Lambert View Post
    Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.
    Not sure I've heard of these people.
    Last edited by xmanhockey7; 07-12-2011 at 03:20 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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    18/7?
    Which is why OCDO forum rule #5 is important.

    (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  15. #15
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse Lambert View Post
    Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.
    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."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    BTW, age of a decision is not important, rather it is more important that it is promulgated last by a higher court; an AG opinion that is often cited in regards to OC is dated 1945 and we and the MSP still use it to support the belief that OC in a visible holster is legal.
    Of course. I was referring to its "age" as there have obviously been changes made to MI law concerning the "Shall Issue" topic, of which that article seems to center around.

    What do you think of the Urbanik case found in your article? Does it seem to make the same case that I am attempting to clarify?

  17. #17
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383

    Article 1 Section 6

    Quote Originally Posted by CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
    ARTICLE I
    Declaration of Rights

    § 6 Bearing of arms.
    Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
    state.
    Better?

    ETA: The PDF of the MI Constitution is too large to add as an attachment sorry.
    Last edited by eastmeyers; 07-13-2011 at 08:06 PM.
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I received a reply today....

    Attorney General Schuette has requested that the Criminal Division respond to your e-mail regarding Michigan firearms laws. We apologize for not responding sooner. However, this office receives hundreds of letters each week and some delays are inevitable.

    Due to limited time and resources, we are unable to assign a member of our staff to thoroughly answer your question for you. However, the Michigan State Police have an on-line resource at www.michigan.gov/msp that you should find helpful. After accessing this website, choose the heading "Firearms," which appears on the right-hand side of the home page. You may also contact them at 517‑332‑2521.

    Thank you for your inquiry.

    Donna L. Pendergast
    First Assistant Attorney General
    Criminal Division
    Oh well..

    Anyway I had another thought to add. Reading the entire MCL,

    28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.
    Sec. 12. (1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) A police or correctional agency of the United States or of this state or any subdivision of this state.
    (b) The United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps.
    (c) An organization authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this
    state.
    (d) The national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization.
    (e) A member of an entity or organization described in subdivisions (a) through (d) for a pistol while
    engaged in the course of his or her duties with that entity or while going to or returning from those duties.
    (f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by
    another state.
    (g) The regular and ordinary possession and transportation of a pistol as merchandise by an authorized
    agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms or a licensed dealer.
    (h) Purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm. As used in this
    subdivision, "antique firearm" means that term as defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931
    PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
    (i) An individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting a pistol belonging to another individual, if the
    other individual's possession of the pistol is authorized by law and the individual carrying, possessing, using,
    or transporting the pistol has obtained a license under section 5b to carry a concealed pistol or is exempt from
    licensure as provided in section 12a.
    (2) The amendatory act that added subsection (1)(h) shall be known and may be cited as the "Janet Kukuk
    act".
    History: 1927, Act 372, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927;CL 1929, 16761;CL 1948, 28.432;Am. 1964, Act 216, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964;Am.
    2000, Act 381, Eff. July 1, 2001;Am. 2004, Act 99, Imd. Eff. May 13, 2004;Am. 2006, Act 75, Eff. July 1, 2006;Am. 2008, Act
    195, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009;Am. 2010, Act 209, Eff. Feb. 15, 2011.

    Eastmeyers, your point is that the articles in this statute apply to persons that are NOT MI residents, even though it doesn't specify that. I would point out the amendatory act (1)(h), known as the Jane Kukuk Act, also does not specify resident or not, but is OBVIOUSLY applicable to MI residents. I fail to understand how some of the subsections refer to MI residents, if not all of them, EXCEPT the one referring to registering a handgun. Either they all do, or they all DON'T...

  19. #19
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    I received a reply today....



    Oh well..

    Anyway I had another thought to add. Reading the entire MCL,




    Eastmeyers, your point is that the articles in this statute apply to persons that are NOT MI residents, even though it doesn't specify that. I would point out the amendatory act (1)(h), known as the Jane Kukuk Act, also does not specify resident or not, but is OBVIOUSLY applicable to MI residents. I fail to understand how some of the subsections refer to MI residents, if not all of them, EXCEPT the one referring to registering a handgun. Either they all do, or they all DON'T...
    It is my understanding that you do not need to register "antique" firearms in Michigan, you would have to look up the act that it lists, for the defined list, its something like, firearms produced before 1890 or replicas of said firearms. I am sure I am wrong on the exact date. Although I could be wrong all together. Someone will be along shortly I am sure, to explain it further that is much more knowledgeable on non-registering of antique firearms.
    As always good ladies and gentlemen ***IANAL***!
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Of course, but that's not the point I was trying to make. If the antique firearms statute applies to Michigan residents, shouldn't f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state?

    You suggested that statute may only apply to non MI residents, yet all the others seem to apply to MI residents.

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    I think you are confusing "law as written" with "law as interpreted". Yes, following the explicit text from the MCL, you would seem to meet the exception. However, an AG and the Michigan Supreme Court have basically interpreted the intent of the legislature to be that this covers non-residents only; Michigan has an explicit process in place for Michigan residents.
    Remember, what you are arguing is what we also believe should be the case... but our opinions aren't what matters. Unless you want to be a test case, I would abide by what we have told you. What I MIGHT do myself is not necessarily what I tell you to do. Advocating illegal behavior is contrary to forum rule #15; doing it myself with the understanding that I may pay some heavy consequences is not.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesse Lambert View Post
    And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.
    While I agree that gun registration is wrong, I don't think anyone here would ever carry an unregistered firearm, much less be stupid enough to publicly admit it.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606
    Quote Originally Posted by kubel View Post
    While I agree that gun registration is wrong, I don't think anyone here would ever carry an unregistered firearm, much less be stupid enough to publicly admit it.
    To the contrary - none of my guns are "registered", nor are my children, my clothing, nor my ammo.

    GIVE ME LIBERTY!!! I will accept no less. Did I mention that I live in Virginia?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    However, an AG and the Michigan Supreme Court have basically interpreted the intent of the legislature to be that this covers non-residents only
    Do you have the cites for me to read, or are you relying on the previously shown cites that seem to make my case?

    B. Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan [98]

    Two years after Wingle, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Michigan found that the term "person," as it is used in Michigan's concealed weapons laws, "includes within its meaning all Michigan residents." [99] Therefore, according to the court, because persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws, [100] and the term "persons" includes Michigan residents, Michigan residents who carry out-of- state concealed weapons [Page 83] licenses are also exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws. [101]

    In Urbanik, the Attorney General argued that a strict literal interpretation of Michigan's concealed weapons law would totally eliminate the effectiveness of Michigan's "comprehensive statutory scheme of concealed weapons licensing." [102] According to the Attorney General, residents would have no incentive to apply for concealed weapons licenses from their local licensing boards because residents could easily obtain out-of-state licenses from states that require a moderate fee and "issue on demand . . . without even the appearance of need." [103] The Attorney General further argued that "the spirit and purpose of a statute must prevail over its strict letter where a strict literal interpretation of the statute would result in absurdities or inconsistencies with other laws." [104]

    The court, however, found the Attorney General's arguments unpersuasive. Instead, the court remarked that "the [c]ourt's duty is not to enact, but to expound the law; not to legislate, but to construe legislation and to apply the law as we find it." [105] According to the court, it was bound to give effect to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. [106] The court held that under the plain and unambiguous language of the concealed weapons statute, persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses were exempt from Michigan's licensing requirements. [107] According to the court, this exemption clearly and unambiguously applies to "any person, including a Michigan resident." [108]

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh....php?p=1571880

    The case here was, if I'm not mistaken, after the case you cited and was given by a higher court... Mich court of appeals over-rides Circuit Court
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-16-2011 at 06:05 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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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