• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Janet Kukuk Act

DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
K

kubel

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
285
Location
, ,
Jesse Lambert said:
And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
kubel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? :lol:
 
X

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
However, an AG and the Michigan Supreme Court have basically interpreted the intent of the legislature to be that this covers non-residents only
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...
 
X

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
Yep, That definitely makes a difference. I still think that this one is ripe for a test case, Asking how are we to determine what applies to MI residents, and what doesn't.

It looks like a move to Florida is in my future though, so will have to leave this to you guys...:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top