yep it is an exemption that has been there a while and until I retired I was under it. What bothers me other than the obvious there should be no PFZ's is now that I am retired the idiots I have that want me pushing up daises suddenly don't hate me because I am retired? That's stupid logic.
The wording in red is interesting... It appears to say that the PFZ's are in conflict with the concealed pistol license itself.
I wonder if we can use this as a defense.
" Thus, any person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, including a private investigator, is exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 234d of the Penal Code and may therefore possess firearms while on the types of premises listed in that statute.
When applied to a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol, there is no inherent conflict between the gun-free zone provisions in section 234d of the Penal Code and those in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. The former statute, which prohibits firearms in certain protected zones, does not apply to persons who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon.3 The latter statute, which contains no exemptions, prohibits concealed weapon licensees from carrying a concealed pistol in certain protected gun-free zones. The legislative prohibition in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act is not diminished in any way by section 234d of the Penal Code. When statutes govern the same subject matter and are in pari materia, the court must endeavor to construe them harmoniously and to give them reasonable effect. Speaker v State Administrative Bd, 441 Mich 547, 568, 579; 495 NW2d 539 (1993).