Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Attorney General Opinion #7097

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Attorney General Opinion #7097

    I don't remember seeing this one written about, discussed, or referenced before.

    Bronson

    http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op10173.htm



    STATE OF MICHIGAN
    JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    CONCEALED WEAPONS:
    FIREARMS:
    PRIVATE DETECTIVES:
    Private investigator carrying concealed pistol in gun-free zones


    A private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is not, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.
    Opinion No. 7097

    January 11, 2002

    Honorable Doug Spade
    State Representative
    The Capitol
    Lansing, MI

    You have asked whether a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.
    Private investigators are licensed under the Private Detective License Act of 1965, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 et seq. That act does not, however, authorize a private investigator to carry a concealed pistol.

    In the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act (Act), 1927 PA 372,1 MCL 28.421 et seq, the Legislature has addressed the licensing of persons to carry concealed pistols. Section 5b of the Act contains the requirements for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. Under section 12a, various categories of persons, including peace officers, are made exempt from the requirements of section 5b for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. There is, however, no exemption for private investigators in section 12a or in any other section of the Act. Thus, private investigators may carry concealed pistols only if they are licensed to do so under section 5b of the Act. Once licensed to carry a concealed pistol, private investigators are subject to the Act's restrictions in the same manner as any other person licensed to carry a concealed pistol.

    In 2000 PA 381, the Legislature significantly amended the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. New section 5b of the Act changed the requirements for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol. Under section 5b(7), a county concealed weapon licensing board "shall issue a license to an applicant" who meets the requirements of the Act. Once the board has issued a license, the license holder may, subject to exceptions stated in section 5o, carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state."
    In section 5o, however, the Legislature enumerated certain so-called gun-free zones, i.e., premises where a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall not carry a concealed pistol.
    Sec. 5o (1) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, . . . shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
    a) A school or school
    property . . . .

    b) A public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

    c) A sports arena or stadium.

    d) A dining room, lounge, or bar area of a premises licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998 . . . . This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the premises.

    e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.

    f) An entertainment facility [that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more].

    g) A hospital.

    h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university. [Emphasis added.]
    Section 5o of the Act expressly prohibits persons licensed under the Act from carrying concealed pistols in the specified gun-free zones.2 Nothing in section 5o or in any other section of the Act exempts private investigators from its prohibitions. A clear and unambiguous statement in a statute must be enforced as written according to its plain meaning. Dean v Dep't of Corrections, 453 Mich 448, 454; 556 NW2d 458 (1996). In such instances, statutory construction is neither required nor permitted; rather, the court must apply the statutory language as written. Piper v Pettibone Corp, 450 Mich 565, 572; 542 NW2d 269 (1995). Therefore, a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, even if that person is a licensed private investigator, must obey section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act and shall not carry a concealed pistol in any of the gun-free zones identified in the Act.
    This conclusion is not affected by the provisions of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. That statute prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms on certain types of premises as follows:
    Sec. 234d (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
    a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

    b) A church or other house of religious worship.

    c) A court.

    d) A theatre.

    e) A sports arena.

    f) A day care center.

    g) A hospital.

    h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, . . . .
    (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
    a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

    b) A peace officer.

    c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

    d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity. [Emphasis added.]
    By its express terms, section 234d prohibits certain persons from carrying a firearm in the enumerated places but explicitly exempts from its prohibition "[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon." 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).

    It is my opinion, therefore, that a private investigator licensed to carry a concealed pistol is not, by reason of section 234d of the Michigan Penal Code, exempt from the gun-free zone restrictions imposed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act.

    JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
    Attorney General

    1
    The Act was significantly revised by amendatory 2000 PA 381.


    2
    Act is subject to the penalties in section 5o(3)(a)-(c) of the Act. These penalties include fines, license suspension or revocation, and for third time offenders person with a license to carry a concealed pistol who carries a pistol on premises protected under section 5o(1)(a)-(h) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing , up to four years imprisonment.

    3
    A similar statutory provision criminalizes the possession of weapons in school zones but expressly exempts certain persons, including persons licensed to carry a concealed weapon. MCL 750.237a.

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

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    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.

    Nice find.

    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).
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 07-14-2011 at 02:41 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    It's been discussed and has been used early on in the argument that OC was lawful. I know I have referenced it in correspondences with LEO, etc...
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    It's been discussed and has been used early on in the argument that OC was lawful. I know I have referenced it in correspondences with LEO, etc...
    Just because I don't remember it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen

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

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    It's been discussed and has been used early on in the argument that OC was lawful. I know I have referenced it in correspondences with LEO, etc...
    As have I. But wondering, isn't AG opinion 7113 even better?
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    As have I. But wondering, isn't AG opinion 7113 even better?
    Hit 'em from different directions at the same time Being able to show multiple AG opinions from different AGs, MSP documents, laws, PD training documents, etc. are all a good thing IMO.

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

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Ahhh, got it. I didn't know this was in reference to CADL...
    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
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Ahhh, got it. I didn't know this was in reference to CADL...
    Oh...neither did I. I just meant "'em" as in the general population of people who think OC with a CPL or OC in general isn't legal.

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

  9. #9
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Exclamation

    This is why our fight to educate our fellow citizens now is so hard.In the 50's and 60's,guns and self defense was common knowledge.The proggresive(socialist) idea that guns were bad,led to layers and layers of gun-control laws to be written and passed,under the noses of our parents.Jefferson said the Bill of Rights was written so simply,that the common man could understand them.The socialists have written the laws so complicatedly that only lawyers and folks like us(who have studied them carefully) can get passed the vast confusion.It's always their goal to confuse and cause fear so the people act according to those unfounded fears(hopolophobia-unfounded fear of guns,inanimate objects)!Let us continue to educate with Truth and send those commie liars to HELL! CAARRY ON!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559
    Yep this horse has been around the track a few times... so there is a definite advantage to having a CCW, you can legaly OC in areas that are normally considered CEZ....

Posting Permissions

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