Point of allowing OC w/o a CPL?

I moved to Michigan from Texas less than 2 years ago. I bought my first pistol (my first personal ownership of a firearm) a month ago. I took a CPL class and submitted my paperwork a couple weeks ago (no felonies, misdemeanors, never seen the inside of a courtroom or PD, handcuffed, traffic stops or so much as a parking ticket) so I don't anticipate any problems but from what I hear I shouldn't hold my breath because I'll turn blue and pass out (or die of old age) before I actually receive it anyway.

I've been researching researching and researching do's/don't's/PFZs/laws etc because the only thing that stopped me from getting a pistol before was accidently running afoul of the law, because ignorance isn't a defense, and running afoul of the law is not what I do or want to do esp. with firearms. I've come across "MCL 750.234d" which, currently not having a CPL or being one of the other exemptions, would prohibit me from even having my pistol in the trunk parked at any place with a liquor license including supermarkets like Meijer/Walmart/Target, gas stations, non-dollar-menu restaurants, drug stores (Rite-Aid, Walgreens, etc), basically anywhere I care to go when I'm in town (I live 30 minutes away from the nearest 'town' & gas is $4 so I need to limit trips). Even if I go to say McDs or Best Buy it would look suspicious as **** and if someone saw me holster my pistol from the trunk (for a lawful purpose of course, since carrying in the passenger compartment is considered conceal carry) I will have the entire city PD and MSP on my ass and I'd be in a world of hurt.

I don't want to jokingly say 'why not make OC w/o a license illegal since it's useless otherwise' when our rights are under attack more than ever at the federal level. But what is the point? I feel like Michigan's current OC law w/o a CPL is saying that I can buy a car, but I can only drive it to/from work with work being the 'lawful purpose'.

You forgot MCL 750.237a...

TheQ said:

You forgot MCL 750.237a...

Click to expand...

They covered that in the CPL class. Schools are 'off limits' even parking lots except when dropping off a student. I don't have children anyway or any reason to go to any school.

jfmi said:

They covered that in the CPL class. Schools are 'off limits' even parking lots except when dropping off a student. I don't have children anyway or any reason to go to any school.

Click to expand...

They were wrong too. Anyone with a CPL may posses in the parking lot of a school. Read the law again and pay particular attention to the part about which PFZs you can posses in the parking lot of.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

jfmi said:

Point of allowing OC w/o a CPL? . . .
I don't want to jokingly say 'why not make OC w/o a license illegal since it's useless otherwise' when our rights are under attack more than ever at the federal level. But what is the point?

Click to expand...

When a right is severely infringed upon just because you don't have a piece of paper, you don't give up on the right. You fight to remove the infringements. Welcome to gun-rights advocacy.

Anyway I guess the primary (but not only) motivation for getting the CPL is to be able to make other stops between the range. I don't want to drive 30-35 mins to & from the range to drop the pistol off at home, drive back another 30-35 to Meijer or whatever and another 30-35 back. I work a late shift and where I work is a small town too not far, so no 24hr stores either to go to on the way home.

jfmi said:

I don't want to drive 30-35 mins to & from the range to drop the pistol off at home, drive back another 30-35 to Meijer or whatever and another 30-35 back. I work a late shift and where I work is a small town too not far, so no 24hr stores either to go to on the way home.

Click to expand...

Why would you need to do all that?

Bronson

Bronson said:

Why would you need to do all that?

Bronson

Click to expand...

No CPL? Liquor license premises? parking lot included?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy IIIs using Tapatalk 2.

Mosnar87 said:

No CPL? Liquor license premises? parking lot included?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy IIIs using Tapatalk 2.

Click to expand...

Not doubt about it, carrying without a CPL in MI is difficult at best & at worst full of "traps" if one has not studied the laws fully.

This is why MI needs a Constitutional carry law passed. I know the odds are slim at this time but hopefully within the next ten years it can be done. This does away with all the "pistol /loading/unloading stow/transport" gymnastics a non CPL holder must go through at this time to obey current MI laws. Prior to getting my CPL in MI I too did said pistol-gymnastics and it does get old quickly and increases the chances of an accidental discharge IMHO. Prior to getting my AZ CCW I could go just about anywhere I wanted to without doing any of the gyrations mentioned above - go to Kroger no issues - go to circle K no issues - and so on. MI law is very strange indeed when it comes to carrying a pistol; especially without a CPL.

FreeInAZ said:

Not doubt about it, carrying without a CPL in MI is difficult at best & at worst full of "traps" if one has not studied the laws fully.

This is why MI needs a Constitutional carry law passed. I know the odds are slim at this time but hopefully within the next ten years it can be done. This does away with all the "pistol /loading/unloading stow/transport" gymnastics a non CPL holder must go through at this time to obey current MI laws. Prior to getting my CPL in MI I too did said pistol-gymnastics and it does get old quickly and increases the chances of an accidental discharge IMHO. Prior to getting my AZ CCW I could go just about anywhere I wanted to without doing any of the gyrations mentioned above - go to Kroger no issues - go to circle K no issues - and so on. MI law is very strange indeed when it comes to carrying a pistol; especially without a CPL.

Click to expand...

Michigans gun laws are not strange,they're an "Infringement" made into laws by Ignorant or unConstitutional legislators and govenors! Thats why We fight to have em changed and or repealed!Constitutional Carry is a Must! CARRY ON!

A concealed carry "permit" is the very definition of the government being in control of a "permission slip" to exercise a right and is the exact kind of thing that "shall not be infringed" was supposed to prevent. And a concealed carry "permit" isn't even close to the actual right to bear arms but is the government's way to control who is and, more importantly, who ISN'T "allowed" to bear a concealed arm by being in control of who gets, and who doesn't get, "permission".

Open carry......... while the government has also "infringed" upon actually doing it with laws that control where it cannot be done, does not require permission from the government and, even though it is still infringed upon by regulation type laws, is still closer to the actual right to bear arms than a concealed carry permit simply because one does not need "permission" (that permission slip called a "permit") to do it.

Having said all that... the only real difference is the word "permission" because whether it be concealed carry controlled by the government through a permit process... or stringent laws that control where open carry cannot be done... the sad fact is...

the government is still in control of exercising the right to bear arms.

Now... why were the laws set up so that open carry that does not need the permission of the government so difficult? Because the government wants to be in charge of who does, and who doesn't, have permission to bear arms. After all... how can the government maintain control over who carries guns where and in what way if no one has to..................

ask the government for permission first?

Shadow Bear... I would appreciate it if you did not change the wording in quotes of my posts. I used the words I used in my post specifically to express my thoughts... I did not say what you changed my post to say... those are your words. If you wish to say what you "fixed" my post to say kindly post it on your own and accept the responsibility for your own words.

Thank you.

Edited to add:

Thank you for your quick resolution of this matter Shadow Bear. It is appreciated.

Bikenut said:

Shadow Bear... I would appreciate it if you did not change the wording in quotes of my posts. I used the words I used in my post specifically to express my thoughts... I did not say what you changed my post to say... those are your words. If you wish to say what you "fixed" my post to say kindly post it on your own and accept the responsibility for your own words.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I did take responsibility- you apparently aren't familiar with internet shorthand.

The point being, it's not just firearms or CPLs- ALL freedom is equally threatened. ALL human rights in the US are under attack; firearms are just the easiest to demonize.

Lighten up- we're all in this together (I thought).

Shadow Bear said:

I did take responsibility- you apparently aren't familiar with internet shorthand.

The point being, it's not just firearms or CPLs- ALL freedom is equally threatened. ALL human rights in the US are under attack; firearms are just the easiest to demonize.

Lighten up- we're all in this together (I thought).

Click to expand...

I'm not being a jerk ... we are in this together... that is why it would be advantageous if we ALL didn't change what others say within a quote simply because... since it is within a quote it can be used as having been said by the person quoted... even though it was a "fify". After all.... a "fify" doesn't always have to be done in a positive manner but could be done to change the entire content/perspective of the quote. And considering some of the urinating matches that go on here someone could change a quote to the point where it would cast doubts upon the poster's motives.

You didn't do that to my post... I just chose this opportunity to bring the "fify" thing into the spotlight as a not so good thing for us to be doing.

And we all know that the internet is mined by prosecutors hoping to find something, anything, to cast a suspicious light upon a person accused of a crime. If something ever happened I would be severely annoyed to have my attorney to try to defend a "fify" quoted post in court when the prosecution just lays it out there as.......... a quote. I would be pissed to no end if a jury believed the "fify" quote was what I actually said and the case went against me.

Bikenut said:

I'm not being a jerk ... we are in this together... that is why it would be advantageous if we ALL didn't change what others say within a quote simply because... since it is within a quote it can be used as having been said by the person quoted... even though it was a "fify". After all.... a "fify" doesn't always have to be done in a positive manner but could be done to change the entire content/perspective of the quote. And considering some of the urinating matches that go on here someone could change a quote to the point where it would cast doubts upon the poster's motives.

You didn't do that to my post... I just chose this opportunity to bring the "fify" thing into the spotlight as a not so good thing for us to be doing.

And we all know that the internet is mined by prosecutors hoping to find something, anything, to cast a suspicious light upon a person accused of a crime. I would be severely annoyed to have my attorney to try to defend a "fify" quoted post in court when the prosecution just lays it out there as.......... a quote. I would be pissed to no end if a jury believed the "fify" quote was what I actually said and the case went against me.

Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch. Why would they bother, when its so much easier to manufacture much more convincing evidence? Well, what the heck, federal law allows them to just make us 'disappear', a la Latin American banana republics....

Now, I gotta go get some more tinfoil for my hat....

Shadow Bear said:

That's quite a stretch. Why would they bother, when its so much easier to manufacture much more convincing evidence? Well, what the heck, federal law allows them to just make us 'disappear', a la Latin American banana republics....

Now, I gotta go get some more tinfoil for my hat....

Click to expand...

You say that we are all in this together and then come back with ridicule? How very.... interesting.

Are you saying that no prosecutor would ever misuse a "fify" changed quote in court to further his case?

Bikenut said:

You say that we are all in this together and then come back with ridicule? How very.... interesting.

Are you saying that no prosecutor would ever misuse a "fify" changed quote in court to further his case?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that it's much easier to manufacture something juicy, than some 'actual' post.

Do you think they wouldn't stoop to hacking to come up with some REALLY good stuff?

Not ridicule- just an observation that you're probably worrying about the wrong stuff......

Shadow Bear said:

I'm saying that it's much easier to manufacture something juicy, than some 'actual' post.

Do you think they wouldn't stoop to hacking to come up with some REALLY good stuff?

Not ridicule- just an observation that you're probably worrying about the wrong stuff......

Click to expand...

My point is that there would be no need to manufacture anything. A "fify" quote basically puts words into someone elses mouth (typed on the internet) and most certainly could be used by a prosecutor who presented said "fify" quote in court but conveniently left off the "fify" part because all he wants is the damaging evidence within the "fixed" quote. And it would be credible on it's own because it is a quote that didn't even need to be manufactured.

Am I worrying about the wrong stuff? Frankly, in today's world when our words that we actually used can be twisted against us, what kind of twists could be put to words that I never said but someone else "fify" said yet, because it is within a post quoted to me, those words are attributed to me?

Perhaps it is time to "fix" the forum so the only poster who can "fix" (edit) or change a quote is the original poster.

Mosnar87 said:

No CPL? Liquor license premises? parking lot included?

Click to expand...

Ah, I thought he was referring to the outdated idea that you could only transport directly to/from specific place, i.e., your home to the range and back, which we know hasn't been the case for a while now.

Bronson

JFC! This forum has so much butthurt!

I barely posted on the last thread that got locked and it was FULL of butthurt.

I made one non-controversial post on this thread and it too is full of butthurt.

At least I'm not the source of all of it