Opinion No. 6798
May 16, 1994
CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSE:
Michigan resident with a concealed weapon license acquired from another state
A Michigan resident may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan if the resident has only acquired a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state.
Honorable David Jaye
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI
You have asked whether a Michigan resident may carry a concealed pistol in Michigan if the resident has only acquired a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state.
MCL 28.432a; MSA 28.98(1), provides:
Section 6 [requiring a concealed weapon license to carry a concealed pistol] does not apply to:
(f) A person licensed to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.
Similarly, MCL 750.231a; MSA 28.428(1), states:
(1) Section 227 [prohibiting carrying a concealed pistol without a license] does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state except where the pistol is carried in non-conformance with a restriction appearing on the license.
The above-quoted statutory provisions clearly apply to a resident of another state that obtains a license to carry a concealed pistol in that state and then comes into the State of Michigan. The question is whether the exemption is also applicable to a Michigan resident that obtains a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state and, on that basis, claims an exemption from the requirements of Michigan's concealed weapon laws.
In section 6 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.426; MSA 28.93, the Legislature has established a comprehensive procedure for determining whether a Michigan resident should be issued a license to carry a pistol concealed on the person or in a vehicle operated or occupied by the applicant. Subsection (1) of section 6 provides:
The prosecuting attorney, the sheriff, and the director of the department of state police, or their respective authorized deputies, shall constitute boards exclusively authorized to issue a license to an applicant residing within their respective counties, to carry a pistol concealed on the person and to carry a pistol, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the applicant. The county clerk of each county shall be clerk of the licensing board, which board shall be known as the concealed weapon licensing board. A license to carry a pistol concealed on the person or to carry a pistol, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person applying for the license, shall not be granted to a person unless the person is 18 years of age or older, is a citizen of the United States, and has resided in this state 6 months or more. A license shall not be issued unless it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property, or has other proper reasons, and is a suitable person to be licensed. A license shall not be issued to a person who was convicted of a felony or confined for a felony conviction in this state or elsewhere during the 8-year period immediately preceding the date of the application or was adjudged insane unless the person was restored to sanity and so declared by court order. [ Emphasis added.]
Subsection (4) requires fingerprinting the applicant and sending the fingerprints to the Michigan Department of State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ascertain whether there has been a felony conviction or confinement for a felony conviction within the 8-year period. Subsection (5) provides that the concealed pistol license may be restricted, on the face of the license, consistent with the reasons the license was issued. Under subsection (6), a concealed pistol license may not be issued for more than three years and a renewal may not be granted unless a new application is filed.
Michigan's appellate courts have consistently recognized that the Legislature has imposed comprehensive requirements an applicant must meet to obtain a concealed pistol license from a county gun board. In People v McFadden, 31 MichApp 512, 516; 188 NW2d 141 (1971), the court stated:
Pursuant to constitutional requirements, the statute enumerates explicit criteria to guide the concealed weapon licensing board in processing applications. Thus, any suggestion that absence of standards creates a potential for arbitrary action lacks merit.
Subsequently, in Hanselman v Wayne County Weapon Bd, 419 Mich 168, 189; 351 NW2d 544 (1984), the Supreme Court declared:
Each concealed weapon licensing board must determine "proper reason" and "suitability" based upon consideration of local needs and an exercise of its discretion. As the Court of Appeals recognized in Bay County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board v Gasta, 96 MichApp 784, 789-791; 293 NW2d 707 (1980), the Legislature intends the concealed weapon licensing boards to apply local and discretionary standards in deciding whether to grant an applicant a concealed weapon license:
"The licensing board is comprised of one representative each from the County Prosecutor's Office, the State Police, and the County Sheriff's Department. By creating a board composed of law enforcement officials and giving it the exclusive authority to issue, deny and revoke permits for concealed weapons, the Legislature has insured that an individual's perceived need to carry a concealed weapon will be evaluated in light of the experience and knowledge of community needs possessed by these local officials. The potential danger which a concealed weapon poses to the unsuspecting public justifies that licensing procedures be entrusted to a board comprised of law enforcement officials.
"In view of the inherent potential danger which accompanies the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the licensing board as composed reflects the Legislature's intent that power to issue and revoke such [concealed weapon] licenses is properly placed with those professionals most able to assess community needs and problems in this area." [ Emphasis added.]
There are many rules for interpreting statutes. The ultimate goal of all such rules is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, even if the intent might appear in conflict with the literal language of the statute. People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 266; 414 NW2d 693 (1987). Also, statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948).
Here, the Legislature has created local gun boards with the exclusive authority to issue concealed pistol licenses. The Legislature has imposed specific statutory requirements applicants must meet to obtain these licenses. In addition, whether applicants have good reasons and are suitable persons to be licensed is within the sound discretion of a board of local professionals who apply their knowledge of community needs and problems in evaluating applications. It is inconceivable that the Legislature, after crafting these statutory requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license, intended to permit Michigan residents to avoid them by obtaining a concealed pistol license in another state that may not impose many of the Michigan requirements. That construction of the statute would result in the absurd consequence that a Michigan resident could avoid the legislatively imposed requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license in Michigan by obtaining that type of license in another state without having to meet the Michigan requirements. Thus, it must be concluded that a Michigan resident with a concealed pistol license obtained in another state may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan unless the resident first obtains a concealed pistol license in Michigan by meeting the requirements for obtaining the license imposed by Michigan law.
It is my opinion, therefore, that a Michigan resident may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan if the resident has only acquired a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state.
Frank J. Kelley
Attorney General
