Janet Kukuk Act

[xd shooter]

I haven't seen this discussed, and was recently brought up on MGO's board..

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.
Sec. 12.
(1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following...
(f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.

So what is Section 2 that does not apply?

That would be Sec. 2 of MCL28.422, which the law that requires you to register your pistols.


So if you meet 28.432, then 28.422 does not apply to you.

If this does not sound familiar, it is because this change has only been in effect since this past February.

I also have a UTAH CFP, it appears this means that I do not have to register my handguns....

Discussion?

 

[xd shooter]

100 views, no thoughts?

Maybe it's not clear what I'm asking.

In MI, under MCL 28.422 you are required to register a handgun. Either by getting a license to Purchase ahead of time, then sending in the paperwork, or by using your CPL to purchase, then sending in the paperwork.

But according to the exceptions under MCL 28.432, if you have a concealed license from another state, you are not required to register your handgun.

Correct?

 

[eastmeyers]

My $0.02 is this, (seeing as I have not dove into the issue) that this is talking about people holding a CPL from their home state, and they are visiting here. Think about it, Michigan only recognizes HOME-STATE permits for concealed carry, and it does say concealed carry permit, not carry permit, registration or some other non-sense. Again, this is just my quick $0.02, I have done no research on this topic, this is just me reading what you have provided. So in a nut shell it is IMHO that the legislator was referring to visitors not MI residents.

***IANAL***

 

[xd shooter]

Ah yes, I see your point.

Though the wording is "A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state."

If your point were what they meant, maybe it should state, "A NON-Michigan resident who is a United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state."

As it stands though, I am a US Citizen, and I hold a Utah CFP.

I have also written a letter to MI AG Bill Schuette, maybe he can help clarify, and if necessary propose an amendment to reflect this.

To add, has anyone purchased a handgun in MI with an out of state concealed permit? Not asking for anyone to incriminate themselves...

 

[eastmeyers]

Ah yes, I see your point. Though the wording is "A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state." If your point were what they meant, maybe it should state, "A NON-Michigan resident who is a United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state." As it stands though, I am a US Citizen, and I hold a Utah CFP. I have also written a letter to MI AG Bill Schuette, maybe he can help clarify, and if necessary propose an amendment to reflect this. To add, has anyone purchased a handgun in MI with an out of state concealed permit? Not asking for anyone to incriminate themselves...

The AG usually won't respond to us lonely citizens, only people in "authority", good luck though. As for purchasing with an out of state CCW, I don't see any FFL doing this, with out a PPP (pistol purchase permit) or MI CPL. Maybe a private seller... I won't do it, not until they repeal registration.

 

[stainless1911]

Ask your rep to pose the question to the AG on your behalf.

 

[DrTodd]

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hill1.htm

This should explain the issue. The first section is perhaps the most important to the discussion. See references in the article.
BTW, the cpl law was changed to prohibit non-resident out-of-state licensees to carry concealed, the section regarding registration was not changed.

 

[DrTodd]

Btw, the general feeling is that our present AG is NOT a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. As I understand it from general discussion, his voting record while a legislator was poor regarding 2A issues... but I haven't verified anything.

 

[xd shooter]

Boy, While I appreciate the response, it appears to me that document is so outdated as to be non relevant, EXCEPT that I see it is discussing the point of Michigan resident and out of state licenses.

Here is a good example,

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]

But seems to make MY point....

While I agree with this "absurdity" statement,

I. Introduction

Michigan law regarding the validity of out-of-state concealed weapons licenses is ambiguous. Under Michigan law, persons who hold valid concealed weapons licenses issued by other states are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons licensing requirements. [4] The exemption clearly applies to a resident of another state who obtains a valid license to carry a concealed weapon in that state and then comes to Michigan. The question is, whether the exemption also applies to a Michigan resident who obtains a license to carry a concealed weapon from another state and then, on the basis of the out-of-state license, claims an exemption from the licensing requirements of Michigan's concealed weapons laws.

Michigan's concealed weapons laws do not expressly distinguish between a Michigan resident and a non-resident for purposes of the exemption. [5] In 1994, a Michigan Attorney General Opinion [6] interpreted [Page 69] the statutory exemption as applying only to non-residents. In ascertaining the legislative intent behind Michigan's concealed weapons licensing statute, the Attorney General noted that absurd consequences would result if a Michigan resident could circumvent Michigan's specific statutory requirements regarding concealed weapons licensing by simply obtaining a concealed weapons license from another state, which may not impose many of the same licensing requirements as Michigan. [7]

it would seem to me that it would be easier to simply STATE the intention, rather than leave us to read their minds...

 

[DrTodd]

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_williams.txt
I actually posted this in another thread and thought I posted it here too. In this case the defendant was deemed NOT to be a resident and the person was found "not guilty". However, the court seems to be saying that if he was a resident, he could not use an out-of-state permit. This is a Mich Appeals Court decision which found that Michigan can require Michigan residents follow the Michigan licensing scheme and not circumvent it with an out-of-state permit. The thread concerns OC on a permit from another state.
BTW, age of a decision is not important, rather it is more important that it is promulgated last by a higher court; an AG opinion that is often cited in regards to OC is dated 1945 and we and the MSP still use it to support the belief that OC in a visible holster is legal.

 

[Jesse Lambert]

Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.

 

[stainless1911]

18/7?

 

[xmanhockey7]

Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.

Not sure I've heard of these people.

 

[Bronson]

18/7?

Which is why OCDO forum rule #5 is important.

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Bronson

 

[autosurgeon]

Article 18 sec 7 of the Michigan state constitution says every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Nothing about registering a gun. And there are a few people who publicly state they carry there hand gun on there hip and that it is not registered.

:uhoh:

 

[xd shooter]

BTW, age of a decision is not important, rather it is more important that it is promulgated last by a higher court; an AG opinion that is often cited in regards to OC is dated 1945 and we and the MSP still use it to support the belief that OC in a visible holster is legal.

Of course. I was referring to its "age" as there have obviously been changes made to MI law concerning the "Shall Issue" topic, of which that article seems to center around.

What do you think of the Urbanik case found in your article? Does it seem to make the same case that I am attempting to clarify?

 

[eastmeyers]

Article 1 Section 6

ARTICLE I
Declaration of Rights

§ 6 Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
state.

Better?

ETA: The PDF of the MI Constitution is too large to add as an attachment sorry.

 

[xd shooter]

I received a reply today....

Attorney General Schuette has requested that the Criminal Division respond to your e-mail regarding Michigan firearms laws. We apologize for not responding sooner. However, this office receives hundreds of letters each week and some delays are inevitable.

Due to limited time and resources, we are unable to assign a member of our staff to thoroughly answer your question for you. However, the Michigan State Police have an on-line resource at www.michigan.gov/msp that you should find helpful. After accessing this website, choose the heading "Firearms," which appears on the right-hand side of the home page. You may also contact them at 517‑332‑2521.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Donna L. Pendergast
First Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division

Oh well..

Anyway I had another thought to add. Reading the entire MCL,

28.432 Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.
Sec. 12. (1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A police or correctional agency of the United States or of this state or any subdivision of this state.
(b) The United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps.
(c) An organization authorized by law to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this
state.
(d) The national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization.
(e) A member of an entity or organization described in subdivisions (a) through (d) for a pistol while
engaged in the course of his or her duties with that entity or while going to or returning from those duties.
(f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by
another state.
(g) The regular and ordinary possession and transportation of a pistol as merchandise by an authorized
agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms or a licensed dealer.
(h) Purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm. As used in this
subdivision, "antique firearm" means that term as defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931
PA 328, MCL 750.231a.
(i) An individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting a pistol belonging to another individual, if the
other individual's possession of the pistol is authorized by law and the individual carrying, possessing, using,
or transporting the pistol has obtained a license under section 5b to carry a concealed pistol or is exempt from
licensure as provided in section 12a.
(2) The amendatory act that added subsection (1)(h) shall be known and may be cited as the "Janet Kukuk
act".
History: 1927, Act 372, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927;CL 1929, 16761;CL 1948, 28.432;Am. 1964, Act 216, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964;Am.
2000, Act 381, Eff. July 1, 2001;Am. 2004, Act 99, Imd. Eff. May 13, 2004;Am. 2006, Act 75, Eff. July 1, 2006;Am. 2008, Act
195, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009;Am. 2010, Act 209, Eff. Feb. 15, 2011.

Eastmeyers, your point is that the articles in this statute apply to persons that are NOT MI residents, even though it doesn't specify that. I would point out the amendatory act (1)(h), known as the Jane Kukuk Act, also does not specify resident or not, but is OBVIOUSLY applicable to MI residents. I fail to understand how some of the subsections refer to MI residents, if not all of them, EXCEPT the one referring to registering a handgun. Either they all do, or they all DON'T...

 

[eastmeyers]

I received a reply today....



Oh well..

Anyway I had another thought to add. Reading the entire MCL,




Eastmeyers, your point is that the articles in this statute apply to persons that are NOT MI residents, even though it doesn't specify that. I would point out the amendatory act (1)(h), known as the Jane Kukuk Act, also does not specify resident or not, but is OBVIOUSLY applicable to MI residents. I fail to understand how some of the subsections refer to MI residents, if not all of them, EXCEPT the one referring to registering a handgun. Either they all do, or they all DON'T...

It is my understanding that you do not need to register "antique" firearms in Michigan, you would have to look up the act that it lists, for the defined list, its something like, firearms produced before 1890 or replicas of said firearms. I am sure I am wrong on the exact date. Although I could be wrong all together. Someone will be along shortly I am sure, to explain it further that is much more knowledgeable on non-registering of antique firearms.
As always good ladies and gentlemen ***IANAL***!

 

[xd shooter]

Of course, but that's not the point I was trying to make. If the antique firearms statute applies to Michigan residents, shouldn't f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state?

You suggested that statute may only apply to non MI residents, yet all the others seem to apply to MI residents.