• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MSP legal update NEW INFO!

E

EDA50

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
Well,

khicks said:
i believe that the earlier removal of the msp update 10-12 10 was a good call, at least until it could be authenticated. i am glade that it was real and the up date was reposted. EDA50 how ever got there hands on a draft copy , high five
Click to expand...

I know people, what can i say... I'm kidding gees!
Thanks for doing the research here. I'm glad this ended up valid.
 
RenegadeMarine

RenegadeMarine

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
79
Location
Fraser, Michigan, USA
NHCGRPR45 said:
agreed we need to wait for it to be posted by the MSP then we can use it. also we need to let this document work for us. instead of trying to make changes to it, this is very nearly the holy grail of proof that we have been right, before the MSP finally agreed were were right.

this has been a dream document to use as proof of what we have been fighting for. we can work on the minor tweaks later, and IMO we can get rid of the tri-folds entirely and use this legal update. this could save MOC money on tri-folds, thanks MSP!:banana:
Click to expand...

I agree that this will be an outstanding document once it is published! However, I do not think it should replace the MOC tri-fold, because it will still work well to promote the organization, website, and membership. Maybe just another revision will be in order.
 
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
PDinDetroit said:
I hold no grudge against them AND I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. They know their actions will go nowhere, even they referred to them as "spitting into the wind".

I am thinking this should go to the City Of Warren instead...

And I know you are just kidding, but I wanted to make sure that those who read our Forum understand where we are at (you know who you are "chin music"!).
Click to expand...
I agree! Warren has to be trained or trained again on how not to violate citizens rights.They must have lost all the paperwork we've sent them in the last two years!They need to be updated among other things!
The rest of the state seems to be following our recommendations.OCer's seem to be the ones fighting for lawfull treatment of gun owners and educating the folks of what should be common knowledge for all law abiding gun owners and patriots.We are truly saving lives with the truth!Thank You all! Carry On!
 
Last edited:
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Whether you agree with the laws on MI and what is said in the document or not I would love to have one for every state. There may be some tweaks needed and never will one be published that pleased everyone but to be able to have an "official" document covering all of the laws is great.

Congratulations to all that have been involved in it and now to get it approved and published.
 
A

army74

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
285
Location
Pontiac, Michigan, USA
Msp

Im not using that form at all. I explained to them about schools being exempt due to me having a cpl and open carrying in a holster. Thanks for letting me know.
 
dfox

dfox

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
98
Location
Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
Don't know if someone caught this or not but..
Out of state residents
Non-residents may legally possess a firearm more than 30 inches in length in Michigan. In order for a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan, he or she must either be licensed his by or her state of residence to carry a concealed pistol or be licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol. The ownership of property in Michigan does not qualify a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan.

Shouldn’t this read Licensed by his or her……
 
A

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
dfox said:
Don't know if someone caught this or not but..
Out of state residents
Non-residents may legally possess a firearm more than 30 inches in length in Michigan. In order for a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan, he or she must either be licensed his by or her state of residence to carry a concealed pistol or be licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol. The ownership of property in Michigan does not qualify a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan.

Shouldn’t this read Licensed by his or her……
Click to expand...

In MI legal construction says if his is used her is implied.
 
L

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
I will never know the answer but I am curious if the person responsible for the update listened to the audio from my illegal detainment by trooper shore. The last paragraph seems like it was written just for him.

I have been made aware that almost all of the lapeer county officers have listened to it, including the troopers from the lapeer post. I would imagine that they shared the link with their buddies
Or maybey my incident had nothing to do with this latest updAte and it was created simply because it needs to be addressed.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
lapeer20m said:
I will never know the answer but I am curious if the person responsible for the update listened to the audio from my illegal detainment by trooper shore. The last paragraph seems like it was written just for him.

I have been made aware that almost all of the lapeer county officers have listened to it, including the troopers from the lapeer post. I would imagine that they shared the link with their buddies
Or maybey my incident had nothing to do with this latest updAte and it was created simply because it needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was a factor... how large of one is unknown. Thinking of MSP and local PD interaction with OCers along a continuum, I'm sure there were many "negative" encounters, yours definitely among the most egregious. I remember my shock reading that it was an MSP officer who was blatantly violating your rights. We in Michigan USUALLY think of the MSP as consummate professionals and any such incidents such as yours have the potential to lower the public's opinion of the MSP.

If we take a time frame of say the last 3 years, there were probably hundreds of incidents falling somewhere along that continuum... especially if one includes someone getting incorrect information from a MSP desk officer as a "negative" encounter. This would fall on the low end of that scale... but "negative" nonetheless. I really give the MSP credit for at least attempting to clarify the law in a central, public, clearly written way.

My hope is two-fold: 1), this information is actually "published" and 2), that police officers around Michigan actually read it and begin to learn what is legal and what is not.
 
Last edited:
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
DrTodd said:
I'm pretty sure it was a factor... how large of one is unknown. Thinking of MSP and local PD interaction with OCers along a continuum, I'm sure there were many "negative" encounters, yours definitely among the most egregious. I remember my shock reading that it was an MSP officer who was blatantly violating your rights. We in Michigan USUALLY think of the MSP as consummate professionals and any such incidents such as yours have the potential to lower the public's opinion of the MSP.

If we take a time frame of say the last 3 years, there were probably hundreds of incidents falling somewhere along that continuum... especially if one includes someone getting incorrect information from a MSP desk officer as a "negative" encounter. This would fall on the low end of that scale... but "negative" nonetheless. I really give the MSP credit for at least attempting to clarify the law in a central, public, clearly written way.

My hope is two-fold: 1), this information is actually "published" and 2), that police officers around Michigan actually read it and begin to learn what is legal and what is not.
Click to expand...
It's the chiefs and commissioners responsibility to make sure their respective agencies are trained and educated to what WE know as constitutional treatment.At least one IS anti-gun, and I believe negligent in his duties to correctly train those under him,who serve as our employees! I am gratefull to the MSP and other agencies who wisely encourage legal treatment of our citizens! It's common sense and simple to do,also safer and easier for them to accomplish their duty to us,their employers! The K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid) method works in all areas of life and is missing in the majority of this society! GOD BLESS this STATE and OUR NATION! CARRY ON! J.T.H.
 
dfox

dfox

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
98
Location
Garden City/Barryton, Michigan, USA
autosurgeon said:
In MI legal construction says if his is used her is implied.
Click to expand...

I understand that I was pointing out that the words were in the wrong order.

See line "he or she must either be licensed his by or her state of residence to carry a concealed pistol or be licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top