Sterling Heights Police Department

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

JeffSayers wrote:

Yes, possession of a CPL equivalent from Colorado would indeed render cscitney87 in compliance with Michigan law. However, it appears cscitney does not have such a permit.

??????????

I was aware he did not have a license, I was mainly responding to your question: "Wasn't 28.422 updated / super-ceded by a new law..." and adding/agreeing what was alreadyposted (28.432)that license/permit from another state would allow him to OC in Michigan.

 

[JeffSayers]

imported post

OK, gotcha Springer we are on the same page.

My concern though is that th OP does not have a CPL, therefore Janet Kukuk does not grant immunity from 28.422. Also, 28.422 call out that you must HAVE a purchase permit from your home state AND be in POSSESSION of such permit while carrying in MI.

Given, it is a logical arguement that because home state does not issue purchase permits, a DL from home is an equivalent to a purchase permit from home and therefore in compliance.

I only caution to see if the verbiage of 28.422 may have changed when registration became effective. Also I caution to avoid Wayne County because our friend Mrs. Worthy-of-nothing would probably love to attack the arguement of DL being Colorado's equivalent of a purchase permit.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

JeffSayers wrote:

OK, gotcha Springer we are on the same page.

My concern though is that th OP does not have a CPL, therefore Janet Kukuk does not grant immunity from 28.422. Also, 28.422 call out that you must HAVE a purchase permit from your home state AND be in POSSESSION of such permit while carrying in MI.

Given, it is a logical arguement that because home state does not issue purchase permits, a DL from home is an equivalent to a purchase permit from home and therefore in compliance.

I only caution to see if the verbiage of 28.422 may have changed when registration became effective. Also I caution to avoid Wayne County because our friend Mrs. Worthy-of-nothing would probably love to attack the arguement of DL being Colorado's equivalent of a purchase permit.

The only update (Amendment) to 28.422 you asked about is:

(8) An individual who is not a resident of this state is not required to obtain a license under this section if all of the following conditions apply:

(a) The individual is licensed in his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.

(b) The individual is in possession of the license described in subdivision (a).

(c) The individual is the owner of the pistol he or she possesses, carries, or transports.

(d) The individual possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as that term is defined in section 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.231a.

(e) The individual is in this state for a period of 180 days or less and does not intend to establish residency in this state.


Janet Kukuk Act (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.

This only applies, obviously,if the person has a license to carry, possess, transport, etc. If said license is not required to purchase, etc, a handgun in a state...

That's when 28.432 (f)comes into play:

(f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.

Apologies for the confusion I brought in from my previous post.