• 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.

What is current legal status of Vehicle Carry (for non-resident CPL holder)?

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
I'll be moving back to Michigan from Thailand with my Thai wife and a couple of little ones. Both my wife and I will apply for Michigan CPLs as soon as we can do so (6 month waiting period applies perhaps).

Of course, I'd like to open carry in the meantime but I'm very concerned about vehicle carry without a Michigan CPL.

I will have a valid Arizona concealed carry permit, but having never resided in (or even visited) Arizona I'd like to know if I'd be able to carry in a vehicle on the Arizona permit.

Further, would it matter whether or not I was the registered owner of the vehicle (since I'll be borrowing a car from a family member until one can be purchased).

Thanks,

David
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
578
Location
Battle Creek, MI
If it is an Arizona non resident permit then you will not be able to carry, openly or otherwise, in a vehicle in Michigan. Furthermore you may not carry concealed under the non resident permit because to carry concealed in Michigan you have to be licensed by this state or your state of residency to carry a concealed firearm.

To transport a firearm in Michigan without a CPL you must comply with MCL 750.231a,


MCL 750.227 concerns vehicle carry and the concealed carry of a firearm in this state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sd...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-227



750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.
Sec. 231a.

(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 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 his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.

(b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.

(c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.

(d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.

(e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:

(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.

(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

(b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:

(i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.

(ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.

(iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.

(iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.

(v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.

(vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vh...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-231a

You do not have to be the registered owner of the vehicle, you just need to comply with all state law.

Also for the purpose of transportation in a case in the trunk of a vehicle, no it does not have to be locked, and no the magazine does not need to be separated, and no the ammunition does not need to be separated either.

Ex: You unload the firearm OUTSIDE (this being important) of your vehicle then placing the unloaded firearm in the case along with the now loaded magazine, closing the case and placing the case inside the trunk of the vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
578
Location
Battle Creek, MI
However, having an Arizona non resident permit WILL allow you to carry openly in the places where possession is otherwise off limits..

MCL 750.234d

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jd...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234d

This works because you are licensed by another state to carry a concealed weapon. See the bolded parts above.

So because you are licensed by another state to carry a concealed weapon you may then possess the weapon in the areas listed above...however you must open carry your pistol.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
578
Location
Battle Creek, MI
The 6 month residency can be WAIVED!!

Also, the 6 month residency requirement for obtaining a MI CPL can be waived by the CPL review board, please see below:


28.425b License application; fee; verification of requirements; determination; circumstances for issuance; fingerprints; issuance or denial; temporary license; suspension or revocation of license; definitions.

(b) The applicant is a citizen of the United States or is an alien lawfully admitted into the United States, is a legal resident of this state, and has resided in this state for not less than the 6 months immediately preceding the date of application. The concealed weapon licensing board may waive the 6-month residency requirement for a temporary license under section 5a(8) if the concealed weapon licensing board determines there is probable cause to believe the safety of the applicant or the safety of a member of the applicant's family is endangered by the applicant's inability to immediately obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol. If the applicant holds a valid concealed pistol license issued by another state at the time the applicant's residency in this state is established, the concealed weapon licensing board may waive the 6-month waiting period and the applicant may apply for a concealed pistol license at the time the applicant's residency in this state is established. The concealed weapon licensing board shall immediately issue a temporary license to that applicant. The temporary license shall be valid until the concealed weapon licensing board decides whether to grant or deny the application. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be considered a legal resident of this state if any of the following apply:
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Also, the 6 month residency requirement for obtaining a MI CPL can be waived by the CPL review board, please see below:


28.425b License application; fee; verification of requirements; determination; circumstances for issuance; fingerprints; issuance or denial; temporary license; suspension or revocation of license; definitions.

(b) The applicant is a citizen of the United States or is an alien lawfully admitted into the United States, is a legal resident of this state, and has resided in this state for not less than the 6 months immediately preceding the date of application. The concealed weapon licensing board may waive the 6-month residency requirement for a temporary license under section 5a(8) if the concealed weapon licensing board determines there is probable cause to believe the safety of the applicant or the safety of a member of the applicant's family is endangered by the applicant's inability to immediately obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol. If the applicant holds a valid concealed pistol license issued by another state at the time the applicant's residency in this state is established, the concealed weapon licensing board may waive the 6-month waiting period and the applicant may apply for a concealed pistol license at the time the applicant's residency in this state is established. The concealed weapon licensing board shall immediately issue a temporary license to that applicant. The temporary license shall be valid until the concealed weapon licensing board decides whether to grant or deny the application. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be considered a legal resident of this state if any of the following apply:
The operative word being "MAY, not "shall". Tell me how that goes...

Back to the permit issue, does the AZ permit have an address on it? Does it denote that it is a "non-resident" permit??

Edit to add: According to this picture, AZ has neither the address nor denotes it is "non-resident".


AZ-Concealed-Weapons-Permit.jpg

Here is a case that is interesting:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_williams.txt

I think that there might be something in the information above that could be useful to you.
 
Last edited:

WilDChilD

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
288
Location
Dewitt, Michigan, USA
The operative word being "MAY, not "shall". Tell me how that goes...

Back to the permit issue, does the AZ permit have an address on it? Does it denote that it is a "non-resident" permit??

Edit to add: According to this picture, AZ has neither the address nor denotes it is "non-resident".


View attachment 9036

Here is a case that is interesting:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_williams.txt

I think that there might be something in the information above that could be useful to you.
I like how in the picture of an AZ permit is says "granted the privilege of carrying.....". I though a right cant be turned into a privilege?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
I like how in the picture of an AZ permit is says "granted the privilege of carrying.....". I though a right cant be turned into a privilege?
The right is to keep and bear. The manner in which that is done may, according to SCOTUS, be restricted. They said in Heller and reaffirmed it in McDonald that all we have (so far) is the right to keep and bear in a ready-to-fire condition inside the home.

Personally, I'd like to have a 106mm (will settle for 90mm if forced to be limited to "hand-held") recoilless rifle mounted on the roof. I'm just not sure the Justices will ever see their way to saying that would be okey-dokey.

stay safe,
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Here is a case that is interesting:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_williams.txt
I think that there might be something in the information above that could be useful to you.
Thanks Dr. Todd, I had a look at that very interesting case. The defendant prevailed because he was NOT a Michigan resident. However, in my case I'll be a Michigan resident, so it looks like I'll either have to wait 6 months, get a waiver, or just maybe .... I'll already have 6 months of residence prior to arrival in Michigan. How so? Well the same case mentioned that residency starts when domicile in Michigan is established. Is anybody familiar with Michigan residency/domicile law? I do know that I have to establish (prove to the Feds) domicile in Michigan months before leaving Thailand because it is necessary for me to do so as part of sponsoring my Thai wife's immigrant visa.

By the way, might there be any 'exemption' or wiggle-room to vehicle carry if the pistol happened to be a NAA .22 mag (the black powder cap N ball version)? I noticed a mention of antique firearms in the statutory language cited above, but I'm not sure how that plays out.

I'll definitely ask for the waiver from the licensing board. I'll be in Kent County. Does anybody have any first-hand experience with this county board? Being Grand Rapids, I'd expect outright hostility but if anybody has had a different experience, I'd like to know, thanks!
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
578
Location
Battle Creek, MI
If it shall not be infringed, then how is it ok to restrict it?


Heller v DC, if my memory serves me, ruled that there can be "reasonable restrictions" on how one bears those arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Heller v DC, if my memory serves me, ruled that there can be "reasonable restrictions" on how one bears those arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Me thinks there wuz politickz in dat decicion.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
I just finished conducting an electronic search of the original Heller Decision for the term 'reasonable restrictions' and came up empty-handed. Did I miss something!

Perhaps it is in the McDonald Decision or perhaps 'reasonable restrictions' are a figment of the media's imagination.

I did see a reference to the Second Amendment not being an unlimited Right, but so goes for all the other constitutional rights. Not being unlimited is a far cry from subject to reasonable restrictions.

I'd like to see a legal cite on the Second Amendment (per Heller) being subject to 'reasonable restrictions'. It may, or may not, be the case. If so, I'd like to see the citation.

Sorry to help hijack my own post ;-)
 
Last edited:
Top