A couple of interesting tidbits about Michigan's concealed carry laws

I was looking at the portion of the MCL (Michigan Compiled Laws) concerning the carry of concealed firearms.

I noticed a couple of interesting things.

The first thing (MCL 28.425j), which is concerned with the training program required to get a CCW:

(1) A pistol training or safety program described in section 5b(7)(c) meets the requirements for knowledge or training in the safe use and handling of a pistol only if the program consists of not less than 8 hours of instruction and all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The program is certified by this state or a national or state firearms training organization and provides 5 hours of instruction in, but is not limited to providing instruction in, all of the following:

What’s so special here? Well, for those who aren’t familiar with how public acts are written, the beginning of an act usually contains a section with definitions. In this case, it’s MCL 28.421. If you look, there is no definition as to what constitutes a “national or state firearms training organization”. You know what that means? I could just go to the Grand Traverse County offices, register “Jason’s National Firearms Training Institute” for $10 (good for 5 years!), and then offer the instruction required under 5j.

There’s of course this requirement:

(d) The instructor of the course is certified by this state or a national organization to teach the 8-hour pistol safety training course described in this section.

Of course, if I own the organization, I just certify myself.

Well, it looks like I just saved myself a couple of bucks…

Now on to the next interesting tidbit I found.

This time, it concerns itself with the requirements in order to carry (and purchase, transport, and posses). This falls under MCL 28.422. Basically it says you have to get a purchase permit to buy, or get a license to carry.

Now let’s take a look at MCL 28.432:

(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.

Aww shit, Drill Sergeant. It certainly looks to me like I’m exempt from the requirement of being licensed in order to carry concealed if I’m traveling to or from my military duties. It’s pretty clear cut from the language.

So yeah, good times abound.

3 comments for “A couple of interesting tidbits about Michigan's concealed carry laws

  1. June 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    David Codrea made a good point in linkage he gave me:

    Is US Code “authorized” enough?

  2. RLJ
    June 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    What part of “§ 6 Bearing of arms” in the Michigan Constitution do these people (including Mr. Gillman) not understand:

    Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
    state.
    History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
    Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §5.

    Notice that no time, place or legal qualification has been placed on owning or carrying any means of self-defense. By reason of Marbury v.s. Madison, a law passed without constitutional authority is no law at all. None of the things described in this piece can be legally done in Michigan barring an amendment overturning section 6.

    Treason has been committed by the Michigan legislature by passing these laws without the amendment. By the above words, all citizens including ex-felons have guaranteed rights to defend themselves by whatever means come within their control. Following the principles set out by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, these means include any military weapon, including atomic weapons.

    Suppose, as is its constitutional right in your state, GM chose to own its own atomic arsenal. Do you think they might demand and receive more respect from the legislature? Do you suppose they might still be a powerful source of employment and revenue in Detroit instead of a federally-dominated ghost of an industry?

    • June 24, 2010 at 9:52 am

      What part of “§ 6 Bearing of arms” in the Michigan Constitution do these people (including Mr. Gillman) not understand:

      Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the
      state.
      History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
      Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §5.

      Notice that no time, place or legal qualification has been placed on owning or carrying any means of self-defense. By reason of Marbury v.s. Madison, a law passed without constitutional authority is no law at all. None of the things described in this piece can be legally done in Michigan barring an amendment overturning section 6.

      Are you saying that I’m for restrictions on firearms ownership and the ability to carry? If you are, you are sorely mistaken. I’ve been advocating that the 2nd Amendment means what it says for a while – shall not be infringed.

      The problem is that direct argument doesn’t hold up to well in the courts (although do think it’s pretty clear). That is why I wrote this. That way the state can be beat with it’s own codified statute should any issues arise – that’s the idea anyways.

      As for this:

      Following the principles set out by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, these means include any military weapon, including atomic weapons.

      Suppose, as is its constitutional right in your state, GM chose to own its own atomic arsenal. Do you think they might demand and receive more respect from the legislature? Do you suppose they might still be a powerful source of employment and revenue in Detroit instead of a federally-dominated ghost of an industry?

      Can you point out which Federalist Paper lays out the argument that explosive ordnance falls under the definition of arms?

      I’m also not sure what point you’re trying to make with your last paragraph.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...