Author Topic: No More CPL  (Read 21491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
No More CPL
« on: March 11, 2011, 06:50:23 PM »
It's Official no more CPL.    Freedom at Last! 
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline RenegadeMarine

  • Posts: 14
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2011, 09:34:09 PM »
I have read your plan, and I can't say that I disagree with your reasoning. All I can say is good luck to you sir, and be careful out there!

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
No More CPL
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2011, 10:44:17 PM »
Good luck, sir. I'd advise you not to post of OC activity which is now illegal....
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2011, 11:24:13 PM »
Good luck, sir. I'd advise you not to post of OC activity which is now illegal....
now i'm completely confused

Offline mosnar87

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • First Name (Displayed): Ervin
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2011, 12:07:45 AM »
PFZ OC.
"I don't want to be someone that successfully defends himself with a pistol.  I want to be someone that never has to defend himself with a pistol."
-Bronson, 2013

"Its not what I do for a living, its that I want to keep doing it"
-Evil Creamsicle, 2010

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2011, 12:20:39 AM »
ok understand

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2011, 06:21:02 AM »
Alright alright before this gets too ridiculous. I will be OC"ing with my conventional fire arm anywhere I can "legally" (Constitutionally thats everywhere) with the current Unconstitutional restrictions. I will OC with my traditional Fire arm every where else!.  Contrary to Foolish popular belief My 1851 Replica Navy .44 is very powerful, and just as accurate as my 1911.  "Aim Small Miss Small"
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline 13mile9

  • Posts: 61
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2011, 11:33:02 AM »
I'm completely with you on your reasoning, and I completely understand...etc... 

However, the current benefits of the CPL outway all of that (for me personally).    I could never imagine being without my weapon while driving, going in out of the PFZ grocery store late at night, in a restuaraunt with my family/wife, driving in Detroit where every red light on a side street is a potential encounter.   I could never see taking the 5 minutes or so to unsecure my weapon prior to stepping out to fill my vehicle with gas....and then do the reverse. 

Maybe you feel safer.   Fight the fight brother.


Offline 13mile9

  • Posts: 61
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2011, 12:05:06 PM »
sorry for the additional comments....but, I could not  imagine the day of "bow" hunting without having my weapon with me.   Also, to know that I can conceal my weapon while hunting if it starts rain, snow etc...     Think the local PO's or State Boys could get nasty.... I wouldn't want to tick off a DNR officer out in the middle of no where.    They have a lot of freedoms/authority to totally jack you up if they want.




Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2011, 01:04:41 PM »
@ 13mile9, I am trying to challenge everyone here so read carefully... I can drive a car with a Black Powder Fire Arm in a car loaded without a CPL, and as far as the liquor Licensed establishments like Mejier's & Wal Mart you can open carry in there with out a cpl on your person and to add to that open carrying in the same does not require disclosure so the law would have to detain you for a crime before you'd be considered illegal. I am not proposing doing this just saying.  Black powder does not fall under the Purchase permit MCL, nor does it fall under the CPL MCL there for I should be legal to carry in said locations.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 01:51:33 PM by CrossPistols »
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2011, 02:29:54 PM »
@ 13mile9, I am trying to challenge everyone here so read carefully... I can drive a car with a Black Powder Fire Arm in a car loaded without a CPL, and as far as the liquor Licensed establishments like Mejier's & Wal Mart you can open carry in there with out a cpl on your person and to add to that open carrying in the same does not require disclosure so the law would have to detain you for a crime before you'd be considered illegal. I am not proposing doing this just saying.  Black powder does not fall under the Purchase permit MCL, nor does it fall under the CPL MCL there for I should be legal to carry in said locations.

Now I am really confused. (Go figure.) I understand all the non-registration and non-permitting and non-P2P of the black powder pistol. Is this why you have chosen the black powder over a BB gun/pellet gun/airsoft pistol to OC upon expiration of your CPL?

I think your tactic is quite laudable. You have carefully thought this out and have chosen a very well planned course of action. Bravo Zulu!!!
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2011, 02:35:58 PM »
@ 13mile9, I am trying to challenge everyone here so read carefully... I can drive a car with a Black Powder Fire Arm in a car loaded without a CPL, and as far as the liquor Licensed establishments like Mejier's & Wal Mart you can open carry in there with out a cpl on your person and to add to that open carrying in the same does not require disclosure so the law would have to detain you for a crime before you'd be considered illegal. I am not proposing doing this just saying.  Black powder does not fall under the Purchase permit MCL, nor does it fall under the CPL MCL there for I should be legal to carry in said locations.
Damn would have never thought of that but good idea. And yeah a Navy is definately good enough.

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2011, 04:49:46 PM »
Bottom line I OC with the 1911 every where I can within the Limits of the Unconstitutional Laws, then upon entering the car I pop the mag, eject the round, & place it in a case just out of reach, then I get into the vehicle which usually has the Navy .44 in a big zip lock bag in a wood case under the seat just to keep any unwanted moisture. I have experimented with how long the gun will keep in the car with the load being able to fire with good accuracy, and force. So far I have been able to keep it in the car Night and day for 3 days with no noticeable problems. I also have brought the gun in at night and took it back out in the morning for 7 days between firing and no noticeable change. Same kick, same range, and damage to metal target.   

Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2011, 11:18:40 PM »
1851 Replica Navy .44:     is that an old black powder revolver?

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2011, 11:40:53 PM »
1851 Replica Navy .44:     is that an old black powder revolver?

The 1851 Replica Navy .44 is a new black powder revolver that is manufactured to look and operate just like an old black powder revolver.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 11:42:54 PM by CV67PAT »
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline northofnowhere

  • Posts: 281
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2011, 09:06:39 AM »
That is a very nice piece of hardware indeed.  Cross, I honestly stopped reading your original post on this topic as I felt you were in for a heap or trouble.  The black powder brings to light a whole new realm of, well, light.  I a picturing you at the range holding your Colt with a large sunbeam shining all over you as if you are truly enlightened, but literally.  I do not own a powder pistol, but have it on my long list of firearms I'd like to buy while the wife is out of town. Wife leaves for a weekend I get a hi point, wife goes on a cruise, I get a Glock, wife goes out of town and on a cruise int eh same month I get an internal laser sight for the Glock, it is all very reasonable.

Cross, I am impressed, and I wish you good luck.
Jason E. Reese aka northofnowher

Offline 13mile9

  • Posts: 61
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2011, 11:19:10 PM »
Cross...obviously you have some folks facinated with your decision, research, etc...   I would bet that you have been working on/pondering this for quite some time.   Maybe you should post an information .pdf doc in the "Carry & Firearms" thread.   Others may be interested in doing the Antique BP thing...OC'n or CC'n.    Your research might help them out.   Just a thought.   (maybe that information is already posted in this forum somewhere....?).   

For the record...I do understand and grasp your challenge... I just ain't into it.    However, I enjoyed all the thoughts it provoked in me.  Cool stuff.  Keep dig'n.






Offline TheSzerdi

  • Posts: 19
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2011, 04:34:13 AM »
Echoing 13mile9, I too would like more information. What  makes a BP Pistol legal to carry (w/o CPL)? What are the laws/regulations regarding a BP pistol?

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2011, 08:11:44 AM »
@ 13mile9, & The Szerdi, I am into Constitutional Carry and that is it!  The BP just happens to be My way to Present an oppritutnuity to Demonstrate how it Should be according to Constitutional Law. I'm hoping that thru this action, it will draw attention much like OC did. Maybe then some one in Law, or Govt. will see that CPL's Laws and restrictions made via Establishments that Are licensed by the Liquor Comm will realise that these are violations of Article 1 Section 6.  I will post the laws regarding BP here and in Fire arms section.
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2011, 08:13:35 AM »
Black Powder and Antiques (as of May of 2004)
Sections 2 (MCL 28.422) and 9 (MCL 28.429) of Public Act 372 of 1927, the concealed weapons law, do not apply to antique firearms. MCL 28.432 now says that purchasing, owning, carrying, possessing, using, or transporting an antique firearm is not be subject to the licensure requirements under section 2 (purchase permits) or the requirements that a pistol be subject to a safety inspection conducted by the local police department under section 9.

The law now imports the definition of “antique firearm” from Section 231a of the Michigan Penal Code. Under that act, “antique firearm” is defined to mean (1) 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 firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898; or (2) 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.
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline 13mile9

  • Posts: 61
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2011, 09:29:54 AM »
Have you contacted the MSP to have them clarify/correct their website information?  ...which is pasted below... 

From MSP Website:  "Pistol Registration, Purchase, and Transfer for Michigan Residents: Section 2."

2.  I have a replica of an antique pistol. Is a License to Purchase or Pistol Sales Record required in Michigan? Is it necessary that I obtain a Michigan Concealed Pistols License?
MCL 28.422  No, antique pistols made before 1898 and replicas of antiques that use black powder, matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system do not require a License to Purchase.  The pistol is still subject to all concealed pistol licensing laws.

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html



Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2011, 12:11:01 PM »
I just looked up MCL 28.432.amended....     http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nwn0ud45el4ciy55e4nsib55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-28-432-amended


***** 28.432 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 2011: See 28.432.amended *****

(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.


Maybe MSP needs an update?

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2011, 03:09:44 PM »
So if I read this right cpl and basically every law doesn't apply to antique firearms? (just trying to dumb it down for me and everyone else)

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2011, 05:22:12 PM »
Sorry for the double post but I have another question I was looking at 1858 Remington and they have cylinder conversions for 45 long colt as long as I use the black powder cylinder that wouldn't be illegal correct?

Offline JSteinmetz

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 144
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2011, 07:11:00 PM »
Sorry for the double post but I have another question I was looking at 1858 Remington and they have cylinder conversions for 45 long colt as long as I use the black powder cylinder that wouldn't be illegal correct?

I don't think I'd trust that -

Under that act, “antique firearm” is defined to mean (1) a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition

I think that a cylinder conversion would qualify as being 'redesigned'.
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is you never know if they are genuine.” —Abraham Lincoln

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2011, 09:04:11 PM »
Sorry for the double post but I have another question I was looking at 1858 Remington and they have cylinder conversions for 45 long colt as long as I use the black powder cylinder that wouldn't be illegal correct?

I don't think I'd trust that -

Under that act, “antique firearm” is defined to mean (1) a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition

I think that a cylinder conversion would qualify as being 'redesigned'.

I kind thought that as well but I mean if I'm not using that cylinder then how is it still not antique? If I'm not in possession of the conversion cylinder then it is an antique because its not redesigned then.

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2011, 11:39:39 PM »
Sorry for the double post but I have another question I was looking at 1858 Remington and they have cylinder conversions for 45 long colt as long as I use the black powder cylinder that wouldn't be illegal correct?

I don't think I'd trust that -

Under that act, “antique firearm” is defined to mean (1) a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition

I think that a cylinder conversion would qualify as being 'redesigned'.

I kind thought that as well but I mean if I'm not using that cylinder then how is it still not antique? If I'm not in possession of the conversion cylinder then it is an antique because its not redesigned then.

The point I’m trying to make is that the cylinder conversion is an accessory it would be along the same lines as say heaven forbid there is a 10rd magazine law just because you can find Glock 33rd mags the glock would be illegal. I would like someone else’s opinion on this I read it clearly crosspistols has just trying to make sure. Just as a refresher for everyone right now 19 therefore no cpl and would like a way to conceal because as we know there is places that you just can’t open because company policy.  As a follow up question because of this I could conceal in a place that sells alcohol? Because it’s not considered a gun/firearm does that mean that none of the cpl no go zones don’t exist for this?

Offline TheSzerdi

  • Posts: 19
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2011, 07:00:14 PM »

Offline Bronson

  • Posts: 554
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2011, 02:32:28 AM »
Does 750.234d still apply?

I would think so based on the definition of a "firearm" in 750.222 which gives the definitions for the Firearms chapter of the Michigan Penal Code.

Quote
(d) “Firearm” means a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air. Firearm does not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BB's not exceeding .177 caliber.

Bronson
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

Offline BTAvery

  • Posts: 233
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2011, 04:57:23 AM »
Agreed the Definition of firearm definately would make it illegal to carry in those places. But, you could conceal in public or any other place not listed in the restricted areas including a vehicle.

Offline Bronson

  • Posts: 554
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2011, 01:42:02 PM »
I can drive a car with a Black Powder Fire Arm in a car loaded without a CPL

Hey Cross, I'm not so sure this is true.

750.227(excerpt):

Quote
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

750.231a does give exceptions to this, one of which is an antique firearm but it must still be unloaded and stored in the trunk.

Excerpt:

Quote
(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
.

If you've found something that contradicts this I'd appreciate a link(s).

Bronson
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2011, 02:57:53 PM »
Sounds like there's a whole bunch of contradictory laws on the books... which takes presidence?!

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2011, 02:58:30 PM »
precedence rather.   :)

Offline Bronson

  • Posts: 554
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2011, 03:23:26 PM »
In truth I don't find them to contradict each other.

When reading laws that give exceptions to other laws you have to remember that the law giving the exception ONLY applies to laws specifically listed within the exception granting law  :o :o

An exmple would be 750.432.  It only provides exceptions to having to get a Permit to Purchase/Posses.  It doesn't impact concealed carry or vehicle transport as these are regulated by separate laws.

750.227 regulates vehicle carry of a pistol and 750.231a gives the exceptions for .227.  Included in those exceptions is an antique firearm but it must still be carried completely unloaded, cased, and in the trunk.

Bronson
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

Offline CrossPistols

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Charter Member Mundy Twp.
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2011, 08:24:50 PM »
@ Bronson. Finally some good researching, this is what I was looking for thanks Bronson.  I want good debate, and i want this picked apart til there is no Doubt.  As for the Definition your correct. Now the question is does my .44 have rifling?, and does the exception from Purchasing per,its, and exceptions from CPL licensing over ride the Pistol Definition, and the Amendment to the 28.432?
Hotel Sierra Lima Delta!

Offline 13mile9

  • Posts: 61
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2011, 11:59:57 PM »
Quote
28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; basic pistol safety brochure; forging application; implementation during business hours.
Sec. 2.


Quote
28.432.amended Inapplicability of MCL 28.422; amendatory act as “Janet Kukuk act”.
Sec. 12.

(1) Section 2 does not apply to any of the following:

(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.



How do we inject these back into the conversation?   Where do they fit in and work with 750.227 & 750.231a?   

Offline Bronson

  • Posts: 554
Re: No More CPL
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2011, 03:55:26 AM »
I want good debate, and i want this picked apart til there is no Doubt.   

I shall do my best good Sir  ;D

Now the question is does my .44 have rifling?   

I know very little about black powder guns but these two 1851 Navy replica pistols sure appear to have rifled barrels
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=213608692.  I couldn't say for certain whether yours does.


and does the exception from Purchasing per,its, and exceptions from CPL licensing over ride the Pistol Definition, and the Amendment to the 28.432?

I say transport laws still apply.  The State's definition of a "firearm" is:

Quote
(d) “Firearm” means a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air. Firearm does not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BB's not exceeding .177 caliber.

So I think we can agree that even if your BP revolver isn't rifled it still was NOT "manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BB's not exceeding .177 caliber."  So it qualifies, at the very least, as a firearm.

The State's definition of a "pistol" is:

Quote
(e) “Pistol” means a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 30 inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals itself as a firearm.

So if the BP revolver meets the definition of firearm then the only remaining criteria as whether or not it's a pistol is the overall length.  I know BP revovlers are fairly large but I doubt it's 30+ inches OAL so I say it qualifies as a pistol.

MCL 28.432 only exempts you from having to get a license to purchase, carry, possess, use, or transport a BP firearm/pistol, it does NOT change the definition of whether or not it's a firearm/pistol...only that you do not need to be licensed to have it in your possession.

I'm also not seeing where a BP pistol is exempt from the concealed carry laws.  The only law that I've found that regulates the carrying of a loaded pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle is MCL 750.227 which states:

Quote
(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

The only exceptions to this law are given in MCL 750.231a and the one specifically dealing with antique firearms says they must be completely unloaded, cased, and stored in the trunk.

Quote
(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:

(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.

So I say it's still a pistol, just that the State has decreed it is a type of pistol that you don't need to be licensed to possess.  Since it is still a pistol it would still fall under the prohibition on carrying it loaded in the passenger compartment of a vehicle...unless you had a CPL.

Even if it wasn't a pistol it is still a firearm and MCL 750.227c prohibits the carrying of a loaded firearm in any motor vehicle.

Quote
(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.

I think we sometimes get lost in all the definitions and exceptions.  We just have to remember that definitions and exceptions only apply to the laws they a written into or other laws that specifically reference them.

All of this is just my layman's take on it.

Bronson
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 03:59:03 AM by Bronson »
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine