Author Topic: No More CPL  (Read 15623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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