What exactly is a "pistol" or a "firearm?"

[nichtta]

Here are a few people who might be interested in the question posed as the topic of this thread:

a) An open carrier who doesn't have a CPL and wants to legally enter a Weapon Free Zone (see: MCL 750.234d) because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is open and in plain view, rather than concealed.

b) An open carrier who has a CPL and wants to legally enter a Concealed Pistol Free Zone (see: MCL 28.425o) but isn't convinced (or doesn't want to take a chance) with the legality of open carrying in it because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is open and in plain view, rather than concealed.

c) A concealed carrier who has a CPL and wants to legally enter a CPFZ because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is concealed.

Therefore they may want to bring a part of the pistol with them into these zones, either open and in plain view or concealed, for whatever reason that may be, e.g., not leaving a fully-loaded and/or functional pistol in the car, even though it may be locked up somewhere.

As I posted earlier, I frequent more than one type of CPFZ almost daily. Therefore if I choose not to open carry in a CPFZ for whatever reason, work-related or otherwise, I am wondering what I can bring with me into the CPFZ and what I cannot. I remember reading somewhere, for example, that a magazine cannot be brought into a CPFZ. Out of precaution, I have been leaving my two extra magazines in my car when I arrive at a CPFZ, although I still wear the mag pouch, which has become a bit of nuisance, to be quite honest. I haven't been able to find where I read that nor a similar question posed on these forums through my search, so I started this thread.

So what exactly constitutes a "pistol" or a "firearm?" A few rounds concealed in one's pocket? How about the slide? The recoil spring? The barrel? The frame? How about everything but a certain piece, e.g., the barrel? For example, would it be legal for someone who doesn't have a CPL to be open carrying a pistol in a WFZ if it doesn't have a certain part, which is left in the car?

My inquiry brought me to AG Opinion 6280, which includes a couple definitions with their respective MCL citations. The relevant excerpt can be read below:

The definition of the term 'pistol' is set forth in subsection (a) of MCL 28.421; MSA 28.91:

"Pistol' means any firearm, loaded or unloaded, 30 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, which by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.'

'Firearm' is defined in MCL 8.3t; MSA 2.212(20):

'The word 'firearm', except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 caliber by means of spring, gas or air.'

In Huron Advertising Co v Charter Twp of Pittsfield, 110 Mich App 398, 402; 313 NW2d 132 (1981), lv den, 414 Mich 855 (1982), the court stated:

'All words and phrases in ordinances and statutes must be construed according to their common and approved usage. . . . Effect must also be given to each part of a sentence, so as not to render another part nugatory. . . . Judicial construction of a statute or ordinance is inappropriate where the language of the statute is unambiguous.'

Is there something I can do to render a pistol no longer a "weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion." What exactly, in addition to the definitions provided above, is the "common and approved usage" for "pistol" and "firearm?" I'm not planning to experiment with the parts inside a pistol, removing some and leaving others than trying to fire. However, I'm wondering about these definitions because I want to make my life as an armed citizen easier while still following the law.

[TheQ]

The definition of the term 'pistol' is set forth in subsection (a) of MCL 28.421; MSA 28.91:

"Pistol' means any firearm, loaded or unloaded, 30 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, which by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.'

'Firearm' is defined in MCL 8.3t; MSA 2.212(20):

'The word 'firearm', except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 caliber by means of spring, gas or air.'

In Huron Advertising Co v Charter Twp of Pittsfield, 110 Mich App 398, 402; 313 NW2d 132 (1981), lv den, 414 Mich 855 (1982), the court stated:

'All words and phrases in ordinances and statutes must be construed according to their common and approved usage. . . . Effect must also be given to each part of a sentence, so as not to render another part nugatory. . . . Judicial construction of a statute or ordinance is inappropriate where the language of the statute is unambiguous.'

The statutory definition changed last year.  You might want to research this a bit more.  It's no longer 30" in OAL.  Read the cited statute.

[nichtta]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Phi. You're right that I should have been more thorough in my research and looked up the original statutes to see their current wording.

MCL 28.421:

(b) "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, BBs not exceeding .177 caliber.

(e) "Pistol" means a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 26 inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.

MCL 8.3t:

The word “firearm”, except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 calibre by means of spring, gas or air.

It seems to me that an individual keeping their loaded magazines open or concealed in a location where it is illegal to do so with a firearm would not be breaking the law. Again, I asked this question because it would make carrying my extra magazines much easier if I didn't have to remove them every time I entered a CPFZ or a FFZ.  I don't think anyone would construe a magazine to be a "pistol" nor a "firearm." It also appears to me that ammunition cannot be construed to be a "pistol" nor a "firearm." Someone please do correct me if I'm wrong.

What isn't clear to me is this part in the definition of a pistol: "by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm." What does that mean? Why mention "construction and appearance?" I guess I'm also stuck on why the word "conceals" was added into this statute and its practical relevance.

[drtodd]

Here are a few people who might be interested in the question posed as the topic of this thread:

a) An open carrier who doesn't have a CPL and wants to legally enter a Weapon Free Zone (see: MCL 750.234d) because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is open and in plain view, rather than concealed.

b) An open carrier who has a CPL and wants to legally enter a Concealed Pistol Free Zone (see: MCL 28.425o) but isn't convinced (or doesn't want to take a chance) with the legality of open carrying in it because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is open and in plain view, rather than concealed.

c) A concealed carrier who has a CPL and wants to legally enter a CPFZ because they would want to know what exactly can be brought into this location, which is concealed.

Therefore they may want to bring a part of the pistol with them into these zones, either open and in plain view or concealed, for whatever reason that may be, e.g., not leaving a fully-loaded and/or functional pistol in the car, even though it may be locked up somewhere.

As I posted earlier, I frequent more than one type of CPFZ almost daily. Therefore if I choose not to open carry in a CPFZ for whatever reason, work-related or otherwise, I am wondering what I can bring with me into the CPFZ and what I cannot. I remember reading somewhere, for example, that a magazine cannot be brought into a CPFZ. Out of precaution, I have been leaving my two extra magazines in my car when I arrive at a CPFZ, although I still wear the mag pouch, which has become a bit of nuisance, to be quite honest. I haven't been able to find where I read that nor a similar question posed on these forums through my search, so I started this thread.

So what exactly constitutes a "pistol" or a "firearm?" A few rounds concealed in one's pocket? How about the slide? The recoil spring? The barrel? The frame? How about everything but a certain piece, e.g., the barrel? For example, would it be legal for someone who doesn't have a CPL to be open carrying a pistol in a WFZ if it doesn't have a certain part, which is left in the car?

My inquiry brought me to AG Opinion 6280, which includes a couple definitions with their respective MCL citations. The relevant excerpt can be read below:

The definition of the term 'pistol' is set forth in subsection (a) of MCL 28.421; MSA 28.91:

"Pistol' means any firearm, loaded or unloaded, 30 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, which by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.'

'Firearm' is defined in MCL 8.3t; MSA 2.212(20):

'The word 'firearm', except as otherwise specifically defined in the statutes, shall be construed to include any weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion, except any smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling BB's not exceeding .177 caliber by means of spring, gas or air.'

In Huron Advertising Co v Charter Twp of Pittsfield, 110 Mich App 398, 402; 313 NW2d 132 (1981), lv den, 414 Mich 855 (1982), the court stated:

'All words and phrases in ordinances and statutes must be construed according to their common and approved usage. . . . Effect must also be given to each part of a sentence, so as not to render another part nugatory. . . . Judicial construction of a statute or ordinance is inappropriate where the language of the statute is unambiguous.'

Is there something I can do to render a pistol no longer a "weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by using explosives, gas or air as a means of propulsion." What exactly, in addition to the definitions provided above, is the "common and approved usage" for "pistol" and "firearm?" I'm not planning to experiment with the parts inside a pistol, removing some and leaving others than trying to fire. However, I'm wondering about these definitions because I want to make my life as an armed citizen easier while still following the law.

Why, YES you can do something to a Pistol so that it no longer is considered a pistol under MI law. See: People v. Parr (1992), People v. Huizenga (1989) It would also not be considered a firearm under MI law.

[nichtta]

I have begun to always keep my loaded magazines with me, concealed even in when I'm in a CPFZ, thanks to the information with which you've provided me. Thanks for that!

I also read about both cases you cited on http://www.leagle.com/.

In summary, if the pistol doesn't work at all, such as in one of the cases when the defendant's pistol's hammer was broken (if I'm not mistaken), rendering it "inoperable," it is neither considered a "pistol" nor a "firearm."

However, in each of the cases, the judge writing the decision mentioned "inoperable" not including a pistol that could be made operable relatively quickly. I don't know how accurate this example I thought of is, but I still wanted to share it: one may note, for example, put the slide with the barrel and recoil spring in their right jacket pocket and the rest of the pistol in their left jacket pocket. It is, technically, "inoperable" at the time, but it could be rendered operable fairly quickly. It seems that the precedent set by these (and other) cases would not allow for someone to do this.

As for keeping parts of a pistol in one's car to render it "inoperable" when entering a CPFZ if one chooses not to OC, it just doesn't seem like a good idea to me after reading the dissenting opinions in both cases. Some judges even feel that the precedent set has been otherwise, so it'd be safer, in my view, to stay away from it.

[drtodd]

I have begun to always keep my loaded magazines with me, concealed even in when I'm in a CPFZ, thanks to the information with which you've provided me. Thanks for that!

I also read about both cases you cited on http://www.leagle.com/.

In summary, if the pistol doesn't work at all, such as in one of the cases when the defendant's pistol's hammer was broken (if I'm not mistaken), rendering it "inoperable," it is neither considered a "pistol" nor a "firearm."

However, in each of the cases, the judge writing the decision mentioned "inoperable" not including a pistol that could be made operable relatively quickly. I don't know how accurate this example I thought of is, but I still wanted to share it: one may note, for example, put the slide with the barrel and recoil spring in their right jacket pocket and the rest of the pistol in their left jacket pocket. It is, technically, "inoperable" at the time, but it could be rendered operable fairly quickly. It seems that the precedent set by these (and other) cases would not allow for someone to do this.

As for keeping parts of a pistol in one's car to render it "inoperable" when entering a CPFZ if one chooses not to OC, it just doesn't seem like a good idea to me after reading the dissenting opinions in both cases. Some judges even feel that the precedent set has been otherwise, so it'd be safer, in my view, to stay away from it.

The reason I posted what I did was for situations where leaving the pistol in a vehicle is not, for some reason, viable. If a person removes the slide, for example, and leaves that part in the car yet takes the lower into the No Carry Zone in a bag, I think a court would have a tough time convicting that person of CCing in that area. This was NOT meant to provide a way to effectively provide for your personal security in the zone. Like you said, any combination of pistol parts that could be quickly changed into a functional pistol, and are hidden from view, would most likely be considered as carrying concealed.

[nichtta]

Roger. Thanks for clarifying. I understood the intent of your post, and my OP was also not meant to show a way to effectively provide for personal security in a CPFZ but rather leaving part of a pistol in the car in order to obey the law if someone either didn't want to leave their "pistol" (legal definition) in their car or did not feel comfortable open carrying in a CPFZ. I merely brought the "relatively quickly" aspect of making a pistol operable as a warning to others because it was something I learned from reading the cases. I know many people are too busy to read about both cases in full, whereas I made sure to make time to read them. I wanted to post about this aspect to help others further understand MI law, i.e., it was a service to those who had the time to read my post on this section of the forum but couldn't read the cases and yet still wanted to learn more about MI law in order to obey it.

In the end, I think everyone who carries does so for personal protection, and the reason perhaps most if not a lot of these questions are asked is to better understand the law so we can protect ourselves, our family, our loved ones, etc. It's only criminals who have no regard for the law whatsoever. Therefore all of my posts are written and your posts (along with others') are read with the law-abiding citizen in mind. I assume, based on the statistics I've read, that the super-majority of those who legally open carry and legally conceal carry are law-abiding citizens, and it's important we all continue to strive our best to be model citizens because our actions could have a negative impact on the image of the whole community, especially important as we "come out of the closet," as Q has encouraged us to do. Rather we have an extra responsibility to do so.

I pray we all take care to carry legally and safely.

Regards,