How can you legally carry a pistol in your car?
Behind the Blue Line — Michigan State Police Trooper Duane Zook takes your law enforcement questions
Question: Would it be a crime to transport a sidearm in a holster without a CPL (concealed pistol license) while inside a vehicle in plain view?
Answer: In answering this question, I referenced information obtained from Michigan State Police legal update No. 86, which can be downloaded from our web site. I have received an influx of emails related to this specific topic and felt it necessary to provide the above listed web site.
Legal update No. 86 states, “It is a felony for a person to transport a pistol anywhere in a vehicle unless the person is licensed to carry a concealed pistol.” An exception to this law allows for transportation of pistols in a vehicle for a “lawful purpose.” Lawful purposes include going to or from any one of the following:
• A hunting or target area.
• A place of repair.
• Moving goods from a home or business to another home or business.
• A law enforcement agency (for a safety inspection or to turn the pistol over to the agency).
• A gun show or place of sale or purchase.
• A public shooting facility.
• Public land where shooting is legal.
• Private property where a pistol may be lawfully used.
To answer the question about whether it would be a crime to transport a sidearm in a holster without a CPL while inside a vehicle in plain view, the answer is yes. A person may be charged with a felony. Once a person enters a vehicle with a pistol, not having a CPL, it becomes a concealed weapon. It is not possible to “openly carry” in a vehicle. The proper and legal way to transport a pistol, while not having a CPL, is to have the weapon unloaded within a closed case designed for firearms in the trunk of your vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, such as a pickup truck, the pistol must not be readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.
Listed in legal update No. 86, you can find literature pertaining to
Michigan’s firearm law, which include open carry, brandishing,
transporting, carrying concealed weapons, Michigan’s firearms act and
out-of-state resident’s requirements. You can find additional
information and links to legal resources at the Michigan State Police web site.
Do you have a question you want answered? Every Tuesday, I'll post
the answers to your questions here. Send me a question by e-mail at ypsilantipost@gmail.com.
Comments
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Mon, Mar 14, 2011 : 5:35 a.m.
wanna know how to trell what 'the state' is MOST afraid of? ,,, any 'state', any time in hisroty? observe the largeretst mass of 'squid-snarl-of-laws'. under that mass of messs is the target fo the state's greatest fear (to the state).
Basic Bob
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.
I guess nobody really cares what the legal answer is. They just want to know why they can't carry at a Pistons game, bars, or church.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
Actually law abiding citizens care very much. Its the criminals who don't
snapshot
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 10:15 p.m.
What about a motorcyce? Is a gun case necessary with a trigger lock engaged? ow about a bicycle? Horse? Not everyone drives. How about taking a bus? Train? would lawfully carrying a loaded weapon openly in Michigan apply to any of these?
RJA
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
Wow, glad we have the CCW permits, no reason to carry it in the car on a daily basis. (do carry a couple in the RV when traveling). Will carry a gun while setting for pets, while neighbors or family are on vacation also. Most homes have a security system that I re-set after entering. (and again when leaving). It is great how it works, if I am not in the vacation home, I get the 1st. phone call. (if there is no answer at the home). Then wella, the police are there!
MisterAngryBear
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
@ Ricebrnr. I guess why that balance of force is why rates of gun violence are much lower in the USA than they are in countries that have stricter gun laws...No wait, it's the opposite.
2WheelsGood
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 7:50 p.m.
Look no further than other states in the union. Vermont, for example, has an extremely low crime rate yet they don't even require a permit to carry a gun. Guns are allowed on college campuses in Utah, yet when was the last time you heard about a shooting at a college in Utah? Think about it. Can it happen? Yes. But obviously stricter laws don't always solve problems. Geez, look at DC and Chicago. Very strict gun laws, and what a cesspool of crime.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
Also please note that in England yes while gun violence is in fact reduced due to the high level of restrictions on guns, correspondingly violent crime in general has INCREASED. That's what happens when you tell the fox all the chickens in the coop have no claws... Not to mention when you penalize the chickens when they fight back against the foxes. It's called monopoly of force, only the government there has the authority to use it. Seriously look it up for yourself. Personal violent crime is shocking over there. Even worse look up what happens to people who fight back.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 7 p.m.
But then the logical extension of your question should be that the Swedish have a higher crime rate (they don't) and the English lower (they don't)
MisterAngryBear
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
Should read: "I guess that balance of force is why..." Sorry.
MisterAngryBear
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
I think a better question would be "WHY would you want to carry a pistol in your car?" Pistols and other firearms exist for the sole purpose of killing people. No reasonable person should want anything to do with the things.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Mon, Mar 14, 2011 : 5:37 a.m.
ummmmmmmmmmm, "the sole purpose of killing people." abjecttly incorrect.
2WheelsGood
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
Law-abiding citizens carry guns for the exact same reason police do. Sometimes there simply is no better way to defend your life. Are you suggesting the police have no reason to carry guns as well? And as the old saying goes, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.
The old guns are only for killing people argument. So not even going to acknowledge the "sporting purposes" argument that is being used as a stepping stone towards banning. Yes reasonable people would love for people to have no access to guns. You know reasonable people like Hitler, Stalin, White Supremacists... <a href="http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart" rel='nofollow'>http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart</a> You could argue nuclear weapons have no purpose other than annihilating masses of peoples at one time and without it we wouldn't have had the Cold War too. Then again, without the Nuclear Arms race and the premise behind Mutually Assured Destruction would we be here today to argue the point? Disparity of force is at the heart of your reasonable argument. Is it reasonable for someone to be able to defend themselves against aggressors especially if the victim is older, disabled, outclassed or outnumbered? In a perfect world, perhaps yes who would want anything to do with the things BUT in the real world, bad things happen to good people. Good people have the right to defend themselves. Other than youth, martial arts training and vitality, firearms really are the great equalizer.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.
This is an interesting example of how lawmakers view the populace. Michigan - people need to be controlled for fear of misuse of arms. Florida (and others) - cars are extensions of one's home and as such you are legally able to "carry" your sidearm accessibly and ready in your vehicle even without a concealed weapon license. Michigan - while better than some still consider people to be criminals in waiting Florida (and others) - consider that people are law abiding and just might want to defend themselves easily against those who are not. Interesting perspective no?
leaguebus
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
Just take the gun safety course and get a CCW if you are a handgun owner. That way there are no issues with transporting your guns.
picabia
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
"Gun laws are just for the law abiding citizens.' I know! Just like traffic laws are just a hassle for law-abiding citizens! Bad drivers will speed anyway, so really, what's the point? Laws against drunken driving? If a law-abiding driver has a high tolerance for alcohol, why punish him if he's imbibed a few? Drunken drivers will drive anyway, so those who know their limit just have to suffer! Financial regulations? They're just red tape for law-abiding companies!
2WheelsGood
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.
The laws you mention are an end in and of themselves. Gun laws aren't. The law to prevent someone from speeding, is to prevent someone from speeding. It's already illegal to murder someone, so if you're a law-abiding citizen already, the gun laws serve no point.
Hillbillydeluxe
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Gun laws are just for the law abiding citizens.
sbbuilder
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 11:59 a.m.
Note to all potential bank robbers: Make sure you have a trigger lock installed and have the gun locked in a case in your trunk. If you are driving a stolen vehicle, and don't have a trunk key, then just stow the gun in the glove compartment, or under your seat.
what
Tue, Mar 8, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
best comment ever.