Michigan –-(Ammoland.com)- With legislative consideration of constitutional concealed carry now underway, some of our members are asking why MCRGO, an organization dedicated to responsible gun use and with a training program, would support allowing people to carry concealed without a CPL. That’s a fair question. Here’s why:
Constitutional carry without a license is not the same as concealed carry with a CPL. Without a CPL, a person would not be able to borrow another person’s pistol. They would not enjoy reciprocity with most other states. They would not be exempted from purchase permits for private party sales or other side benefits of a CPL.
Most importantly, a person without a CPL would still be subject to the gun free zones in MCL 750.234d which are much more restrictive than the concealed pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o. An unlicensed CPL holder would not be able to carry in a bank or credit union. They would not be able to carry in a church even with permission. And they would not be able to carry in any location with a liquor license including grocery stores, gas stations, party stores, pharmacies, restaurants, etc. And 750.234d does not have a parking lot exception.
Consequently, constitutional concealed carry is much more limited than concealed carry with a CPL. It should be seen more as an introduction to concealed carry. We anticipate that most people who begin to carry concealed without a CPL are soon going to want to obtain their CPL. That option will remain open to them following the same training and qualifying requirements currently in place. The number of Michigan residents taking pistol safety training courses will continue to rise resulting in more responsible gun ownership.
This is not simply speculation on our part. A dozen states already have constitutional concealed carry. Firearms instructors in those states have reported a growing number of students. Despite the fears of some, those states have not seen an increase in unjustified firearms homicides. In fact, their crime rates are decreasing.
Along with the practical benefits of constitutional concealed carry, is the basic principle behind it. Just like we do not need to pay a poll tax to vote, we should not be forced to buy a license to bear arms. Currently, the only form of constitutional carry we have in Michigan is open carry. Many people would prefer not to open carry for a variety of reasons. When shall-issue concealed carry was being debated two decades ago, there was resistance among existing CPL holders about opening up concealed carry to all adults. There was a real fear about “blood in the streets.” We now know those fears were unfounded. The same will prove true in time for constitutional carry. More people taking training and a lower rate of violent crime are why MCRGO supports this legislation.
You may contact members of the committee with your own support by clicking HERE.
Committee meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to testify on the package. Last week’s House Judiciary Committee meeting that was to consider the constitutional carry legislation was cancelled due to the sudden death of a legislator. We anticipate the committee meeting will be rescheduled for this week. As of the drafting of this issue of the E’News, we were still waiting on the new committee notice. You can find updated committee notices for House Judiciary Committee HERE.
About Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.
Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org
The only thing this article has proven to me, is that Michigan is just another anti-gun/anti-constitutional jack-booted Thugocracy, every bit as bad as California, Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois.
I will never visit Michigan: I have zero desire to enter yet another Democratic People’s Republic anti-Freedom Zone.
If I cannnot even walk into a gas station to pay for my fuel when their version of “constitutional carry” is being used because the place sells beer…… I do NOT have “constitutionial carry”. Reading this, I can’t even have the gun on my person when I pull into the lot…….. WHAT is the logic that bans firearms in places like banks, credit unions, churches, restaurants, any place that sells liquor in any form? Have these restrictions EVER prevented anyone so inclined to bring his weapon into such places and use it for evil? No? Didn’t think so…. it is… Read more »
The MCRGO author in this article seems very naive. If you want to use fact-based logic to sway legislation, eliminate Gun Free Zones. These laws require people to sit unarmed and unprotected in places where statistically they are least safe. An overwhelming number of mass shootings in this country have occurred in Gun Free Zones. Eliminate that, not the training requirement necessary to safely carry a concealed firearm.
Where did you get the idea that constitutional carry came with restrictions as to location and time. Constitutional carry means that there are no government restrictions because it is a right, and we do not restrict rights. When permits/licenses are involved, it is not a right which is being considered, but a privilege.
Constitutional carry would really mean any weapon anytime anywhere by anyone. Anything else is not constitutional carry.
“Constitutional carry without a license is NOT the same as concealed carry with a CPL. Without a CPL, a person would not be able to borrow another person’s pistol. They would not enjoy reciprocity with most other states. They would not be exempted from purchase permits for private party sales or other side benefits of a CPL. Most importantly, a person without a CPL would still be subject to the gun free zones in MCL 750.234d which are much more restrictive than the concealed pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o. An unlicensed CPL holder would not be able to carry… Read more »
@mac Are, I concur with your reading of the article. Further, I conclude that only a liberal/socialist/progressive, moron, gun grabber would think that bearing a firearm pursuant to our Second Amendment Civil Rights is narrower than some state’s statutory permit.