U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Last week, Michigan FFLs received a letter from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) notifying them that a Michigan CPL will no longer be exempt from the NICS check when purchasing a firearm. This applies specifically to FFL dealers, not to private party sales. There is also no impact on RI-10 purchase permits.
While CPL holders are used to this simplicity in purchasing firearms, it has only been allowed since 2006. Many Michigan gun shops ran the NICS check anyway, despite the CPL, during this time. The ATF has recommended the NICS check as a best practice to reduce liability exposure.
The ATF letter is vague in a lot of respects. It references that the agency received information from the FBI that Michigan CPLs continue to be issued to people prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms including those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and those using marijuana. There is no other specific reasoning given. There are theories that the ATF’s change in position is because MSP hasn’t been doing NICS checks on CPL applicants but there is no evidence supporting that.
It is important to note that the marijuana issue continues to create questions among Michiganders. There continues to be a lack of legal clarity on the issue of having a CPL and a medical marijuana card. Part of this confusion is because despite medical and now recreational use of marijuana being legal in Michigan, both uses are still illegal on a federal level. According to federal law, marijuana is still considered a controlled substance. It is neither clear nor certain whether a state law permitting lawful use would protect someone facing federal charges. This is because the ATF has been inconsistent in its application of standards to states with marijuana laws. There is no evidence that the recent recreational statute (MRTMA) is behind the ATF’s reasoning.
On the domestic violence issue, Michigan law does not provide a lifetime ban on obtaining a CPL for misdemeanor domestic violence. Instead, it has an 8-year prohibition.
We will continue to keep you posted on this issue.
About MCRGO:
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.”
For more information, visit their website.
Well we already know the FBI lies to judges, participates in coup attempts, and is in general a bunch of corrupt political hacks, so it comes as no surprise that the lied to the ATF, another unconstitutional alphabet soup gravy train…….
The problem you have when states disregard federal laws. It shouldn’t be on the FFL to perform a background check if the person has a concealed carry permit. It should be on the state agency that issued the permit to take the heat if the person is prohibited. Besides I don’t believe anyone should lose rights over a misdemeanor.
The gun in the picture is my EDC. Great gun!!
So, the learning point is this: in a progressive utopia the law is what we say it is whenever we see the need to pronounce the law. Statute, precedent and Stare Decisis apply only for those who hold power. Those who do not hold power, the people, must all bow down low. Big Brother speaks. His black-robed sooth sayers speak. All bow down.
Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me!
@Jacob – When ATF exempts license holders from 4473 they are saying “if you have this license, we’ve already checked and approved you”.
Thus (without researching it) I’d say that if CPL exempts you from 4473 then it must require you to pass 4473 to get the license.
State cannot unilaterally exempt you from federal law.
So does this mean after a single NICS check cpl holders will be exempt once again since they have then proved they aren’t ineligible? This whole thing is easily remedied by just revoking/not issuing cpl’s to those who are deemed ineligible, but shocker the state and fed gov are fully contradictory to one another. Meaning the state says they are legal to have a cpl but federal disagrees. The real issue here is difference in legality between state and federal. As another commenter said below, even with certain felonies or domestic abuse convictions, after a certain time some states, such… Read more »
So what about cpl holder to clp holder…face to face? We can’t perform a NICS check. So I can’t sell a pistol to my buddy with a clp any longer? We need to go thru an ffl?