THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); "antique firearm" defined.
Sec. 231a.
(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, 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, "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.
History: Add. 1964, Act 215, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 191, Eff. Mar. 29, 1974 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 55, Imd. Eff. Apr. 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 280, Imd. Eff. July 6, 1978 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 82, Imd. Eff. Mar. 26, 2002 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 196, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 427, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 2012
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case:
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “1 The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons provisions do not apply “[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.”
People v. Williams, 576 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “It would be absurd for the Legislature to have enacted strict criteria for a Michigan resident to obtain a Michigan ccw license, and then to exempt him from liability under the ccw statute if he obtains a permit from another state.”
People v. Green, 677 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“432a(h) and MCL 750.231a(l)(e). However, the facts here did not support instructions regarding these statutes, most notably because the evidence was undisputed that the weapon was fully loaded.”
People v. Bailey, 160 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 4× “PA 1931, No 327, § 231a, as added by PA 1964, No 215 (MCLA § 750.231a, Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.”
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “12(C)(4), 2923.16(C). [1] The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons provisions do not apply "[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.”
People v. Wilkens, 362 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“MCL 750.231a; MSA 28.428(1). *788 There has been no indication that defendant possessed a valid hunting license.”
City of Detroit v. RECORDER'S JUDGE, 223 N.W.2d 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“1 The state firearms control statute, MCLA 750.231a; MSA 28.428(1), was amended by 1974 PA 55 , effective immediately, March 29, 1974, signed by the Governor April 1, 1974.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Kennebrew (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “Defendant argues that defense counsel ought to have introduced evidence to support the exemption set forth in MCL 750.231a(1)(e), which allows the occupant of a motor vehicle to transport a handgun for a lawful purpose without a CPL.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Kennebrew (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “Defendant argues that defense counsel ought to have introduced evidence to support the exemption set forth in MCL 750.231a(1)(e), which allows the occupant of a motor vehicle to transport a handgun for a lawful purpose without a CPL.”
People of Michigan v. Rolando Reynolds Redman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “227 and the exceptions outlined in MCL 750.231a are unconstitutional as applied to the particular facts of this case because they infringe upon his Second Amendment right, as well as his right under Const 1963, art 1 § 6, to keep and bear arms.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(1)(a) — 4 cases
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“1 The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons provisions do not apply “[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.”
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“12(C)(4), 2923.16(C). [1] The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons provisions do not apply "[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(1)(d) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Rolando Reynolds Redman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“227 and the exceptions outlined in MCL 750.231a are unconstitutional as applied to the particular facts of this case because they infringe upon his Second Amendment right, as well as his right under Const 1963, art 1 § 6, to keep and bear arms.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(1)(e) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Michael Kennebrew (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant argues that defense counsel ought to have introduced evidence to support the exemption set forth in MCL 750.231a(1)(e), which allows the occupant of a motor vehicle to transport a handgun for a lawful purpose without a CPL.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Kennebrew (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant argues that defense counsel ought to have introduced evidence to support the exemption set forth in MCL 750.231a(1)(e), which allows the occupant of a motor vehicle to transport a handgun for a lawful purpose without a CPL.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(2) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(e) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(l)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Williams, 576 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“It would be absurd for the Legislature to have enacted strict criteria for a Michigan resident to obtain a Michigan ccw license, and then to exempt him from liability under the ccw statute if he obtains a permit from another state.”
People v. Miller, 604 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“1 The Michigan statute provides that its concealed weapons provisions do not apply “[t]o a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.231a(l)(e) — 1 case
People v. Green, 677 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“432a(h) and MCL 750.231a(l)(e). However, the facts here did not support instructions regarding these statutes, most notably because the evidence was undisputed that the weapon was fully loaded.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.