Michigan is an open carry state. There is no law that says it is illegal to do so.
The Michigan State Police legal update describes Michigan’s open carry law as follows:
In Michigan, it is legal for a person to carry a firearm in public as long as the person is carrying the firearm with lawful intent and the firearm is not concealed. You will not find a law that states it is legal to openly carry a firearm. It is legal because there is no Michigan law that prohibits it; however, Michigan law limits the premises on which a person may carry a firearm.
Prohibited premises:
Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian
Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.
Sports arena or stadium
A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises
Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials allow concealed weapons
An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more
A hospital
A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
A Casino
Anyone with a concealed pistol license (CPL) may carry a non-concealed firearm in the above listed premises. And it’s important to note a CPL holder is not required by law to carry a pistol concealed. A CPL holder may carry a pistol concealed or non-concealed.
Private Property
A private property owner has the right to prohibit individuals from carrying firearms on his or her property, whether concealed or otherwise, and regardless of whether the person is a CPL holder.
If a person remains on the property after being told to leave by the owner, the person may be charged with trespassing.
Schools
Michigan schools are allowed to make their own rules about guns. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled school districts are allowed to ban guns from their buildings and ask anyone with a gun to leave. Trespassing charges can be pursued if the person does not leave the school when asked.
M I C H I G A N S T A T E P O L I C E
LEGAL UPDATE
O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 1 0
FIREARMS LAW
As more and more police officers are encountering citizens who are openly carrying firearms in Michigan, the Michigan State Police offers this special edition of the Update to assist officers in familiarizing themselves with Michigan laws regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms.
Open carry of firearms
In Michigan, it is legal for a person to carry a firearm in public as long as the person is carrying the firearm with lawful intent and the firearm is not concealed.
You will not find a law that states it is legal to openly carry a firearm. It is legal because there is no Michigan law that prohibits it; however, Michigan law limits the premises on which a person may carry a firearm.
MCL 750.234d provides that it is a 90 day misdemeanor to possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or credit union)
A church or other place of religious worship
A court
A theater
A sports arena
A day care center
A hospital
An establishment licensed under the Liquor Control Code
The above section does not apply to any of the following:
The owner or a person hired as security (if the firearm is possessed for the purpose of providing security)
A peace officer
A person with a valid concealed pistol license
(CPL) issued by any state
A person who possesses on one of the above
listed premises with the permission of the owner
or owner’s agent
Officers must be aware of the above exemption for valid CPL holders as many of the citizens who openly carry firearms possess valid CPLs.
An individual with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed firearm in the above listed premises.
A CPL holder is not required by law to carry a pistol concealed. A CPL holder may carry a pistol concealed or non-concealed.
A private property owner has the right to prohibit individuals from carrying firearms on his or her property, whether concealed or otherwise, and regardless of whether the person is a CPL holder.
If a person remains on the property after being told to leave by the owner, the person may be charged with trespassing (MCL 750.552).
MCL 750.226 states it is a felony for a person to carry a dangerous weapon, including a firearm, with the intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another person.
Possession of firearms in public by a minor is addressed in MCL 750.234f.
Brandishing firearms
MCL 750.234e provides that it is a 90-day misdemeanor for a person to knowingly brandish a firearm in public. Brandishing is not defined in Michigan law and there are no reported Michigan cases that define the term.
Attorney General Opinion No. 7101 provides guidance and states, “A person when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm….”
In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining “brandishing,” it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: “1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.” This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, “brandishing” a weapon is defined to mean “that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner.”
Transporting firearms
Michigan law details how firearms may be transported in a vehicle. MCL 750.227c and MCL 750.227d discuss the transportation of firearms, other than pistols, in vehicles. MCL 750.227(2) makes it a felony for a person to transport a pistol anywhere in a vehicle unless the person is licensed to carry a concealed pistol.
Exceptions to the above statute are found in MCL 750.231a.
One such exception allows for transportation of pistols in a vehicle for a “lawful purpose.”
A lawful purpose includes 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.
MCL 750.231a also provides that a pistol transported for a “lawful purpose” by a person not licensed to carry a concealed pistol must be all of the following:
Unloaded
In a closed case designed for firearms
In the trunk (or if the vehicle has no trunk, it must not be readily accessible to the occupants)
There is no way to “open carry” a pistol in a vehicle. An individual, without a CPL or otherwise exempted (e.g., a police officer), who transports a pistol in a vehicle to an area where he or she intends to “open carry” may be in violation of MCL 750.227.
Carrying concealed weapons
MCL 750.227 also makes it a felony for a person to carry a concealed pistol on or about his or her person unless the person is exempt under MCL 750.231 or MCL 750.231a.
Complete invisibility is not required.
The carrying of a pistol in a holster or belt outside the clothing is not carrying a concealed weapon.
Carrying a pistol under a coat is carrying a concealed weapon.
Op. Atty. Gen. 1945, O-3158. According to the Court of Appeals in People v. Reynolds, a weapon is concealed if it is not observed by those casually observing the suspect as people do in the ordinary course and usual associations of life. 38 Mich App. 159 (1970).
Firearms Act
MCL 28.422 provides that a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in Michigan without first having obtained a License to Purchase and registering the pistol.
The statute contains exemptions for certain persons and additional exemptions are located in MCL 28.422a and in MCL 28.432.
A person with a valid Michigan CPL does not have to obtain a License to Purchase; however, he or she still has to register the pistol after he or she purchases or otherwise acquires it using a Pistol Sales Record (MCL 28.422a). Violation is a state civil infraction.
Gun Belongs To Another Person?
Additionally, a person with a valid CPL can carry, possess, use, or transport a properly registered pistol belonging to another (MCL 28.432).
Gun Records
Pistol buyers are required to have in their possession their copy of the License to Purchase or Pistol Sales Record when carrying, using, possessing, and transporting the pistol for 30 days after they acquire the pistol. These records are commonly referred to as Registration Certificates or Green Cards.
Officers are reminded that after 30 days, there is no requirement to have either record in their possession or to keep either record.
CPL (Where It Get Confusing)
MCL 28.425o provides that a person with a valid CPL shall not carry a concealed pistol in a pistol free zone.
The following is a list of the premises (excluding parking lots) included in the statute:
First offense is a state civil infraction.
School or school property, except a parent or legal guardian who is dropping off or picking up a child and the pistol is kept in the vehicle
Public or private day care center
Sports arena or stadium
A bar or tavern where sale and consumption of liquor by the glass is the primary source of income (does not apply to owner or employee of the business).
Any property or facility owned or operated by a
church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other
place of worship, unless authorized by the presiding official
An entertainment facility that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more
A hospital
A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
Note, the above statute applies to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. If the CPL holder is carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does not apply. As noted above, the unlawful premises listed in MCL 750.234d do not apply to persons with a valid CPL. Therefore, a person with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o and MCL 750.234d.
Additionally, the above listed pistol-free zones for CPL holders do not apply to the following individuals when they are licensed to carry a concealed weapon:
Retired police officers
Persons employed or contracted by a listed entity to provide security where carrying a concealed pistol is a term of employment
Licensed private detectives or investigators
Sheriff’s department corrections officers
State police motor carrier officers or capital security officers
Members of a sheriff’s posse
Auxiliary or reserve officers of a police or sheriff’s department
Parole or probation officers of the department of corrections
Current or retired state court judges
Out-of-state residents
Non-residents may legally possess a firearm more than 30 inches in length in Michigan.
In order for a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan, he or she must either be licensed to carry a concealed pistol or be licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, carry, or transport a pistol.
The ownership of property in Michigan does not qualify a non-resident to possess a pistol in Michigan.
Non-resident concealed pistol possession.
MCL 750.231a makes it legal for a non-resident of Michigan with a valid CPL issued by his or her state of residence to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan as long as the pistol is carried in conformance with any and all restrictions appearing on the license.
Individuals with out of state CPLs are subject to Michigan laws that govern Michigan CPL holders. As many states issue CPLs to out of state residents, officers should verify that the person actually resides in the state that issued the license.
If the person does not reside in the state that issued the license, Michigan does not recognize the CPL and the person may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan.
Possession of pistols by non-residents
MCL 28.432 makes it legal for non-residents of Michigan who hold valid CPLs issued by another state to possess a non-concealed pistol in Michigan without complying with Michigan’s pistol registration requirements.
Additionally, MCL 28.422exempts residents of other states from Michigan’s pistol registration requirements therefore, allowing them to possess a pistol in Michigan, if all of the following requirements are met:
The person is licensed by his or her state of residence to purchase, transport, or carry a pistol,
The person is in possession of the license while in Michigan,
The person owns the pistol possessed in Michigan,
The person possesses the pistol for a lawful purpose as defined in MCL 750.231a, and
The person is in Michigan less than 180 days and does not intend to establish residency here.
A non-resident must present the license issued by his or her state of residence to a police officer upon demand. Failure to do so is a 90-day misdemeanor.
When transporting a firearm in Michigan, non-residents must transport pistols in compliance with MCL 750.231a (discussed above in the Transporting Firearms section), unless they have a concealed pistol license issued by their state of residence.
Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Carrying a nonconcealed firearm is generally legal.
Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot.
For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.
Here is the link to the Michigan State Police Legal Update from where the information was obtained. Please Note: Laws change so please consult an attorney for any legal questions.
The new drug code (7350) established in the Final Rule does not include materials or products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana set forth in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).1
The new drug code includes only those extracts that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana.
If a product consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360).
As explained in the Final Rule, the creation of this new drug code was primarily intended to give DEA more precise accounting to assist the agency in carrying out its obligations to provide certain reports required by U.S. treaty obligations. Because the Final Rule did not add any substance to the schedules that was not already controlled, and did not change the schedule of any substance, it was not a scheduling action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 811 and 812.
The new drug code is a subset of what has always been included in the CSA definition of marijuana. By creating a new drug code for marijuana extract, the Final Rule divides into more descriptive pieces the materials, compounds, mixtures, and preparations that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana. Both drug code 7360 (marijuana) and new drug code 7350 (marijuana extract) are limited to that which falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.
Because recent public inquiries that DEA has received following the publication of the Final Rule suggest there may be some misunderstanding about the source of cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, we also note the following botanical considerations. As the scientific literature indicates, cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), cannabinols (CBN) and cannabidiols (CBD), are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves.2 According to the scientific literature, cannabinoids are not found in the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, except for trace amounts (typically, only parts per million)3 that may be found where small quantities of resin adhere to the surface of seeds and mature stalk.4 Thus, based on the scientific literature, it is not practical to produce extracts that contain more than trace amounts of cannabinoids using only the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such as oil from the seeds. The industrial processes used to clean cannabis seeds and produce seed oil would likely further diminish any trace amounts of cannabinoids that end up in the finished product. However, as indicated above, if a product, such as oil from cannabis seeds, consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360), even if it contained trace amounts of cannabinoids.5
1 The CSA states: “The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(16).
2 H. Mölleken and H. Hussman. Cannabinoid in seed extracts of Cannabis sativa cultivars. J. Int. Hemp Assoc. 4(2): 73-79 (1997).
3 See id.; see also S. Ross et al., GC-MS Analysis of the Total Δ9-THC Content of Both Drug- and Fiber-Type Cannabis Seeds, J. Anal. Toxic., Vol. 24, 715-717 (2000).
4 H. Mölleken, supra.
5 Nor would such a product be included under drug code 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols). See Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) (Hemp II). However, as the Ninth Circuit stated in Hemp II, “when Congress excluded from the definition of marijuana ‘mature stalks of such plant, fiber . . . , [and] oil or cake made from the seeds,’ it also made an exception to the exception, and included ‘resin extracted from’ the excepted parts of the plant in the definition of marijuana, despite the stalks and seed exception.” Id. at 1018. Thus, if an extract of cannabinoids were produced using extracted resin from any part of the cannabis plant (including the parts excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana), such an extract would be included in the CSA definition of marijuana.
LANSING — A Macomb County man sentenced to life in prison without parole because of a 2000 drug offense could get a reprieve with a new law that went into effect last week.
The bill eliminates the requirement that habitual drug offenders get enhanced sentences, up to life in prison without parole. Instead, prisoners would be eligible for parole after serving five years of their sentence.
That could help John Sellors, a Macomb County man convicted in 2002 of selling 51 grams of cocaine. It was his second drug offense and required the enhanced sentence. Several requests for commutation from Sellors have been denied, according to a House analysis of the bill.
He is one of three prisoners in Michigan prisons who will be eligible for parole as a result of the new law, said Corrections’ Department spokeswoman Holly Kramer.
Michigan reformed its drug sentencing laws in 1998, getting rid of some of the toughest sentencing practices in the nation. But the enhanced sentencing for second drug offenses stayed on the books.
The three-bill package passed unanimously in both the House of Representatives and Senate and were the last bills signed into law last year. They went into effect on March 28.
They were among more than 100 bills signed by Gov. Rick Snyder and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley in the final six weeks of 2017. Others included packages of bills that require municipalities to report and develop plans to deal with unfunded liabilities in pension and retiree health care funds.
Most of those bills went into effect in the first quarter of 2018 while a handful will go into effect later this year.
PA 168 (SB 415): Require retail gas stations to have safety measures to guard against credit card skimmers. Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City.
PA 169 (SB 107): Modify the inspection procedures for housing units and require landlords to notify tenants on when inspections are going to occur. Sponsor: Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
PA 170 (SB 120): Revise the maximum length guidelines for truck trailer transporters. Sponsor: Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba.
PA 171 (SB 238): Allow lending institutions to pay referral fees of up to $500 to refer potential borrowers to the institution. Sponsor: Sen. Darwin Booher, R-Evart.
PA 172 (SB 286) : Require the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to administer training for certified nurse aides. Sponsor: Sen. Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor.
PA 173 (SB 278): Allow Michigan to join the Interstate Library Compact so that the state can enter into agreements for all services provided by libraries in bordering states. Sponsor: Sen. John Proos, R-St. Joseph.
PA 174 (SB 381): Allow warrants on charges of failing to appear in court to be served by first class mail or e-mail. Sponsor: Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
PA 175 (SB 520): Create a fee for subscription services for the secured transactions that are filed with the Michigan Department of State. Sponsor: Sen. Darwin Booher, R-Evart.
PA 176-188 (SB 553-557 and 562-565) Update the laws and references to the Michigan History Center in existing statute. Sponsors: Sens. Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City and Mike Green, R-Mayville.
PA 189 (HB 4285): Specify that a person is not liable for unpaid property taxes unless the person owned the property when the tax was due. Sponsor: Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township.
PA 190 (SB 509): Designate a portion of M-52 in Ingham County as the Deputy Grant Whitaker Memorial Highway. The Ingham County sheriff’s deputy was killed in 2017 when his vehicle crashed during a pursuit of a suspect. Sponsor: Sen. Curtis Hertel, D-East Lansing.
PA 191 (HB 4065): Allow individuals with prior felony convictions to pursue a job with the Michigan Department of Corrections. Sponsor: Dave Pagel, R-Berrien Springs.
PA 192 (HB 4208): Amend election law to ensure that a member of the House of Representatives or Senate who resigns or is removed from office can seek election to finish that term of office. Sponsor: Rep. Aaron Miller, R-Sturgis.
PA 193 (HB 4716): Allows for the termination of parental rights for a parent who knowingly performs female genital mutilation on a child or transports the child for the procedure. Sponsor: Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township.
PA 194-195 (HB 4355 and SB 275): Prohibit law enforcement officers from having sex with prostitutes while they’re conducting undercover investigations. Sponsors: Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Williams Township, Sen. Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan.
PA 196 (SB 342): Modify the language requirements that need to be included in a deed to transfer a parcel of land. Sponsor: Sen. John Proos, R-St. Joseph.
PA 197 (SB 385): Remove the regulations that restrict collection agencies from hiring attorneys and sharing office space. Sponsor: Sen. Jim Stamas, R-Midland.
PA 198 (SB 524): Require fingerprinting and background checks for all applicants to law enforcement academies. Sponsor: Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
PA 199 (SB 552): Extend the current fee structure for off road vehicle licenses and trail permit fees. Sponsor: Sen. Goeff Hansen, R-Hart.
PA 200 (HB 4802): Create a process for couples who asked probate judges to keep their marriage licenses private to have those licenses unsealed. Sponsor: Rep. Triston Cole, R-Mancelona.
PA 201 (HB 4320): Provide a supplemental budget appropriation of $23.2 million to deal with water contaminated with PFAS or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Sponsor: Rep. Laura Cox, R-Livonia.
PA 202-214 (SB 686, 688 and 691-699 and HB 5301, 5304, 5306, 5308, 5310 and 5313): Address unfunded health care and pension liabilities in local governments by requiring more frequent and detailed reporting to the state of retiree benefit plans in cities, townships, villages and counties. Sponsors: Sens. Jim Stamas, R-Midland, Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair, Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake and Reps. Gary Glenn, R-Williams Township, Kathy Crawford, R-Novi, Eric Leutheuser, R-Hillsdale, Gary Howell, R-North Branch, James Lower, R-Cedar Lake, Rob VerHeulen, R-Walker.
PA 215 (HB 4976): Create a framework for alternative dispute resolution that taxpayers or the Department of Treasury may initiate to avoid more costly litigation. Sponsor: Rep. Jim Tedder, R-Clarkston.
PA 216 (HB 4502): Exempt self-insured workers’ compensation groups from the Corporate Income Tax. Sponsor: Rep. James Lower, R-Cedar Lake.
PA 217 (HB 4420): Allow for the extension of the completion date for brownfield development projects that are getting tax credits. Sponsor: Rep. Jim Tedder, R-Clarkston.
PA 218-221 (HB 5165, 5173 and SB 566-567): Provide use and sales tax exemptions for the sale of dental prosthetics. Sponsors: Reps. Bronna Kahle, R-Adrian, Julie Alexander, R-Hanover and Sen. Dale Zorn, R-Ida.
PA 222-223 (SB 631 and 673): Modify the configuration of a nonprofit dental care corporation’s board of directors and billing and payment requirements. Sponsors: Sens. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake and Joe Hune, R-Gregory.
PA 224 (SB 649): Allow the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to begin three pilot programs to integrate physical and behavioral health services. Sponsor: Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake.
PA 225-232 (HB 5165-5172): Change the way the Unemployment Insurance Agency flags and treats suspected cases of fraud to ensure there is no repeat of a scandal in which thousands of unemployment benefit recipients were wrongly accused of getting benefits fraudulently. fraudulent. Sponsors: Reps. Joe Graves, R-Linden, Kevin Hertel, D-St. Clair Shores, Wendell Byrd, D-Detroit, Diana Farrington, R-Utica, Beau LaFave, R-Iron Mountain, Joe Bellino, R-Monroe, Martin Howrylak, R-Troy.
PA 233 (HB 4054): Allow school buses to be equipped with additional flashing signs. Sponsor: Rep. Holly Huges, R-White River Township.
PA 234 (HB 4907): Allow commercial vehicles to purchase fundraising license plates. Sponsor: Rep. Roger Victory, R-Hudsonville.
PA 235 (SB 630): Change the minor in possession first offense from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. Sponsor: Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
PA 236 (SB 478): Lower the number of unpaid parking tickets from six to three that a driver can accrue before having their driver’s license held when they go to renew it. Sponsor: Sen. David Hildenbrand. R-Lowell.
PA 237 (SB 480): Designate a portion of I-96 as the Mitchel A. Kiefer Foundation for Distracted Driver Awareness Highway. Kiefer was killed in a car accident caused by a distracted driver in 2016. Sponsor: Sen. Mike Kowall, R-White Lake.
PA 238 (SB 575): Delay the implementation date for fee increases on motorcycle endorsements and registration fees until Feb. 19, 2019. Sponsor: Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba.
PA 239 (HB 4207): Expand the definition property eligible for community revitalization incentives to include grocery stores. Sponsor: Rep. Andy Schor, D-Lansing.
PA 240 (HB 4807): Codify Michigan State Police oversight of rates, fares, charges and tariffs on carriers of water between states. Sponsor: Rep. Dan Lauwers, R-Brockway.
PA 241 (SB 44): Add several crimes to the list from which a court may order a defendant to reimburse law enforcement costs. Sponsor: Sen. Goeff Hansen, R-Hart.
PA 242 (SB 375): Expand the list of energy projects eligible for special financing. Sponsor: Sen. Darwin Booher, R-Evart.
PA 243-245 (SB 483, 485-486): Amend the rules associated with employing junior hockey players. Sponsor: Sens. Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth, Jim Stamas, R-Midland, Jim Ananich, R-Flint.
PA 248-255 (SB 47, 166-167, 270, 273-274 and HB 4403, 4406-4408): Require prescribers to check a patient’s prescription history before providing controlled substances to the patient. Sponsors: Sens. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton, Steve Bieda, D-Warren, Rick Jones, R-Grad Ledge, Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy, Dale Zorn, R-Ida and Reps. Joseph Bellino, R-Monroe, Andy Schor, D-Lansing, Beth Griffin, R-Paw Paw.
PA 256-259 (SB 180-183): Update licensing provisions for child care facilities to meet new federal standards. Sponsors: Sens. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton, Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, Hoon-Yung Hopgood, D-Taylor.
PA 260 (HB 5126): Clarify that restraint and seclusion policies in public schools do not apply to law enforcement. Sponsor: Rep. Daniela Garcia, R-Holland.
PA 261-264 (SB 570-573): Provide deadline flexibility for companies applying for and receiving personal property tax exemptions. Sponsors: Sens. Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc, John Proos, R-St. Joseph.
PA 265-267 (SB 72-73 and 220): Update parole eligibility requirements related to habitual drug offenses by eliminating outdated life-without-parole sentences for non-violent offenses. Sponsor: Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Warren.
For more information, go to www.legislature.mi.gov.
Contact Kathleen Gray: kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal
P.S.
Thank You Kathleen for Just the Facts…
If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected. Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.
Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation at 800-656-3557.
Michael Komorn is the leading expert attorney dedicated to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and the Marijuana Tracking Act.
Call Komorn Law PLLC today if you are interested in working in or with the Michigan medical marijuana business industry. We offer expert planning and advice for all MMFLA applicants, employees and related services including Certified Public Accountants and financial institutions.
Combined with Komorn Law PLLC’s expert criminal defense services, we can help you maximize profits, minimize risk and liabilities and ensure that you are in compliance with all of the laws, rules and regulations.
Please note that these laws, rules and regulation forms change and are updated regularly. Always get the latest forms directly from LARA at http://www.michigan.gov/bmmr
Administrative Rule 72 says that before a marijuana plant is sold or transferred, a package tag must be affixed to the plant or plant container and enclosed with a tamper proof seal that includes all of the following information:
• Business or trade name, licensee number, and the RFID package tag assigned by the statewide monitoring system that is visible.
• Name of the strain.
• Date of harvest, if applicable.
• Seed strain, if applicable.
• Universal symbol, if applicable.
Administrative Rule 73 says before a marijuana product is sold or transferred to or by a provisioning center, the container, bag, or product holding the marijuana product must have a label and be sealed with all of the following information:
• The name of the licensee and the license number of the producer, including business or trade name, and tag or source number as assigned by the statewide monitoring system.
• The name of the licensee and the license number including business or trade name of licensee that packaged the product, if different from the processor of the marijuana product.
• The unique identification number for the package or the harvest, if applicable.
• Date of harvest, if applicable.
• Name of strain, if applicable.
• Net weight in United States customary and metric units.
• Concentration of THC and cannabidiol (CBD).
• Activation time expressed in words or through a pictogram.
• Name of the safety compliance facility that performed any test, any associated test batch number, and any test analysis date.
• The universal symbol for marijuana product published on the department’s
website.
• A warning that states all the following: “For use by registered qualifying patients
only. Keep out of reach of children. It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle while
under the influence of marijuana. National Poison Control Center 1-800-222-1222.
Licensees may continue to use any remaining versions of the previous Universal Symbol until they are completely used up.
Licensees are also permitted to choose which Universal Symbol version to use on a marijuana product until any remaining
versions of the previous Universal Symbol until they are completely used up.
The educational session (video above) will include presentations on the following topics:
Keith Lambert, the Director of the Bureau of Construction Codes, will discuss important items to know – and specific steps to follow – when designing and constructing medical marihuana facilities. (missing)
Greg Kozak, an on-site Industrial Hygiene Consultant with Michigan Occupational Safety and Health (MIOSHA), will present an overview of the MIOSHA standards and regulations potentially impacting the medical cannabis industry in Michigan.
Kevin Sehlmeyer, State Fire Marshal, and Brian William, Plan Review Specialist, will provide an overview of National Fire Protection Association standards.
Brandi Branson-Boone, a departmental analyst in the Business Taxes Division of the Michigan Department of Treasury, will be assisting with navigation of the Michigan Treasury Online (MTO) – Treasury’s web services portal.
Marijuana continues to be regulated by Congress as a dangerous drug, and as the Supreme Court has recognized, the federal prohibition of marijuana takes precedence over state laws to the contrary.
The primacy of federal law over state law is hardly a novel proposition and has been the rule since the ratification of the Constitution. Thus, whenever a marijuana business files for bankruptcy relief, a threshold question is whether the debtor can be granted relief consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and other federal law. If the answer to that question is no, the United States Trustee Program (USTP), in its role as the watchdog of the bankruptcy system, will move to dismiss.
Illegal enterprises simply do not come through the doors of the bankruptcy courthouse seeking help to further their criminal activities. To obtain bankruptcy relief, some may try to hide the nature of their business or income, but bankruptcy courts require full financial disclosure and are not a hospitable forum for continuing a fraudulent or criminal scheme.
Marijuana businesses are a unique and unprecedented exception to this rule because they often involve companies that openly propose to continue their illegal activity during and after the bankruptcy. Those cases present a challenge to the bankruptcy system because they generally involve assets that are illegal even to possess. In contrast to other types of cases involving illegal businesses, in which the criminal activity has already terminated and the principal concern of the bankruptcy court is to resolve competing claims by victims for compensation, a marijuana bankruptcy case may involve a company that not only is continuing in its business, but is even seeking the affirmative assistance of the bankruptcy court in order to reorganize its balance sheet and thereby facilitate its violations of the law going forward.
The USTP’s response to marijuana-related bankruptcy filings is guided by two straightforward and uncontroversial principles. First, the bankruptcy system may not be used as an instrument in the ongoing commission of a crime and reorganization plans that permit or require continued illegal activity may not be confirmed. Second, bankruptcy trustees and other estate fiduciaries should not be required to administer assets if doing so would cause them to violate federal criminal law.
The USTP’s policy of seeking dismissal of marijuana bankruptcy cases that cannot lawfully be administered is not a new one, but rather it is a policy that has been applied consistently over two presidential administrations and under three Attorneys General. Nor are these concerns unique to marijuana. These same principles would also guide the USTP’s response in a case involving any other type of ongoing criminal conduct or administration of illegal property.
Although a recent ABI Journal article2 takes the USTP to task for its marijuana enforcement efforts, it is noteworthy that the author fully agrees with the USTP’s position as to the first of the two principles described above and appears to agree to a significant extent with the second. As the author concedes, “it hardly needs explanation that a bankruptcy court should not supervise an ongoing criminal enterprise regardless of its status under state law.”3 As to the second principle, “[i]t would obviously violate federal law for the trustee to sell marijuana.”
Given these concessions, the author’s disagreement with the USTP’s position would appear to be limited to a fairly narrow range of cases – those where administration of the estate would not require the trustee to sell marijuana (but would require the trustee to administer other marijuana-derived property), or where the debtor is a “downstream” participant in a marijuana business, such as a lessor of a building used for a marijuana dispensary.
Yet under the CSA, there is no distinction between the seller or the grower of marijuana and the supposedly more “downstream” participants whom the article proposes to protect: all are in violation of federal criminal law. In particular,
section 856 of the CSA specifically prohibits knowingly renting, managing, or using property “for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;” section 863 of the CSA makes it a crime to sell or offer for sale any drug paraphernalia – which is defined to include, among other things, “equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use” in manufacturing a controlled substance; and section 855 provides for a fine against a person “who derives profits or proceeds from an offense [of the CSA].”
Thus, not only would a trustee who offers marijuana for sale violate the law but so, too, would a trustee who liquidated the fertilizer or equipment used to grow marijuana, who collected rent from a marijuana business tenant, or who sought to collect the profits of a marijuana investment.
Although cases involving illicit proceeds of Ponzi schemes and other criminal activities – seen in such notorious cases as Enron, Dreier LLP, and Madoff – are administered in bankruptcy, they deal with the aftermath of fraud, usually after individual wrongdoers had been removed from the business.
Such cases are wholly inapposite analogies to a marijuana case where the illegal activity is still continuing through the bankruptcy administration process and where bankruptcy relief may allow the company to expand its violations of law in the future. Nor do any of those cases involve proposed chapter 11 and 13 plans where the feasibility of the plan itself is directly premised on the continued receipt of profits from an illegal enterprise. And none of them requires the courts or trustees to deal with property of the kind described in the CSA, for which mere possession is a federal crime.
Similarly, although the author cites two decades-old decisions in support of his claim that “courts have not always shied away from handling marijuana-related bankruptcies,”7 it is noteworthy that neither of those decisions involved active marijuana operations or would have required a bankruptcy trustee to administer any illegal marijuana assets.8 Both Chapman and Kurth Ranch involved bankruptcy cases that were filed after law enforcement had arrested and seized the assets of marijuana growers. The legal issues raised by the current wave of marijuana filings were simply not present in those cases – neither case involved an ongoing violation of law, and in neither case were there any marijuana assets to be administered, because all illegal assets had been seized and disposed of prepetition.
Finally, the article suggests that the “ongoing conflict over marijuana policy” is one that should take place outside the bankruptcy system. The USTP agrees. But that does not mean that the USTP or the courts should turn a blind eye to bankruptcy filings by marijuana businesses. Rather than make its own marijuana policy, the USTP will continue to enforce the legislative judgment of Congress by preventing the bankruptcy system from being used for purposes that Congress has determined are illegal.
Written by: Clifford J. White III Director, Executive Office for U.S. Trustees Washington, DC
John Sheahan Trial Attorney, Executive Office for U.S. Trustees Washington, DC
