REPRESENTATIVES MIKE NOFS AND BRUCE CASWELL JOIN FORCES WITH AG MIKE COX IN DEFENDING GUN OWNER’S RIGHTS by Joel Fulton

Recently an issue was brought to a boil in the City of Battle Creek, MI. The shall-issue concealed carry law which became effective July 1, 2001, removed the $5 fee charged for a permit to purchase a pistol. After a while, several municipalities began to charge a $5 fee once again by calling it a notary fee.

Josephine, a lady 85 years young, had been recently widowed. In trying to sell the firearm left behind and obtain a firearm more suitable for her (she began shooting this year for the first time in her life), she was forced to pay $20 for a purchase permit to “transfer”

the gun from her husband’s name to her name so she could sell that gun, and then she had to pay another $20 to get another purchase permit to buy the gun she actually wanted. This was nothing short of outrageous and could be tolerated no longer.

Joel Fulton, President of Southside Sportsman Club, obtained a copy of a letter issued by Attorney General Mike Cox’s office dated February 20, 2004 indicating that no fee should be charged in connection with a permit to purchase a pistol. This letter was forwarded to Battle Creek City Commissioner Mark Behnke and he subsequently indicated that it had no impact on the Battle Creek City Attorney Clyde Robinson. This prompted the immediate move on Mr. Fulton’s part in contacting Representative Mike Nofs, 62nd District (most of Calhoun County including the City of Battle Creek) to request that Attorney General Mike Cox investigate the matter. Representative Nofs consulted with Representative Bruce Caswell, 58th District (Branch and Hillsdale Counties), and found several irregularities facing firearms owners at individual municipalities. Together they compiled these questions and asked AG Cox to address them all:

1. Is a law enforcement entity that issues purchase permits allowed to set limited hours during which an applicant may obtain a permit?

The AG pointed out that according to MCL 28.422(12), the law enforcement agency must issue purchase permits during all normal business hours, whatever the normal business hours are set at. He stated that any restriction should not be “materially” less than those hours set to conduct normal public business. Since it takes time to do background checks and do the paperwork necessary to issue the permits, I (Joel Fulton) personally would not be opposed to an agency stating that if you wish to apply for a permit to purchase a pistol you must do so at least a half hour before the close of normal business hours. This reasonably allows the task to be completed and allows the clerk or clerks to still go home on time. It is courtesy on the part of gun owners to do this.

2. May a law enforcement entity limit the number of purchase permits that an applicant may receive in a single visit?

Attorney General Mike Cox determined that the answer to both of these questions is a simple “No.” In support of this position he cited the firearms pre-emption law in MCL 123.1102 which provides that “a local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.” [Emphasis added by the Attorney General.] AG Cox went on to cite the landmark case, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners v City of Ferndale, where the Appellate Courts have supported AG’s application of this section of Michigan law.

3. May a law enforcement entity charge its own fee for a purchase permit, may a fee for a safety inspection be assessed, and may a fee be charged for providing notary public services?

Attorney General Mike Cox stated that the question of whether a local unit of government may charge fees for purchase permits and safety inspections was answered in a recent letter signed by then Chief Deputy Attorney General Carol Isaacs to Representative William J. O’Neil dated February 20, 2004. [Yes, it is the same letter that Joel Fulton presented to the City of Battle Creek and they ignored the first time.] That letter noted that 2000 PA 381 repealed the part of MCL 28.423 that had provided authorization to assess a fee concerning pistol purchase permits and also cited the broad preclusive effect of MCL 123.1102 in this area. It then concluded that local units of government may not charge applicants administrative fees for the expenses associated with gun purchase permits and gun safety inspections as there is no law authorizing such fees and, absent state or federal law providing such authorization, MCL 123.1102 expressly prohibits such fees.

The third fee-related question deals with fees associated with providing the services of a notary public. To the extent a purchase permit requires the services of a notary public, any notary public of the applicant’s choosing may suffice to meet the requirement. While the agency may charge a notary public fee, capped at a maximum of $10, they must allow you the option to secure the notary public services at a place of your choosing. They cannot force you to use their notary public services. In other words, they must allow the purchase permit to leave the building without yet being notarized or they cannot charge you a fee.

4. May a law enforcement entity require applicants for a pistol purchase permit to fill out a form asking for information not required by the Firearms Act?

Since there were no specific questions presented in the Representatives request, Attorney General Mike Cox answered with the following:
Generally, administrative agencies possess those powers expressly conferred by law and those powers granted by necessary or fair implication to effectuate the express powers. Thus, so long as questions submitted to an applicant are necessary to fully effectuate the statutorily mandated determination of eligibility, they would be proper, but questions submitted to an applicant that have no relevance to the determination of eligibility would be without authority and improper.

For instance, asking an individual for height, weight, eye and hair color would be appropriate because they are used to determine identity and therefore relate to your eligibility to purchase a pistol. Asking a person if they have ever had a firearm stolen form them or if they are related to a convicted felon would be unrelated questions to an individual’s eligibility and therefore would not be permissible questions to be asked.

5. May a law enforcement entity keep a file or database of residents with a list of all the pistols presented for registration or inspection?

Not only may they do this, they are required to do so by law according to MCL 28.429.

Once again, Attorney General Mike Cox has demonstrated that he will clearly apply the law, and the law is solidly on the side of freedom and the rights of law abiding gun owners. Attorney General Mike Cox will not allow those rights to be abused by local municipalities regardless of their self-justified reasoning. This is not the first time that Representative Mike Nofs has gone to bat with the Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the rights of law abiding gun owners. Since Representative Mike Nofs is a retired State Police Post Commander, his actions send a clear signal to our law enforcement community that law abiding gun owners are the good guys and should be respected as such. We also appreciate Representative Bruce Caswell’s role in this and respect him as an honest, no-nonsense legislator. These are all men who deserve your support at the polls on November 7th as well as any financial support you can spare and yard signs in your yards and as many of your friends as you can muster!