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!
