Shifting Tides: A Landmark Opinion on Firearm Ownership and State Databases
A significant legal opinion from the Michigan Attorney General’s office has brought a monumental clarification to the landscape of firearm ownership, particularly concerning state-level record-keeping. This development fundamentally redefines how certain firearms are understood in relation to governmental databases, signaling a departure from long-held assumptions about state “registration” of handguns.
“It is my opinion, therefore, that a Michigan resident who holds a concealed pistol license issued by another state is exempt under subsection 12(1)(f), MCL 28.432(1)(f), of the Firearms Act from obtaining a license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol as required by section 2, MCL 28.422, but is not exempt from obtaining a concealed pistol license under section 5b, MCL 28.425b, of the Act, in order to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan.“ – AGO #7304 (6/19/18)
For years, the interpretation of state firearms laws has led many to believe that the state maintained a comprehensive “registration” database of all lawfully possessed handguns. This understanding suggested that for a pistol to be legally owned, its details must be officially recorded with the state. However, the Attorney General’s opinion, issued in June 2018, challenges this notion directly and emphatically.
The core of this opinion centers on the distinction between a transaction record and a possession record. It asserts that the state’s existing database is primarily a record of transactions involving qualifying firearms, rather than a definitive registry of all firearms in circulation. This distinction is crucial, as it acknowledges that there are various legitimate pathways for individuals to lawfully possess firearms without them being “registered” in the traditional sense within the state’s database.
Specifically, the opinion highlights that individuals holding a concealed pistol license issued by another state are exempt from the requirement to obtain a state-issued license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol within the state. This means that a person with such an out-of-state license can lawfully acquire and possess a handgun without it being entered into the state’s “registration” system. This interpretation aligns with the existing legal framework which, upon closer examination, provides for such exemptions.
The implications of this opinion are profound. It confirms the existence of lawfully possessed firearms that are not found within the state’s record-keeping system. This clarification underscores that the absence of a firearm from the state’s transaction database does not automatically equate to unlawful possession.
This reinterpretation has significant ramifications for both firearm owners and law enforcement. For owners, it clarifies their rights and the legal avenues for possessing firearms. For law enforcement, it necessitates a recalibration of how firearm records are viewed and utilized, emphasizing that the state’s database is not an exhaustive list of all legally owned firearms.
Ultimately, this Attorney General’s opinion represents a paradigm shift, solidifying the understanding that the state’s record system is designed to track qualifying transactions, not to create a universal registry of all possessed handguns. This nuanced understanding brings greater clarity to firearm laws and ensures that lawful possession is not erroneously equated with presence in a state database.