Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    I can't post links yet! Forum User
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5

    CPL holder denied long gun purchase

    Hello my brother has a CPL and obviously a pistol for a few years now but has had no run-ins with the law since obtaining the CPL and pistol yet a few months ago he went to purchase a shotgun at a gun store and was denied after doing the background check, what could be the possible cause of this happening that doesn't make sense to me and he is clueless or so he says, he does have a domestic assault charge like 5 or more years prior to obtaining his CPL but if that was the reason for being denied the purchase of a long gun shouldn't he have been denied the CPL? Thank you in advance for any answers!

  2. #2
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    7,264
    Quote Originally Posted by DontRunWithGuns View Post
    Hello my brother has a CPL and obviously a pistol for a few years now but has had no run-ins with the law since obtaining the CPL and pistol yet a few months ago he went to purchase a shotgun at a gun store and was denied after doing the background check, what could be the possible cause of this happening that doesn't make sense to me and he is clueless or so he says, he does have a domestic assault charge like 5 or more years prior to obtaining his CPL but if that was the reason for being denied the purchase of a long gun shouldn't he have been denied the CPL? Thank you in advance for any answers!
    I'm not sure what denies one for a CPL anymore, but a misdemeanor domestic assault is a disqualifier for gun purchases through a FFL.

  3. #3
    I can't post links yet! Forum User
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5
    That's what I thought as well, now I know that many convictions that take your gun rights away in MI also give them back after a specific amount of time and after any probation/parole is finished and that the laws concerning that have recently been changed or amended. Whether or not this would or could change the ability to purchase/own/carry a pistol though is beyond me....thanks for your input though!

  4. #4
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,707
    Domestic assault is a 8 year disqualifier for a Michigan CPL.

    Jeff, does it ever go away for purchase through a FFL?
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  5. #5
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    7,264
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoTom View Post
    Domestic assault is a 8 year disqualifier for a Michigan CPL.

    Jeff, does it ever go away for purchase through a FFL?
    AFAIK, not unless it's expunged.

    Interesting enough, this is one of the exact reasons the ATF stopped allowing the CPL to be used as a NICS bypass. Here seems to be some proof to that.

  6. #6
    I can't post links yet! Forum User
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by GreaseMonkeySRT View Post
    AFAIK, not unless it's expunged.

    Interesting enough, this is one of the exact reasons the ATF stopped allowing the CPL to be used as a NICS bypass. Here seems to be some proof to that.
    So what does that mean for his previously issued CPL? Does that invalidate it? Wouldn't he have received notice at his residence? This is cause for concern if he is out there driving around with a now illegal firearm in his possesion, yikes!

  7. #7
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,707
    Quote Originally Posted by DontRunWithGuns View Post
    So what does that mean for his previously issued CPL? Does that invalidate it? Wouldn't he have received notice at his residence? This is cause for concern if he is out there driving around with a now illegal firearm in his possesion, yikes!
    If it has been more than 8 years since the DV conviction, then there is no issue with his CPL. From the sounds of it, it seems that he can possess a pistol, he can even carry it concealed…he just cannot buy one from a FFL.
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  8. #8
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Howell
    Posts
    11,687
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoTom View Post
    ... From the sounds of it, it seems that he can possess a pistol, he can even carry it concealed…he just cannot buy one from a FFL.
    Yup. As Grease said, MI wasn't DQ'ing CPL applicants because of this, and that was one of the reasons why the ATF rescinded their 24 MAR 2006 directive allowing the MI CPL to serve as a Brady exemption on 03 MAR 2020.

  9. #9
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    The law is known as the Lautenberg Amendment and was officially enacted in 1996, but it is retroactive so it applies to any individual who meets the requirements no matter when they were convicted.

    By definition, it is an "ex post facto" law which is specifically called out in the constitution as prohibited to congress. Why has this not been challenged in court and totally struck down?

    Art 1, § 9. prohibits this to Congress, Art 1, § 10. prohibits this to the States.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  10. #10
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Howell
    Posts
    11,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    The law is known as the Lautenberg Amendment and was officially enacted in 1996, but it is retroactive so it applies to any individual who meets the requirements no matter when they were convicted.

    By definition, it is an "ex post facto" law which is specifically called out in the constitution as prohibited to congress. Why has this not been challenged in court and totally struck down?

    Art 1, § 9. prohibits this to Congress, Art 1, § 10. prohibits this to the States.
    Courts got around the ex post facto problems by arguing (1) a violation of Lautenberg requires you to do something after its effective date, namely possess a gun and (2) as far as retroactively increasing the penalty for the DV charge, well, gun ownership is something like driver licensing or other such licensing, you can make licensing standards stricter without it being increased punishment for past acts.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter