Well, I read it and remembered why I hate case law. But according to section IV subsection B
When the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language is clear, [ ] construction is neither necessary nor permitted.” Pace v Edel–Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 6 (2016). The language of subsection 12(1)(f) is plain; it applies to a “United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state.” MCL 28.432(1)(f). A Michigan resident with an out-of-state concealed pistol license who is also a United States citizen falls within this broad language and is exempt from section 2’s licensing requirements. This conclusion is consistent both with the Act’s treatment of Michigan residents with Michigan concealed pistol licenses, and with the legislative history of subsection 12.
Looks like this guy isn’t required to register a durn thing. (Slams beer)