# ccw& right to retrive a dog on private land



## eino (Jun 19, 2003)

I know the law states that when you retrieve your dog on private land you have to leave your gun behind. I also understand that no all general hunting laws pertain to ccw holders. If someone has a permit to carry can the pistol go on private land with them. I ask because I have a friend that usually carries but does not while he is **** hunting just incase that situation happens.
Thanks

Ed


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

I am going to say, NO. At the time on the land in question he would be there to retrieve the dog. At that time is not hunting so the CPL exceptions would not apply.

But, it might be one where all depends on the Officer, Prosecutor and Judge if there was a case.



Section of law:

(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I post on something like this I error on the side of caution. Thus people would not get into trouble. I have been wrong before so if anyone can add a section of law that would say otherwise please post away....


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

I read this awhile back on the MCRGrg website. Not the same question but the answer may help. I guess someone would have to be there an tell your friend they cannot carry on their property.

Q:I work for a large international company. The company has a "no weapons on site" policy, which they extend to the parking lot. In light of the recent MCRGO email stating that "parking lots of pistol-free zones are not considered pistol-free zones", does my employer have an enforceable policy for someone with a CPL who secures their pistol in their vehicle while at work? If not, how would one approach them about the issue?

A:The pistol-free zones are established by statute. Essentially, they mean that your CPL is void in those areas. The legislature decided to exempt parking lots so that you can lawfully store your pistol in your car (securely) when you go into one of the places on the list, such as a hospital, without having to go all the way back home and lock your gun in your safe before returning. *In addition to the pistol-free zones, any private entity (person or corporation) who owns or controls real estate, has the right to say who has pistols on that property.* If the corporation has a blanket policy against all weapons "on site," that can be reasonably interpreted to mean the parking lot. It is certainly within the corporation's authority to ban any person or thing from its property, including the parking lots. This is a seperate issue from the pistol-free zones listed in the Michigan statute.


----------



## Mags (Apr 10, 2002)

malainse said:


> I am going to say, NO. At the time on the land in question he would be there to retrieve the dog. At that time is not hunting so the CPL exceptions would not apply.
> 
> But, it might be one where all depends on the Officer, Prosecutor and Judge if there was a case.
> 
> ...


If I'm not mistaken and unless it has changed very recently, which I don't think it has, if the property is posted, which is "prohibited in writing," you may not enter under any pretext without the explicit permission of the owner. If you don't have that permission, you may not enter the property legally, PERIOD.


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

Rainman68 said:


> I read this awhile back on the MCRGrg website. Not the same question but the answer may help. I guess someone would have to be there an tell your friend they cannot carry on their property.
> 
> Q:I work for a large international company. The company has a "no weapons on site" policy, which they extend to the parking lot. In light of the recent MCRGO email stating that "parking lots of pistol-free zones are not considered pistol-free zones", does my employer have an enforceable policy for someone with a CPL who secures their pistol in their vehicle while at work? If not, how would one approach them about the issue?
> 
> A:The pistol-free zones are established by statute. Essentially, they mean that your CPL is void in those areas. The legislature decided to exempt parking lots so that you can lawfully store your pistol in your car (securely) when you go into one of the places on the list, such as a hospital, without having to go all the way back home and lock your gun in your safe before returning. *In addition to the pistol-free zones, any private entity (person or corporation) who owns or controls real estate, has the right to say who has pistols on that property.* If the corporation has a blanket policy against all weapons "on site," that can be reasonably interpreted to mean the parking lot. It is certainly within the corporation's authority to ban any person or thing from its property, including the parking lots. This is a seperate issue from the pistol-free zones listed in the Michigan statute.


Off the thread, but legislation has been introduced to prohibit banning legally transported and stored firearms in parking lots of businesses and some goverment agencies.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3822486#post3822486


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

malainse said:


> I am going to say, NO. At the time on the land in question he would be there to retrieve the dog. At that time is not hunting so the CPL exceptions would not apply.
> 
> But, it might be one where all depends on the Officer, Prosecutor and Judge if there was a case.
> 
> ...


I would agree with this. I too would say err on the side of caution. The law as written just says possess. It doesn't differentiate either way. 

Posted from my iPhone.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

dead short said:


> I would agree with this. I too would say err on the side of caution. The law as written just says possess. It doesn't differentiate either way.
> 
> Posted from my iPhone.


 So if the property IS posted, you CANT enter,


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Not with a firearm. The posting doesn't have anything to do with it. 


Posted from my iPhone.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Still kind of sketchy with the CPL issue though. 


Posted from my iPhone.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

dead short said:


> Still kind of sketchy with the CPL issue though.
> 
> 
> Posted from my iPhone.


 If the property is posted, wouldnt that adress entering, wit, or without a CPL.


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

GIDEON said:


> If the property is posted, wouldnt that adress entering, wit, or without a CPL.


The law allows you to enter the property. Posted or not for the purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. You must be unarmed. You can not enter to retrieve the dog if you have previously been told NOT to enter said property. 

Here is the entire law....


324.73102 Entering or remaining on property of another; consent; exceptions.

Sec. 73102.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon the property of another person, other than farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property, to engage in any recreational activity or trapping on that property without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, if either of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The property is fenced or enclosed and is maintained in such a manner as to exclude intruders.
(b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaced to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property for any recreational activity or trapping without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, whether or not the farm property or wooded area connected to farm property is fenced, enclosed, or posted.
(3) On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction, including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the riparian owner.
(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.
(5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry.


----------

