The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5288 April 6, 1978 PISTOLS: Prosecution for failure to present for safety inspection WEAPONS: Prosecution for failure to present for safety inspection VENUE: Prosecution for failure to present for safety inspection The county in which the possessor of a pistol resides and is required to present the pistol for safety inspection is the place where he is to be tried for alleged failure to comply with the statutory requirement that a person in possession of a pistol must present it for safety inspection. Colonel Gerald L. Hough Director Michigan State Police 714 South Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Your office requested my opinion regarding which court has proper venue to try a violation of Michigan's pistol safety inspection law, 1927 PA 372, Sec. 9; MCLA 28.429; MSA 28.97, which states: 'Any person within the state who owns or comes into possession of a pistol as defined in this act, shall, if he resides in an incorporated city or an incorporated village having an organized police department, present such weapon for safety inspection to the commissioner or chief of police of such city or village; if such person resides in a part of the county not included within the corporate limits of such city or village he shall present such pistol for safety inspection to the sheriff of such county.' The place for trial of a person charged with failing to present a pistol for safety inspection to the police authorities of the city or village where he resides or to the sheriff of the county if he resides outside of the corporate limits of a city or village is the county of residence of such person. The law is well settled that in criminal cases the respondent must be tried in the county where the crime is charged to have been committed. However, the court may, where the ends of justice so require or where statutory provisions expressly so provide, change the venue to another county. People v Swift, 172 Mich 473; 138 NW 662 (1912), People v Jackzo, 206 Mich 183; 172 NW 557 (1919). It is therefore my opinion that the county in which the possessor of the pistol resides and is required to present the pistol for safety inspection is the place where he is to be tried for an alleged violation of 1927 PA 372, Sec. 9, supra. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General