SO, i have a family member who has a CPL that is in the process of having there dog trained as a service dog. The dog basically carries a back pack for the family member because a nap sack/purse is to much for them physically. I dont see anything that would prelude or disqualify them for a CPL.  In his general training class there are some other class members who are looking to get there dogs trained as a service or emotional support dog. some have CPL's some are in process of getting or plan on it. there was some concern among some of them that getting/having a emotional support dog could disqualify them from having a CPL.

Emotional support dogs are to used to help with  anxiety, depression, bipolar/mood disorders, panic attacks and other emotional/psychological conditions.

Service dogs are used to help with Mobility issues, visual impairment (blindness) hearing impairment, seizures, diabetes, autism, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis (MS) and other physical impairments as well as PTSD.

people in the class have said that having PTSD would prevent someone from having a cpl, so just having a service dog would be a bad idea.

Now there is a lot that a emotional support dog, that could depending on the severity could prevent someone from having a CPL. IE sever bipolar emotional unstable person + gun just seems like a bad idea but ideas are not LAW....

SO, anyone have any idea what the actual LAWS are and in any of this shit makes ANY sense?

Family member actually stop up at the MI state police post and asked if they knew anything and they said go the the Sheriffs office becasue thats where you go to get your finger prints for your CPL. Pass the Buck, lol though i did tell him  that cops don't always know the law so thats not always a surprise.

also for info on the different certifications that dogs can get go to www.usdogregistry.org.

Thanks in advance guys.

Physical Service dog looks fine. Emotional service dog definately could be a problem.

https://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

16. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment

This brings up a good point of the problem with regulating mental illness and firearms. Its why nothing has really changed since Sandy Hook or any other shooting big or small where a person with a known mental illness loses it.  I use the hypothetical example all the time of my wife dies unexpectedly, I go into temporary but diagnosed depression, need medication. Do I loose all my firearm rights untill Im done greaving? Is it different from some one with long term mental illness? Who makes that determination and how is it enforced? Where do my firearms go? These are all questions legislature has been unable to define or wrap any logic around.

If a person is so disabled that they cannot carry a purse, do you think they would be able to retrieve a gun and use it effectively? Would a person that frail, put other innocent people at great risk in that situation.

If that person can carry a gun and use it effectively in a defense scenario, are they really disabled?

For the above hypotheticals, I am talking about public spaces, not people at home which would not require a cpl. I am also just asking the questions, I am not saying I agree one way or the other.

Also, to clarify: emotional support animals ARE NOT SERVICE ANIMALS. They do not qualify for the ADA, and no one but your psychologist will know you have one. That website you linked to is a scam (there is no required national certification system for service dogs, let alone emotional dogs. Also, actual service animals need no paperwork, while ESD need a current medical letter) because you don't have to register service animals or emotional support dogs.
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

As stated, if are so handicapped as to medically require a service animal to carry a purse (which sounds iffy anyways), then be very prepared to explain how they are able to operate a firearm.

Or control an animal.

Your friend should be informed that the V.A. is going after vets that own firearms and have sent 1,000s of letters out to those with PTSD informing them they cannot have firearms. There is an appeal process but good luck with that.

So, a person has had one arm amputated due to a work accident or bone cancer.  They are disabled and thus have a service dog.  But you don't think they should have the right to carry a gun?  How about a veteran who due to an IED has lost both legs and one hand so he has a service dog.  You don't want that disabled person to be able to own a pistol?

When I worked for the DOJ they would cuff one of our arms behind our backs, we would then have to unholster our pistol, fire, drop the slide forward, reload, rack the slide to reload and continue firing with one hand.  Yeah, one armed people should not be allowed to own a gun if they have a service dog.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit huh?

Read the bold again. All of your examples include somebody that is not too frail to carry a purse. The OP's example does not. Big difference.