I think the case would follow the same path that a Michigan resident having an out-of-state license to conceal had. I will cite from Michigan Attorney General Opinion #6798, changing CPL to Pistol License, aka "License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol"....
From Opinion # 6798.... It is inconceivable that the Legislature, after crafting these statutory requirements for obtaining a (concealed) pistol license, intended to permit Michigan residents to avoid them by obtaining a (concealed) pistol license in another state that may not impose many of the Michigan requirements. That construction of the statute would result in the absurd consequence that a Michigan resident could avoid the legislatively imposed requirements for obtaining a (concealed) pistol license in Michigan by obtaining that type of license in another state without having to meet the Michigan requirements. Thus, it must be concluded that a Michigan resident with a (concealed) pistol license obtained in another state may not carry a (concealed) pistol in Michigan unless the resident first obtains a (concealed) pistol license in Michigan by meeting the requirements for obtaining the license imposed by Michigan law.
The Michigan court of Appeals upheld this interpretation in COA 202126 RAYMOND J URBANIK V ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion - Memorandum 04/03/1998 saying " “t is more reasonable to assume that the exemptions in MCL 750.231a; MSA 28.248(1) are designed to apply to persons not covered by the licensing procedure in place for Michigan residents” and concluded that “the exemption in MCL 750.231a; MSA 28.428(1) does not apply to Michigan residents.”