HB 4262 prohibitions against carrying certain weapons

[Tallbear]

HB 4262 of 2013
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.).
Last Action: 2/14/2013 referred to Committee on Tourism

[45/70fan]

Is this doing away with the prohibition of carrying a double edged knife?

[Jack-w-1911]

I'm just a layman; but this looks like anti open carry legislation. Correct?

ETA: I guess I should re-read the bill.

[Roundballer]

Very similar to a bill that failed last year, some good, some bad. The last bill also repealed switch blade bans, this one doesn't.

If 1=bad, and 5=good, with 3=dead center, this is about 2.5....

[Leader]

Looks to me like it says carrying a knife of any size is a felony unless you can PROVE it is a "tool" that you need that day for your job or hobby.
Carrying a pocket knife just because will be illegal.

I vote NO!

[Roundballer]

I think that you are miss-reading this.

Looks to me like it says carrying a knife of any size is a felony unless you can PROVE it is a "tool" that you need that day for your job or hobby.
Carrying a pocket knife just because will be illegal.

I vote NO!

The changes in 227, that call out the exceptions, states that it doesn't apply for those exceptions. It would still be the prosecutors job to prove that you didn't fit the exception.

The changes in the language of 226 does open it up to folding knives, but maintains the "with intent" language, and unfortunately drops the length phrase.

Looks to me like it says (Sec.227) carrying a knife of any size is a felony unless you can PROVE it is a "tool" that you need that day for your job or hobby.
Carrying a pocket knife just because will be illegal.

The language in 227 is specifically about "fixed blade", carrying "concealed" or "in a vehicle". It does not apply to folding pocket knives.

I agree, this should NOT pass the way it is. I really do want the "hobby" exception, but not at the sacrifice being proposed.

The third section of law being modified 231 has nothing to do with the changes in the other two.

This bill should also have a preemption for knives added to 123.1102.

[Leader]

I think that you are miss-reading this.

The changes in 227, that call out the exceptions, states that it doesn't apply for those exceptions. It would still be the prosecutors job to prove that you didn't fit the exception.

The changes in the language of 226 does open it up to folding knives, but maintains the "with intent" language, and unfortunately drops the length phrase.


The language in 227 is specifically about "fixed blade", carrying "concealed" or "in a vehicle". It does not apply to folding pocket knives.

I agree, this should NOT pass the way it is. I really do want the "hobby" exception, but not at the sacrifice being proposed.

The third section of law being modified 231 has nothing to do with the changes in the other two.

This bill should also have a preemption for knives added to 123.1102.

snip......or any other OBJECT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR
4 INTENDED TO BE USED TO CAUSE DEATH OR INJURY TO ANY PERSON,...snip

That looks to me like it pretty much covers any knife, folding or not.

[damnyankee20]

Looks to me like it says carrying a knife of any size is a felony unless you can PROVE it is a "tool" that you need that day for your job or hobby.
Carrying a pocket knife just because will be illegal.

I vote NO!

Section 226: A a person who intends to use a firearm, razor, or knife (or any other weapon/instrument - i.e., baseball bat) against another person will be guilty of a felony, 5 years in prison, and/or a $2,500 fine.

[This SHOULD READ "with intent to do bodily harm" - not sure why that was omitted...secondly, what's this "And OR" business? $2,500 to these criminals' drug dealing buddies is chump change, so make them do the 5 years!]

Section 227 (1): I think you are correct about the knife concern. Get rid of 227 (1) - knives are covered in Section 226 above.

Section 227 (2) & (3): Obsolete because of the D.C. vs Heller case ruling stating We the People can keep and bear arms outside the home. I believe there is a conceal carry license case snaking its way up the Supreme Court right now - I thought it was one of the plantiffs in the original Heller vs D.C. case who is an attorney and avid target shooter who was challenging the Constitutionality of the CPL "tax" (or fee).

Section 234 (2): I'm not sure what this is referring to, but its word semantics from "is not applicable" to "DOES not APPLY.

[Roundballer]

Section 226: A a person who intends to use a firearm, razor, or knife (or any other weapon/instrument - i.e., baseball bat) against another person will be guilty of a felony, 5 years in prison, and/or a $2,500 fine.

[This SHOULD READ "with intent to do bodily harm" - not sure why that was omitted...secondly, what's this "And OR" business? $2,500 to these criminals' drug dealing buddies is chump change, so make them do the 5 years!]

No, it is worded the way it needs to be. The phrase is "with intent to use the same unlawfully". That would include intending to threaten or use as a weapon during a robbery. If you limit it to only the intent to do bodily harm, then using it for other illegal activities would in itself not be illegal. And.. the $2500 or 5 years, could also be BOTH, it is left up to the judge to determine the "degree".

Section 227 (1): I think you are correct about the knife concern. Get rid of 227 (1) - knives are covered in Section 226 above.

Section 227 (2) & (3): Obsolete because of the D.C. vs Heller case ruling stating We the People can keep and bear arms outside the home. I believe there is a conceal carry license case snaking its way up the Supreme Court right now - I thought it was one of the plantiffs in the original Heller vs D.C. case who is an attorney and avid target shooter who was challenging the Constitutionality of the CPL "tax" (or fee).

Sec 227 ONLY covers "a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other such object". It is NOT all inclusive of ALL knives.
The Heller decision was about firearms, not knives, it would take another case to extend the definitions. Non-starter.

Section 234 (2): I'm not sure what this is referring to, but its word semantics from "is not applicable" to "DOES not APPLY.

You only caught a small portion of syntax clean up in that portion. The real change in that section is about clarification of authorization in a "youth training facility". But that is also just syntax clean-up.

[Leader]

......................