HB 4262 prohibitions against carrying certain weapons

[Quaamik]

The way I read it, it would make carrying a pocketknife a felony:

Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other such object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person,
concealed on or about his or her person or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person. This subsection does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An object carried by the person in his or her dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(b) An object carried in transit between locations described in subdivision (a) that, unless the object is carried for a purpose
described in subdivision (c), is securely encased and is not readily accessible for immediate use.

(c) An object carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's occupation or hobby, if that hobby reasonably requires the use of that object.

Th way I read it, IF you wanted to carry a pocket knife for work you would need to case it or lock it in a glove box on the way there and back. If you wanted to carry it for a hobby, you would also have to be ready to show how the hobby "required" it. Re-enacting doesn't "require" you to have a weapon, you can use a dummy weapon just as well (blunted, plastic or wood blade). Camping doesn't "require" you to carry a knife, at best it's a useful tool that, unless you get lost, you can leave in camp. Hiking could "require" it, but not require you have immediate access (i.e. carry it in your pack out of reach - if you "need" it, you take off your pack to get it.)



We need a bill that would treat knives, axes, swords, impact weapons and such the same as a gun for carry. Preemption statewide, open carry legal and protected under the RKBA, concealed carry of anything with a CPL, and an exception for folding pocket knives carried concealed as "non weapons". Ideally, it would also allow folding and fixed blade knives of any size to be carried concealed as long as there was no intent to use one illegally.

[Crow Buster]

Every session they introduce more bills with even more complicated weasle wording. I would think most would be happy if instead of continuing to introduce junk bills, they would just repeal the original knee jerk laws that do nothing for public safety in the first place.

CB

[luckless]

Every session they introduce more bills with even more complicated weasle wording. I would think most would be happy if instead of continuing to introduce junk bills, they would just repeal the original knee jerk laws that do nothing for public safety in the first place.

CB

Lawmakers are, often, egomaniacs. If you repeal a law you are destroying the legacy of the author and their party. This is a problem that is truly bipartisan.

[Crow Buster]

Lawmakers are, often, egomaniacs. If you repeal a law you are destroying the legacy of the author and their party. This is a problem that is truly bipartisan.

Agreed.


CB

[Tallbear]

Tourism, Rep. Peter Pettalia, Chair

DATE: Thursday, February 28, 2013

TIME: 9:00 AM

PLACE: Room 327, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 4262 Foster Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. (Testimony Only)

Presentation given by Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau

[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]

Snip....................................

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.

Snip......................

Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other such object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person,
concealed on or about his or her person or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person. This subsection does not apply to any of the following:

It's been a LONG time since I took English but that comma along with the "or" means to me that things other then just double edged non folding knives are being addressed here.

[Roundballer]

Yes, quite frankly they intend to include "other such objects".

The word "such" is VERY important. It limits those objects to the previous description.

such
/səCH/
Adjective

1. Of the type previously mentioned: "I have been involved in many such courses".
2. Of the type about to be mentioned: "no such thing as a free lunch"; "organized in such a way that it can be run by two adults".

Then, after the description of the object, they place the restriction of the action, ie, carrying concealed or in a vehicle, concealed or not.
There is nothing about possession, and they give exceptions, and procedures for those exceptions.

I think that this is poorly written, and don't support it, but too many aren't comprehending what it does say.

[Leader]

Yes, quite frankly they intend to include "other such objects".

The word "such" is VERY important. It limits those objects to the previous description.


Then, after the description of the object, they place the restriction of the action, ie, carrying concealed or in a vehicle, concealed or not.
There is nothing about possession, and they give exceptions, and procedures for those exceptions.

I think that this is poorly written, and don't support it, but too many aren't comprehending what it does say.

That seems to be me.
I see the word "such" as referring to the word "knife", not "double edged".
And if I can't understand it I'm sure at least some police officers will "misunderstand" to allow them to make your life miserable if they so choose.