Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    11,437

    HB 5574 right to transportation (parking lot bill)

    • HB 5574 of 2016
      Weapons; other; right to transportation and storage of firearms under certain circumstances; allow. Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1c & 16.
      Last Action: 4/20/2016 bill electronically reproduced 04/19/2016
    Last edited by Tallbear; 04-20-2016 at 09:09 AM.

  2. #2
    MGO Member Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Grand Rapids Area
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallbear View Post
    • HB 5574 of 2016
      Weapons; other; right to transportation and storage of firearms under certain circumstances; allow. Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1c & 16.
      Last Action: 4/20/2016 bill electronically reproduced 04/19/2016
    This looks like a bill we all need to get behind and make calls to our representatives.

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    11,437
    HB 5574 of 2016
    Weapons; other; right to transportation and storage of firearms under certain circumstances; allow. Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1c & 16.
    Last Action: 4/20/2016 per Rule 41 referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

  4. #4
    MGO Member MI_XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South Haven
    Posts
    449
    Yes! This looks like a revival of HB 1028 from a previous year. Let's hope that the House can get something done on this, unlike 1028, which died in committee!

    Hmmm... Must be an Election year??!
    MI_XD
    SW Michigan
    ----Hey Joe and A Camal----Oh, and now Stretchy Gretchey
    ---- What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not Understand?"
    -----

  5. #5
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallbear View Post
    HB 5574 of 2016
    Weapons; other; right to transportation and storage of firearms under certain circumstances; allow. Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1c & 16.
    Last Action: 4/20/2016 per Rule 41 referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    Is there any information as to why they did that?

    The Judiciary Committee had about 4 of the sponsors on the committee, whereas there is only 2 in the Transportation Committee, and it is a larger committee.


    Are they "setting this up" to fail?


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  6. #6
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    7,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    Is there any information as to why they did that?

    The Judiciary Committee had about 4 of the sponsors on the committee, whereas there is only 2 in the Transportation Committee, and it is a larger committee.

    Are they "setting this up" to fail?
    Bill was originally referred to Judiciary Committee on 19 April by the House, but Speaker Cotter changed the referral to the Transportation Committee on 20 April. He is allowed to do this without comment by House Rule 41 (5).

    Original referral, Page 563:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iep...6-HJ-04-19-035

    Cotter's redirection, Page 573:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(iep...6-HJ-04-20-036

    House Rule 41, Page 13:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...5-HAR-0001.pdf

    No information why Cotter redirected HB 5574 to Transportation, but it might affect the Motor Vehicle Code.

  7. #7
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    This must just be an election year thing. There are better bills that have been around longer and are getting nowhere.

  8. #8
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    Is there any information as to why they did that?

    The Judiciary Committee had about 4 of the sponsors on the committee, whereas there is only 2 in the Transportation Committee, and it is a larger committee.


    Are they "setting this up" to fail?
    Maybe it is barter materiel. The transportation committee might need two more votes for the next tax hike, bike path, Detroit bussing, Ann Arbor Amtrak or roundabout boondoggle.

  9. #9
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,571
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    Is there any information as to why they did that?
    No information why Cotter redirected HB 5574 to Transportation, but it might affect the Motor Vehicle Code.
    So, you don't know either!


    All of the rest of that had already been looked up, as well as comparing the make-up of the two different committees.

    Quote Originally Posted by luckless View Post
    Maybe it is barter materiel. The transportation committee might need two more votes for the next tax hike, bike path, Detroit bussing, Ann Arbor Amtrak or roundabout boondoggle.
    That is a possibility, I just wish there was some "openness" involved in this process. I know it will be ugly, but it would also be better to know. How else can we really judge what our representation is doing for us? If everything is a "backdoor deal", we only have the "look what I did for you" posturing of the campaign season.

    But seriously, what does "transportation" have to do with storing in a parked vehicle?


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  10. #10
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hillsdale County
    Posts
    1,962
    Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Manufacturers Association and the Utilities are all in opposition. Going to be a very uphill fight unless there are carve outs. And there should not be and I oppose carve outs. So it's probably going nowhere.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter