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<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 10 of 47

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    11,437

    H.B. 4003, 4004, 4005 4006 consitutional carry bills

    • HB 4003 of 2017
      Weapons; concealed; permit requirement to carry and transport a concealed pistol; eliminate for certain individuals. Amends sec. 12a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432a).
      Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017



    • HB 4004 of 2017
      Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references. Amends secs. 12 & 15 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432 & 28.435). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4005'17
      Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017



    • HB 4005 of 2017
      Crimes; weapons; transportation and possession of a firearm; allow for certain individuals. Amends secs. 227 & 230 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227 & 750.230) & repeals sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
      Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017

      HB 4006 of 2017
      Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references. Amends sec. 43510 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43510). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4005'17
      Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017

  2. #2
    In Memoriam Kaeto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    2,981
    Not only no, but HELL NO!!!
    “The path of the warrior is difficult!
    We live to protect those who cannot protect themselves!
    Honor in serving!
    Honor in defending!
    Honor in dying for a just cause!”

  3. #3
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    what am i missing about 4003 that's so bad?
    looks like it will make a form of constitutional concealed carry, with bonus good times for people that actually bother to get permits.
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  4. #4
    In Memoriam Kaeto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    2,981
    Constitutional Carry only for Police Officers, Correctional Officers, Active Duty Military is what it does.
    “The path of the warrior is difficult!
    We live to protect those who cannot protect themselves!
    Honor in serving!
    Honor in defending!
    Honor in dying for a just cause!”

  5. #5
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    am I wrong in reading it that all of that is currently in effect, and only the stuff in bold would get added?
    sections a-k happened this year already http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(j0y...me=mcl-28-432a
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  6. #6
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,971
    The reason it's a heck no for me: This makes it fully legal to carry concealed with no permit but 1) Requires disclosure anyway when legally stopped, and 2) allows police to detain you for the purposes of verifying you're legal to carry, without any RAS that you're not legal to carry.

    Number two is the bigger deal here. There's no need to make sure you're legal UNLESS they develop a Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion that you're not legal.

    And also, Michigan should not require disclosure anymore. More than 40 states get by without any increased risk to their police officers without mandatory disclosure. It does not make police or citizens measurably safer, so why, then, is it required?

  7. #7
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    detroit
    Posts
    189
    Kaeto,

    Help me see what I'm missing. I read the html versions, which show changes in boldface. In the first one (4003), a concealed carry permit would no longer be required by ANY adults 21+ who are allowed to have a pistol, carriers would have the same duty to disclose that CPL holders already have, and a $500 max civil infraction if you don't. The changes to the other bills just seem to clean up language.

    Sec. 12a. (1) The requirements of this act for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol do not apply to any of the following:
    (l) An individual who is 21 years of age or older and who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

  8. #8
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    It would be constitutional carry for everyone over 21, but it also extends "duty to inform", and is a poorly written POS.


    When are these guys going to learn, take the play from the anti's book.

    Just trash several laws, and then negotiate from there. Start off by revoking "duty to inform" making CC into "Constitutional Carry", not "Concealed Carry", and wiping out all costs having to do with a CPL, and let them negotiate back a little. Maybe throw in the repeal of training certificate expiration.

    ETA:
    Most everything else in there is just "house keeping". Things like referencing the correct section of law caused by other changes and Capitalization of proper names.
    I don't understand the shall be to IS changes.
    Last edited by Roundballer; 01-12-2017 at 05:40 PM.


    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.

  9. #9
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southgate
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaeto View Post
    Not only no, but HELL NO!!!
    What does this do to open carry for those that do not have CPL? It also allows officers to detain people if an officer wants to for what ever reason. I could wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.

  10. #10
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    marquette
    Posts
    22
    Don't know if anyone on here has an opinion on gun owners of America, but I sent them a link. This was the response, which was mostly agreed so far. The harassment possibility, and the probably won't pass.

    Overall, House Bill 4003 looks like a pretty good bill.

    Our one concern is the provision allowing the police to detain anyone with a concealed weapon to determine whether they have a criminal record.* This could result in harassment.

    On the other hand, in Michigan, this could be the best concealed carry bill which is politically possible.

    We will look at the alternatives and discuss this among our staff to see if we should put out an alert endorsing it.

    And thanks again for contacting us. If you haven’t already, please consider signing up for GOA’s free Email Alerts, which includes pre-written letters you can send to officials in a few clicks:*gunowners.org/alerts

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