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<<<<<
Brownells

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

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

  1. #1

    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
    Mike"Tallbear"Thiede

    Own it Respect it Secure it


  2. #2
    MGO Member Kaeto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    2,686
    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 Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shooting distance from "8 mile"
    Posts
    6,535
    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.
    "Sec. 2. All persons who are commonly known as “Greasers” or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood, ... who go armed and are not known to be peaceable and quiet persons, and who can give no good account of themselves, may be disarmed by any lawful officer, and punished..." - Disarming of "Greasers", An Act to punish Vagrants, Vagabonds, and Dangerous and Suspicious Persons” California, passed April 30, 1855.

  4. #4
    MGO Member Kaeto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    2,686
    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 Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shooting distance from "8 mile"
    Posts
    6,535
    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
    "Sec. 2. All persons who are commonly known as “Greasers” or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood, ... who go armed and are not known to be peaceable and quiet persons, and who can give no good account of themselves, may be disarmed by any lawful officer, and punished..." - Disarming of "Greasers", An Act to punish Vagrants, Vagabonds, and Dangerous and Suspicious Persons” California, passed April 30, 1855.

  6. #6
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,305
    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?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” --Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    NOTHING IN THIS POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult an attorney for all legal matters.
    ALL of the posts I make are my own, and do not speak for MGO as a forum or as an organization.

  7. #7
    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
    17,031
    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
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    20,085
    No way in heck will the State give-up the cash cow known as CPL fees.

    Failure to disclose (under this bill) is a civil infraction of $500…so one failure to disclose in less than 25 years = no saved CPL fees for the individual.

    There are a LOT of CPL applicants that don't realize they don't qualify when they apply…so what is the penalty for those carrying concealed that honestly "thought" they qualified to carry concealed…but don't? Felony CCW? That's one way to turn an otherwise good evening into a nightmare when pulled-over for rolling a stop sign...

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  10. #10
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoTom View Post
    No way in heck will the State give-up the cash cow known as CPL fees.

    Failure to disclose (under this bill) is a civil infraction of $500…so one failure to disclose in less than 25 years = no saved CPL fees for the individual.

    There are a LOT of CPL applicants that don't realize they don't qualify when they apply…so what is the penalty for those carrying concealed that honestly "thought" they qualified to carry concealed…but don't? Felony CCW? That's one way to turn an otherwise good evening into a nightmare when pulled-over for rolling a stop sign...
    This is a blanket exemption for people 21+ that are eligible to possess a firearm. Regardless of whether they currently qualify for a CPL, if they still have their gun rights, they can carry concealed.

    They butchered the wording in the CCW law in order to make an exemption for anyone carrying a firearm concealed, or concealed/otherwise in a vehicle, but that law basically doesn't count at all for pistols.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” --Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    NOTHING IN THIS POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult an attorney for all legal matters.
    ALL of the posts I make are my own, and do not speak for MGO as a forum or as an organization.

Page 1 of 5 12345 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