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 19 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 181

Thread: HB 4416, 4417, 4418 4419 Right to carry

  1. #1

    HB 4416, 4417, 4418 4419 Right to carry

    • HB 4416 of 2017
      Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal. Amends secs. 227, 227b, 230 & 237a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227 et seq.) & repeals secs. 227a & 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227a & 750.231a).
      Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
    • HB 4417 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 4416'17
      Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
    • HB 4418 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 4416'17
      Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
    • HB 4419 of 2017
      Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 12, ch. II & sec. 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 762.12 & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
      Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
    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
    Translation Please?
    “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 Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    17,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaeto View Post
    Translation Please?
    Very basic and over simplified: They are removing carry of a loaded pistol as a crime if you are not otherwise prohibited. The BIG problem that Zig pointed out in another thread is that they are not also cleaning up the PFZ mess. Without the CPL, there is no OC exception, and of course no CPL exception.

    Well intended, poorly thought out. In my opinion, it should not pass as written. It creates problems for those that haven't read the laws.


    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.

  4. #4
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,305
    The basic translation: They're just eliminating the CCW felony charge. All other aspects of the law remain the same.

    Means that you can legally carry concealed without a CPL. However, without a CPL, you are not exempt from MCL 750.234d gun-free zones. Also, without a CPL, you are not at all subject to MCL 28.425o Concealed-PFZs.
    "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.

  5. #5
    I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

    As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

    At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.

  6. #6
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    15,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Revdrshad View Post
    I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

    As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

    At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.

    I'll second that.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Revdrshad View Post
    I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

    As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

    At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.
    Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?
    Mike"Tallbear"Thiede

    Own it Respect it Secure it


  8. #8
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    3,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Revdrshad View Post
    I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

    As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

    At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    I'll second that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallbear View Post
    Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?
    HB 4003 is the bill with detention and disclosure.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallbear View Post
    Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?
    That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
    See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

    I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?

  10. #10
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    15,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Revdrshad View Post
    That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
    See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

    I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?
    Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.

Page 1 of 19 1234511 ... 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