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 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 192
  1. #121
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southwest Detroit
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixxxer View Post
    This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.
    I'm pretty sure if it passes disclosure becomes upon request instead of immediately.

  2. #122
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    49601
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixxxer View Post
    This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.
    It does change the rule with disclose. Changed from disclose immediately to disclose upon request. Not asked don't tell.


    With that I have a question. I'm a passenger of a car being pulled over I'm carrying my firearm, do I have to be asked directly or when the officer asks the driver if there are any weapons in the car(oh and I'm in the 3rd row of a suburban not going to hear much back there).

  3. #123
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixxxer View Post
    This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.
    What is in there as it passed the house is below. Strike is deleted and Bold added.

    There have reduced the "duty to inform" to a "inform upon request", and have reduced the fine to $100, striking out everything else.

    (3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol FIREARM or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall, immediately UPON REQUEST BY THE PEACE OFFICER, disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol FIREARM or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

    (4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) THIS SECTION is responsible for a state civil infraction and shall be fined $100.00.

    (5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and shall be fined as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, by a fine of $500.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months.
    (b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked. 4
    (6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under subsection (5), the peace officer shall notify the department of state police of that civil infraction. The department of state police shall notify the county clerk who issued the license, who shall suspend or revoke that license. The county clerk 9
    shall send notice by first-class mail of that suspension or revocation to the individual's last known address as indicated in the records of the county clerk. The department of state police shall immediately enter that suspension or revocation into the law enforcement information network.
    (7) A pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:
    (a) The individual has his or her state-issued driver license or personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.
    (b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed to carry a concealed pistol.


    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. #124
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SSM
    Posts
    213
    It sucks that they didn't remove/amend 750.243d, meaning it will still be illegal to carry in a bank or place "licensed by the liquor control act" unless you have a CPL.

  5. #125
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Raspberrysurprise View Post
    It sucks that they didn't remove/amend 750.243d, meaning it will still be illegal to carry in a bank or place "licensed by the liquor control act" unless you have a CPL.
    Here is the legislation you want.

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...ate-most-PFZ-s


    The problem in previous years was that pro gun legislation got loaded up with enough stuff that it was like playing whack-a-mole to get support. The antis, read "governor", could always pick some narrow part of the bill and use it to rationalize their opposition. With narrower bills, the antis don't have as much wiggle room. Our side was able to frame this debate as a "coat tax". You can carry openly for free, if you are cold you'll have to pay the government to put your jacket on. That is a nice, simple sound bite and some legislator can't argue that, "the lives of bank tellers are more important than your desire to wear a jacket" in order to derail our progress.

  6. #126
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by luckless View Post
    That doesn't remove "licensed facilities" from the PFZ list, it just corrects where in the MCL the license laws are located.


    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.

  7. #127
    Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

    Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

    The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.

  8. #128
    MGO Member G36 Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Livingston Cnty. Mich.
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

    Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

    The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.
    Well said.

  9. #129
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

    Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

    The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.
    Seems like an equal protection argument could be made.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Seems like an equal protection argument could be made.
    For sure.

    Keep in mind that we are dealing with the MSP and the MSA. These people actually pushed hard to add a clause to require OC'ers to carry ID and to present it on demand. They have no understanding of the 4th and 5th Amendment and I don't think they care to either.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... 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