SB 0212 police want to keep your guns

[Tallbear]

SB 0212 of 2009 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-SB-0212)
Law enforcement; other; police agency to retain certain confiscated weapons for use by that police agency; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 14 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.434).
Last Action: 9/21/2010 Analysis File Added

[enigmatical]

Looks like "certain" weapons means any weaponry.

[Quaamik]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Michigan currently destroys all pistols that are confiscated that cannot be returned to thier lawfull owner. If this is the law that allows them to do that, I'd be ok witht he changes as long as they also struck out section 14-2-b "by destroying them".

[45/70fan]

This bill leaves too much room for abuse of the law, the intent is admirable but the end result will be corrupt cops confiscating what they want. You then you have to hire lawyers to get it back even though you may have done nothing wrong.

[me109g4]

Exactly, just cuz they have a badge doesnt make them honest.

[enigmatical]

There sure does seem to be alot of negative sentiment expressed here.

What about a local PD being able to utilize seized equipment rather than having it turned over to the MSP?

Not all departments have a budget that would permit the acquisition of some of that weaponry.

[zigziggityzoo]

There sure does seem to be alot of negative sentiment expressed here.

What about a local PD being able to utilize seized equipment rather than having it turned over to the MSP?

Not all departments have a budget that would permit the acquisition of some of that weaponry.

The problem is thus: As the laws currently exist, the cops can seize anything and everything they want under the guise of "drug-related" seizure, and then they can keep it.

Some time ago, there was a squad car that was a souped-up Mustang in the news. The car was confiscated in a drug case. The problem is: No charges ever resulted in that case. Therefore, since the cops took belongings in a case where no one was ever charged, this basically amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure (In my opinion obviously) where the owner can no longer reclaim his property.

Granted, this law has nothing to do with drug-related seizure, but it basically expands that right. I'm not for it.

[Pistol Teacher]

There sure does seem to be alot of negative sentiment expressed here.

What about a local PD being able to utilize seized equipment rather than having it turned over to the MSP?

Not all departments have a budget that would permit the acquisition of some of that weaponry.

It is not negative it is reality. Police abuse powers on a daily basis. Once you let this Genie out of the bottle, they will be looking at your prized pistol with greed, envy and using this new overzealous tool to grab your pistols. Leave the law alone. They have not stated the purpose of the change enough to me.

[enigmatical]

It is not negative it is reality. Police abuse powers on a daily basis. Once you let this Genie out of the bottle, they will be looking at your prized pistol with greed, envy and using this new overzealous tool to grab your pistols. Leave the law alone. They have not stated the purpose of the change enough to me.


Where did you come up with all that?

As far as I can see, all the proposed changes do is allow local LE to retain weapons instead of turning them all over to the MSP for disposal or whatever.

Am I missing something in the proposed law or are there simply a number of people around here that enjoy bad mouthing LE?

[dpgperftest]

This bill leaves too much room for abuse of the law, the intent is admirable but the end result will be corrupt cops confiscating what they want. You then you have to hire lawyers to get it back even though you may have done nothing wrong.
BINGO you got IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dpgperftest]

Exactly, just cuz they have a badge doesnt make them honest.
OR the good guy

[Pistol Teacher]

Where did you come up with all that?

As far as I can see, all the proposed changes do is allow local LE to retain weapons instead of turning them all over to the MSP for disposal or whatever.

Am I missing something in the proposed law or are there simply a number of people around here that enjoy bad mouthing LE?

Where do you get your facts. I know they put there pants on one leg at a time like us, they are no better.

I asked from a earlier post why do they need to retain them, after they are seized? No Answer.

It will come down to a corrupt department who are gun grabbers looking at at your Kimber as a prize. If you are naive look at the issues the OC group deal with and OC is legal.

[Pistol Teacher]

This Bill is DOA no sponsors and legs. No action since February. MOOT.

[enigmatical]

Where do you get your facts. I know they put there pants on one leg at a time like us, they are no better.

I asked from a earlier post why do they need to retain them, after they are seized? No Answer.

It will come down to a corrupt department who are gun grabbers looking at at your Kimber as a prize. If you are naive look at the issues the OC group deal with and OC is legal.


I guess I read the PDF---and used a little common sense on why departments might want to use certain weapons rather than turn them over to the MSP.

Your posts are little more than speculation.

[Quaamik]

There sure does seem to be alot of negative sentiment expressed here.

What about a local PD being able to utilize seized equipment rather than having it turned over to the MSP?

Not all departments have a budget that would permit the acquisition of some of that weaponry.

Agreed, it would allow departments to retain and use weapons they might otherwise be unable to purchase. But to what end?

What department is going to take a confiscated pistol that is not the same make, model and caliber as their issue sidearms, and issue it as a duty weapon? Answer: None. The likely use is for undercover officers or to train officers on how to handle a given make of firearm. After they are done with it, what will happen? It will remain in an armory where cops who are gun nuts will get a chance to play with on the range or it will be melted for scrap.

Is there a chance that it will result in confiscations because some officer "likes" a given gun and twists the rules to confiscate it or keep it for no good reason? Most certainly. Is it likely to be widespread? No, it's likely to be rare. But this bill isn't what will drive that behavior - it's the whole concept of being able to confiscate goods without proving a crime. I'm sure that results in a certain number of firearms confiscated that go to the scrap heap for no good reason.

Personaly, I think that in light of our bdgut situations, polices should be required that any goods confiscated (pistols included) be sold at auction if they aren't to be returned to thier owners.

Address what can be confiscated, and what has to be proved to do it, in another bill.

[enigmatical]

Doesn't this bill simply address disposition, NOT confiscation?

I agree that there should be some sort of forfeiture proceedings if the seized items are not contraband but, that wasn't the subject of SB 0212.

[Pistol Teacher]

Doesn't this bill simply address disposition, NOT confiscation?

I agree that there should be some sort of forfeiture proceedings if the seized items are not contraband but, that wasn't the subject of SB 0212.


You chose to ignore that by changing the disposition process you are affecting a change on the confiscation rates. By all your standards the rate of confiscation would be the same with this new law, but I think a greedy police officer would be effected by this new law by coveting your prized weapon. The rates would go up. They are human and put there pants on the same and are not immune from these flaws.

[enigmatical]

You chose to ignore that by changing the disposition process you are affecting a change on the confiscation rates. By all your standards the rate of confiscation would be the same with this new law, but I think a greedy police officer would be effected by this new law by coveting your prized weapon. The rates would go up. They are human and put there pants on the same and are not immune from these flaws.

What parts of the proposed changes will lead to whatever it is that might support your claims?

[Pistol Teacher]

What parts of the proposed changes will lead to whatever it is that might support your claims?

It seems all to obvious that you somehow you may benefit personally from the proposed changes.

Do you work in law enforcement, or with law enforcement or personally gain anything from this change? Be Honest. LOL

[enigmatical]

It seems all to obvious that you somehow you may benefit personally from the proposed changes.

Do you work in law enforcement, or with law enforcement or personally gain anything from this change? Be Honest. LOL

Not at all. But, it looks like you have a habit of questioning everybody's integrity doesn't it?

What I don't understand is why people would want to try and prevent local LE from having the tools that they need to do the job that they were hired to do.

[Pistol Teacher]

Not at all. But, it looks like you have a habit of questioning everybody's integrity doesn't it?

What I don't understand is why people would want to try and prevent local LE from having the tools that they need to do the job that they were hired to do.

R-i-i-g-g-ht. :lolup:

[appliancebrad]

My sources in Lansing tell me that this Bill and it's House companion HB 4431 are on a fast track for lame duck session. This Bills are bad policy and provide incentives for local law enforcement to confiscate and later sell your firearms. SAFR opposes both bills.

Please call your Rep and Senator and ask them to oppose both Bills.

[tdbrown1969]

I think all LEGALLY confiscated firearms-pistols,rifles and shotguns should be sold back to LAW ABIDING citizens and the profits used to pay down the budget and create more jobs here in Michigan

[HoldHard]

I think all LEGALLY confiscated firearms-pistols,rifles and shotguns should be sold back to LAW ABIDING citizens and the profits used to pay down the budget and create more jobs here in Michigan ...that will happen right after all the police pick out what they want to keep...

HH

[dhrith]

The problem is thus: As the laws currently exist, the cops can seize anything and everything they want under the guise of "drug-related" seizure, and then they can keep it.

Some time ago, there was a squad car that was a souped-up Mustang in the news. The car was confiscated in a drug case. The problem is: No charges ever resulted in that case. Therefore, since the cops took belongings in a case where no one was ever charged, this basically amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure (In my opinion obviously) where the owner can no longer reclaim his property.

Granted, this law has nothing to do with drug-related seizure, but it basically expands that right. I'm not for it.

+1

Irresponsible and unrelated drug siezures are already off the hook.

[psi2941]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtlhd1ZFkOA

this law is in apply, in TX. see what happens.

cased closed.

[fbuckner]

Im not in favor of this bill in the least bit. I can see what happened in Texas happening somewhere here when some small town department gets a little to big for their britches.

[AMSProcessing]

I'm usually among those to stand up for law enforcement, but human nature and the nature of power are well-known commodities. Ask those who were bullied, beaten, and had their firearms illegally confiscated (never to return) during the aftermath of Katrina. I'm sure that those officers were "well meaning" and "just following orders", but human nature applies.

You also see it closer to home in the asinine drug seizures without trial. I have personally witnessed discussions among officers about possible seizures (I was a naive rookie reserve officer at the time). This happens. It's a bad idea to allow departments to have a financial incentive to actively, aggresively, potentially over-prosecute their duties.

Just my .0125

[Zoolander]

Letters to senator and rep written and sent.

[Tallbear]

Here's the chance to speak up for or against the bill..........


Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. Mark Meadows, Chair

Date: 11/30/2010

Time: 9:00 AM

Place: 326 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
SB 212 (Kahn) Law enforcement; other; police agency to retain certain confiscated weapons for use by that police agency; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances.

[fbuckner]

Letter written

[Tallbear]

SB 0212 of 2009 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-SB-0212)
Law enforcement; other; police agency to retain certain confiscated weapons for use by that police agency; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 14 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.434).
Last Action: 11/23/2010 Analysis File Added

[Doat]

Where did you come up with all that?

As far as I can see, all the proposed changes do is allow local LE to retain weapons instead of turning them all over to the MSP for disposal or whatever.

Am I missing something in the proposed law or are there simply a number of people around here that enjoy bad mouthing LE?


There was a video posted sometime ago regarding a fellow in another state what was target shooting
on his property with a 22 cal. Some righteous citizen reported to the PD that shots were being fired.
This was in a rural setting and the responding officers cruiser cam was on. When they arrived they found
The fella that was shooting and went through the cop BS. To make a long story short the cop entered his
House seen a gun safe wanted in. The guy let them in and the cop was all exited about the AR he had in the safe. They confiscated the weapons. A follow up story indicated that this citizen was not charged with anything. He had requested many times for his weapons to be return, but were not. And he was told that if
He pursued this they would reinstate charges. Drummed up of coarse.
Some of you may remember this story it was posted on MGO.


The “RULE OF LAW” can enslave the populace just as effectively as a dictatorial tyrant.

And again as has been stated many times, its not cop bashing. Many have expressed there experiences
And those of there friends and relatives. If cops wouldn’t behave the way they do there would be the
Criticism they get. And this is becoming true with the legal system as a hole.

[rabbivj]

There was a video posted sometime ago regarding a fellow in another state what was target shooting
on his property with a 22 cal. Some righteous citizen reported to the PD that shots were being fired.
This was in a rural setting and the responding officers cruiser cam was on. When they arrived they found
The fella that was shooting and went through the cop BS. To make a long story short the cop entered his
House seen a gun safe wanted in. The guy let them in and the cop was all exited about the AR he had in the safe. They confiscated the weapons. A follow up story indicated that this citizen was not charged with anything. He had requested many times for his weapons to be return, but were not. And he was told that if
He pursued this they would reinstate charges. Drummed up of coarse.
Some of you may remember this story it was posted on MGO.


The “RULE OF LAW” can enslave the populace just as effectively as a dictatorial tyrant.

And again as has been stated many times, its not cop bashing. Many have expressed there experiences
And those of there friends and relatives. If cops wouldn’t behave the way they do there would be the
Criticism they get. And this is becoming true with the legal system as a hole.

if I recall, that was in the PRK and he didnt let them in to the safe, they yanked his keys off his pants.

[G22]

One step closer to a bad law being passed...


Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Meadows, Constan, Corriveau, Kandrevas, Schuitmaker, Haveman, Rick Jones and Kowall

Nays: Reps. Lipton, Lisa Brown and Warren

The Committee on Judiciary, by Rep. Meadows, Chair, reported Senate Bill No. 212, entitled A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending section 14 (MCL 28.434), as amended by 2000 PA 381, and by adding section 14a. Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
The bill was referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.

Mark Meadows (D) Phone: 571-373-1786

Ellen Lipton (D) Phone: 517-373-0478

Lisa Brown (D)Phone: 517-373-1799

Pam Byrnes (D)Phone: (517) 373-0828

Bob Constan (D)Phone: 517-373-0857

Marc Corriveau (D)Phone: 517-373-3816

Andrew Kandrevas (D)Phone: 517-373-0845

Justin Amash (R)Phone: 517-373-0840

Joseph Haveman (R)Phone: 517-373-0830

Rick Jones (R)Phone: (517)373-0853

Eileen Kowall (R)Phone: 517-373-2616

Tory Rocca (R)Phone: (517) 373-7768

Bettie Scott (D)Phone: 517-373-1776

Rebekah Warren (D)Phone: 517-373-2577

Tonya Schuitmaker (R)Phone: (517) 373-0839

[Doat]

The Committee on Judiciary, by Rep. Meadows, Chair, reported Senate Bill No. 212, entitled A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending section 14 (MCL 28.434), as amended by 2000 PA 381, and by adding section 14a. Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.

Clarity here! LOL “Rule of Law” The rule of law will enslave people just as effectively as a doctorial tyrant.

“And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan”.
George Burns

[hopeitsfast]

the latest?




Senate Bill 212 (Allow police agency to keep and use siezed guns )
Received in the House on November 10, 2010. Passed 60 to 40 in the House on December 2, 2010, to allow police agencies to retain confiscated weapons for their own use, and also to grant them immunity from lawsuits related to retaining a confiscated weapon
.
See [Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"] at http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=513500



House Bill 4431 (Let local police agencies keep confiscated guns )
Received in the Senate on November 30, 2010. Passed 34 to 1 in the Senate on December 2, 2010, to allow local law enforcement agencies to keep or sell any firearms confiscated for violations of state gun laws. Under current law these must be turned over to the State Police.
See [Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"] at http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=513515

[Doat]

LOL, Rule of Law. A foolish concept that was lost years ago. What we have now is mob rule. And that mob is dead set on taking away our Constitution and our rights.

[Havoc35]

Kinda sounds like a slippery slope. The last thing I would want is my (perfectly deployable) AR15 to be confiscated due to something like a minor transportation issue because they have use for my weapon.

[Shoots2much]

It figures Wayne Kuipers is involved.
Kuipers has demonstrated his contempt for "The will of the people" on more than one occasion.


Just say "NO"!
Any law that allows the sate to seize private property of (Innocent) citizens is tyranny, pure and simple.
Especially firearms, by seizing a citizens weapon(s) the state has effectively denied that person's constitutional right "To keep and bear Arms".

We have the right to defend ourselves and our families, thats going to be rather hard to do if the state has seized our weapons.


Again we must make politicians they are elected to serve US, not the other way around!

[Shoots2much]

I think we just learned something about Joe Havman.
I am floored he voted in favor of this POS bill.

Dang it! I voted for Havman. I WANT MY VOTE BACK Joe.

[sarco001]

What it changes it what can possibly happen to a firearm after it is confiscated.
It doesn't change anything else from the previous law.
Instead of destroying usable firearms like they used, they can now sell them or keep them for their departments use.
If they seize an AR15 from a drug dealer, it can be used by the department instead of being destroyed.
I think this is better than what was happening to these firearms.
The police have no more authority to confiscate my guns than they had before this amendment.

[zigziggityzoo]

What it changes it what can possibly happen to a firearm after it is confiscated.
It doesn't change anything else from the previous law.
Instead of destroying usable firearms like they used, they can now sell them or keep them for their departments use.
If they seize an AR15 from a drug dealer, it can be used by the department instead of being destroyed.
I think this is better than what was happening to these firearms.
The police have no more authority to confiscate my guns than they had before this amendment.

No more authority, fine, but now they have incentive.

[hopeitsfast]

No more authority, fine, but now they have incentive.
Exactly, not to mention a tool to help them "encourage" a plea deal.

[Quaamik]

Exactly, not to mention a tool to help them "encourage" a plea deal.

I agree that there is now a slight increase in incentive. But only a slight one.

Before this, they could do this with long guns. Was there a rash of long guns being confiscated by police? Not that I heard of. This only allows the same for pistols as was already legal for long guns.

It's not the end times sign that it is being made out to be.

[sarco001]

They have to follow the same procedures as before, the only difference is the weapons that normally would have been sent to the MSP can be obtained by the police department that has them.

[RDak]

No more authority, fine, but now they have incentive.

This.

[Stylishxone767]

Where did you come up with all that?

As far as I can see, all the proposed changes do is allow local LE to retain weapons instead of turning them all over to the MSP for disposal or whatever.

Am I missing something in the proposed law or are there simply a number of people around here that enjoy bad mouthing LE?


Thats exactly it. Another excuse for people to bad mouth LE. They will oppose anything that helps police agencies in any way. It does not matter what it is or what it says. Im starting to get the impression that people on here want the wild west again. I dont know what they want done with the violent criminal element in this country. I guess we can go back to the mobs with pitch forks and torches to solve our problems.

[Stylishxone767]

Exactly, not to mention a tool to help them "encourage" a plea deal.

The procecutor is who accepts plea deals. The police have no say in it. Police officers are nothing but investigators with the power of arrest. Arrest does not have as much meaning as you would think. Procecutors would not benefit from this and they do not care if a police department gets the guns or not.