SB 0029, 0030, 0093 Tazer bills

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 2/8/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-2

# SB 0030 of 2011
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 2/8/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

# SB 0093 of 2011
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m).
Last Action: 2/8/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

[Pyzik]

I am for this... Who would I contact to express support for these? My district rep (same as HBs)?

[Dansjeep2000]

Got an email from my rep today, looks like this passed the Senate and is off to the House.

[appliancebrad]

I've told my Senator and will express to my Representative that a vote for these Bills as introduced is a reinforcement that CEZ's should stay in place.

If one cannot carry a Less Than Lethal means of self defense in a CEZ, we will NEVER remove them for pistols.

[DetroitBiker]

Bump
These bills are supposed to be heard in committee today. anybody following whats going on with them?

[Cackler]

I've told my Senator and will express to my Representative that a vote for these Bills as introduced is a reinforcement that CEZ's should stay in place.

If one cannot carry a Less Than Lethal means of self defense in a CEZ, we will NEVER remove them for pistols.


Good point but, all too often, people form their opinions based solely on the title of the bill.

[TheQ]

Bump
These bills are supposed to be heard in committee today. anybody following whats going on with them?

There was a hearing this morning and I was at it. Testimony only was taken (no vote).

I turned in a card on behalf of MOC supporting the bill. Brady from MCRGO also turned in a card supporting the bill.

I offered brief testimony to introduce myself to the committee. The only concern I stated on record I have with the bill is it adds an exemption for "Court Officers" to MCL 28.435o -- and we are generally against more exemptions. "Court Officer" isn't defined so it could mean bailiff or any lawyer who practices law in a Court (they are often called "Officers of the Court").

Another concern I have (but stayed silent on) is it applies current CPL law to tasers, including PFZs and alcohol limits -- I could do without those restrictions being applied to tasers.

Despite these concerns, "we" supported the bill.

I'd expect a vote next week. If we don't get one, I'll launch a grassroots campaign to get attention to the bill to get a vote.

[Cackler]

There was a hearing this morning and I was at it. Testimony only was taken (no vote).

I turned in a card on behalf of MOC supporting the bill. Brady from MCRGO also turned in a card supporting the bill.


Another concern I have (but stayed silent on) is it applies current CPL law to tasers, including PFZs and alcohol limits -- I could do without those restrictions being applied to tasers.

Despite these concerns, "we" supported the bill.




Again, it seems that we have another situation where football players are on opposite sides of the field.

Despite your voiced and unvoiced concerns, you supported it. Why?

[TheQ]

Despite your voiced and unvoiced concerns, you supported it. Why?

Because it will increase the rights of the collective whole (at least anyone who has a CPL -- and most "law abiding" people can get one).

The bill marks an improvement even though it isn't perfect.

Trolls get one question and one answer per topic. You got your one. If you don't agree with my actions your next step is to email board@miopencarry.org. I'm sure my bosses will give your thoughts careful consideration.

If you'd like to oppose it I am sure it will be on the committee agenda again soon for a vote. Go ahead and show up and oppose it -- put your thoughts on the public record. I don't care. If you don't want to stand up and be heard by the right people then go share your concerns with the nearest wall.

[BANNED]

Michigan Gun Owners didn't bother?!?!?

[TomE]

Taser's aren't guns:thup:

[TheQ]

Taser's aren't guns:thup:

You're right. This whole thread is moot, despite it was started by the vice-president of MGO. I move that the entire thread be immediately deleted by the moderators because a taser isn't a gun -- thus MGO shouldn't talk about it -- despite the fact it is a tool for self-defense.

What was Tallbear thinking when he started this thread?

[BANNED]

Taser's aren't guns:thup:

Then why bother having this thread?!?!?

[Cackler]

You're right. This whole thread is moot, despite it was started by the vice-president of MGO. I move that the entire thread be immediately deleted by the moderators because a taser isn't a gun -- thus MGO shouldn't talk about it -- despite the fact it is a tool for self-defense.

What was Tallbear thinking when he started this thread?

He was thinking of "legislation". That is the title of this forum.

It is looking more and more like a few people are beating their chest and trying to stir up trouble everywhere they possibly can. What is the point?

[heyyoustoopid]

He was thinking of "legislation". That is the title of this forum.

It is looking more and more like a few people are beating their chest and trying to stir up trouble everywhere they possibly can. What is the point?

I sense sarcasm maybe frustration.

I have been watching this and contacting my rep. I support it, whether its a gun, knife or taser, it is a form of self defense. I believe everyone has a right to self defense whatever method they choose. :twocents:

Thanks for your hard work Q

[BANNED]

He was thinking of "legislation". That is the title of this forum.

It is looking more and more like a few people are beating their chest and trying to stir up trouble everywhere they possibly can. What is the point?


By your illogical assertion, the state budget is also legislation that should be posted. Com'on you're not really that narrow minded. Or are you?

[Cackler]

By your illogical assertion, the state budget is also legislation that should be posted. Com'on you're not really that narrow minded. Or are you?

Actually, I am pretty open minded. I am also intelligent enough to recognize what this subforum was designed to accomplish.

[Tallbear]

You're right. This whole thread is moot, despite it was started by the vice-president of MGO. I move that the entire thread be immediately deleted by the moderators because a taser isn't a gun -- thus MGO shouldn't talk about it -- despite the fact it is a tool for self-defense.

What was Tallbear thinking when he started this thread?

The bill "as written" effects those "allowed" to carry a "tazer".

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0030.htm


(2) An individual shall not carry a concealed pistol while he
or she is under the influence of alcoholic liquor or a controlled

substance or while having a bodily alcohol content prohibited under

this section. An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol who, pursuant to section 224a(2)(b) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.224a, may carry a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology shall not carry that portable device while under the influence of alcoholic liquor or a controlled substance or while having a bodily alcohol content prohibited under this section.

[BANNED]

The bill "as written" effects those "allowed" to carry a "tazer".

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0030.htm

Then why didn't Michigan Gun Owners submit a position to the legislature?

[Tallbear]

Then why didn't Michigan Gun Owners submit a position to the legislature?

The bill has not finished the "process" and will allow testimony by anyone before it goes to a final vote before passing (or failing).

[BANNED]

The bill has not finished the "process" and will allow testimony by anyone before it goes to a final vote before passing (or failing).
So there is lots of time then to weigh in on this?

[Tallbear]

So there is lots of time then to weigh in on this?

The "timeline" has yet to be set by the committee considering the bill. So, we keep track of the bill to be available for testimony. The house can make amendments if they so choose and we need to be ready to address them if need be.

[BANNED]

The "timeline" has yet to be set by the committee considering the bill. So, we keep track of the bill to be available for testimony. The house can make amendments if they so choose and we need to be ready to address them if need be.

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

[TheQ]

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

I am working to get the added 2.425o exception removed or at least better defined/narrowed.

[Tallbear]

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

Changes to the bill can take place any where in the process up to the final floor vote. Any changes in the house must be voted on when the bill returns to the senate for approval there. When both house and senate agree on any change, then it can sent to the Governor for signage or veto.

[appliancebrad]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

[Cackler]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

Thanks again for the clarification Brad. Now if more would see the light.

[BANNED]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

This is great news to us that the stream firearm organizations, MCGRO, SAFR, and MOC, are letting the legislatures know our opposition to these bills as written. It gives us individuals insight as to how these bills will affect each of us. More importantly, these groups are out in front of the process instead of waiting around for something to happen.

Thank you MOC, SAFR, AND MCGRO!!!

[BANNED]

Thanks again for the clarification Brad. Now if more would see the light.

You mean those that are sitting around waiting?!?!? We can only poke them so much to do something before they get mad. But keep poking Cackler, it does help. (No sarcasm intended either.)

[Cackler]

This is great news to us that the stream firearm organizations, MCGRO, SAFR, and MOC, are letting the legislatures know our opposition to these bills as written. It gives us individuals insight as to how these bills will affect each of us. More importantly, these groups are out in front of the process instead of waiting around for something to happen.

Thank you MOC, SAFR, AND MCGRO!!!

Say what? It looks to me like MOC is SUPPORTING the damned thing.




I turned in a card on behalf of MOC supporting the bill. Brady from MCRGO also turned in a card supporting the bill.


Another concern I have (but stayed silent on) is it applies current CPL law to tasers, including PFZs and alcohol limits -- I could do without those restrictions being applied to tasers.

Despite these concerns, "we" supported the bill.

I'd expect a vote next week. If we don't get one, I'll launch a grassroots campaign to get attention to the bill to get a vote.

[TheQ]

I don't believe you have to try to torpedo a bill unless it's perfect. If it represents an improvement over the status quo (this does), then you should support it (unless it's one of those damn PFZ exemptions/special class/special treatments).

I agree with Brad there are concerns with the bill. my largest concern is the preemption angle he brought up. I'll speak with Jones' office about it on Monday. Since it would modify another law (MCL 123.1102), I'm guessing it will need to be a separate bill that is tie-barred to this one. Given that, this new bill will have to make its way through the Senate first...*sighs* Hopefully it can be fast-tracked to catch up with these three bills.

I respect SAFR for having philosophical differences on when to support/oppose a bill. That being said, I respectfully disagree in this instance.

[BANNED]

Say what? It looks to me like MOC is SUPPORTING the damned thing.

Supporting in principle but seeking modifications. At least they showed up. And MOC was there and prepared to testify along with MCGRO.

[Cackler]

Supporting in principle but seeking modifications. At least they showed up. And MOC was there and prepared to testify along with MCGRO.

Well, nobody would want to cross you and your ideas, thats for sure.



OMG I never thought of that. I'd hunt them down like a dog if they did that. And if it was one of them stupid Open Carriers, I'd snatch the gun from them and shoot them with it.

[BANNED]

Well, nobody would want to cross you and your ideas, thats for sure.

Cracker, searching for posts and using them in replies is an old tactic of Mike_Hunt. (He's no longer around, since being banned.) If you're going to be a troll you'll have to do better than that and come up with some of your own techniques.

I do appreciate that you admire Mike's techniques enough to copy them. It is a great form of flattery. But you're still quite an amateur.

[Cackler]

Cracker, searching for posts and using them in replies is an old tactic of Mike_Hunt. (He's no longer around, since being banned.) If you're going to be a troll you'll have to do better than that and come up with some of your own techniques.

I do appreciate that you admire Mike's techniques enough to copy them. It is a great form of flattery. But you're still quite an amateur.


Tell us, what kind of a nutcase even posts that kind of crap on the internet to begin with?

Let me tell you this sir, if you don't like being quoted, perhaps you should take that into consideration before submitting your post for everybody and their brother to roll their eyes at.

[appliancebrad]

SAFR has long advocated the legalization of Tasers in Michigan, especially considering that most states allow them with no restrictions to law abiding citizens. Drive 7 miles southwest of my house and I can legally buy one (Indiana) with no ID, no background check, no training. Drive back home with it and I'm a felon.

We opposed this Bill when Jones was in the House and we continue to oppose it until the CEZ section is stripped out.

What we don't advocate is that we take a step backwards or create other legal issues by allowing them here. Creating policy is a complicated process and relaxing one law may make issues in another area. That is why we have stood with MOC in regards to finding a way to allow those without a CPL to traverse the Gun Free School Zones 1000' bubble while talking about getting rid of Purchase Permits.

If we ban Tasers from PFZ's, will pepper spray be next?

[BANNED]

Tell us, what kind of a nutcase even posts that kind of crap on the internet to begin with?

Let me tell you this sir, if you don't like being quoted, perhaps you should take that into consideration before submitting your post for everybody and their brother to roll their eyes at.

MEH

[BANNED]

SAFR has long advocated the legalization of Tasers in Michigan, especially considering that most states allow them with no restrictions to law abiding citizens. Drive 7 miles southwest of my house and I can legally buy one (Indiana) with no ID, no background check, no training. Drive back home with it and I'm a felon.

We opposed this Bill when Jones was in the House and we continue to oppose it until the CEZ section is stripped out.

What we don't advocate is that we take a step backwards or create other legal issues by allowing them here. Creating policy is a complicated process and relaxing one law may make issues in another area. That is why we have stood with MOC in regards to finding a way to allow those without a CPL to traverse the Gun Free School Zones 1000' bubble while talking about getting rid of Purchase Permits.

If we ban Tasers from PFZ's, will pepper spray be next?

Thanks for your continued efforts. SAFR and MOC recognize the importance of getting out early and making opinions known during the drafting and debate of bills like these that promote self protection.

This is why MOC has established the Legislative Alerts.

Sign up to receive notifications on important legislation that affects us and to learn what individuals can do:

http://eepurl.com/hJzk-/

[Cackler]

Thanks for your continued efforts. SAFR and MOC recognize the importance of getting out early and making opinions known during the drafting and debate of bills like these that promote self protection.

This is why MOC has established the Legislative Alerts.

Sign up to receive notifications on important legislation that affects us and to learn what individuals can do:

http://eepurl.com/hJzk-/


You've got to be kidding us.:crazy:

Between complaining about perceived inaction by this forum and promoting another organization (apparently with conflicting viewpoints from this one) people have to wonder just exactly what your particular agenda really is.

[BANNED]

You've got to be kidding us.:crazy:

Between complaining about perceived inaction by this forum and promoting another organization (apparently with conflicting viewpoints from this one) people have to wonder just exactly what your particular agenda really is.


Michigan Gun Owners is more than a forum. It is an organization established for the purpose of promoting gun rights. Sometimes opinions may vary. But that is what's good about this country. We can have differences of opinion and discuss them openly.

Or . like you, cyber stalk and troll.

My agenda is unimportant so long as it provides you with something to keep your mind occupied when you're not playing Mario Brothers of going to Wal-Mart with mom.

[leavitron]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.
Read this thread fully. The post I am quoting above is what has convinced me that this legislation is bad.

I'm tired of compromises that end up having bad side effects. The bad side effect here is strengthening PFZ's. That's bad news. We need to either push for a revision or for this bill to be killed.

Do it once, do it right!

[G22]

I have to agree. I'm against this bill as long as pfz's are in it.

[TheQ]

These bills passed out of the House Judiciary Committee today. now they go to the floor of the full house where after they are passed they can then be signed into law by the governor.

[Divegeek]

House? or Senate?

[TheQ]

House? or Senate?

House -- already passed the Senate.

[Divegeek]

ok...just wonder which congress critter to pester.

[TheQ]

ok...just wonder which congress critter to pester.

Not Congress (Federal) -- this is a State bill.

[Venator12]

Not Congress (Federal) -- this is a State bill.
Some States also have a congress, so his terminology is correct. It is a State congress.

[FU5E]

Whats the status of the PFZ part? or was it passed as is?

Any links as to see whats in it as it sits right now?

[TheQ]

Whats the status of the PFZ part? or was it passed as is?

Any links as to see whats in it as it sits right now?
See the SB 59 thread in this Forum.

[Cackler]

See the SB 59 thread in this Forum.

98 shots with a Tazer seems sort of ridiculous.:roll:

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 3/22/2012 referred to second reading
SB 0030 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 3/22/2012 referred to second reading

[snakebyte]

I recieved an email from one of my distributors, that said this was passed, and now would take effect in 90 days... Is this true, or am I missing something?
Thanks!

[TheQ]

I recieved an email from one of my distributors, that said this was passed, and now would take effect in 90 days... Is this true, or am I missing something?
Thanks!

It's close to passing, I don't think it has been passed by the full house yet or signed by the governor. I think there were some changes that were also made to the bill so it will have to go back to the Senate first.

[DetroitBiker]

Any updates on these bills?

[backhandman]

If and when it is signed by the govener. How long before I can place an order online. Is this an instant thing or is their a set date when it takes effect. Sorry I'm kinda new to following this sorta stuff.

[TheQ]

If and when it is signed by the govener. How long before I can place an order online. Is this an instant thing or is their a set date when it takes effect. Sorry I'm kinda new to following this sorta stuff.

IIRC 90 days unless given immediate effect

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/17/2012 Analysis File Added
SB 0030 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 4/17/2012 Analysis File Added
SB 0093 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0093)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11, SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/17/2012 Analysis File Added

[Pyzik]

This bill would allow both kinds of EMD devices, correct?

Handheld, like this...
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/stun-gun-inside.jpg

And the projectile kind, like this...
http://www.guardian-self-defense.com/images/advancedtaser/x26c_cropped.jpg

[TheQ]

I think it only deals with projectile weapons. I could be mistaken.

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/18/2012 placed on third reading
SB 0030 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 4/18/2012 placed on third reading
SB 0093 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0093)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11, SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/18/2012 placed on third reading

[TheQ]

I saw on Gongwer the package passed the house now it has to go back to the Senate for final passage/enrollment.

[durus5995]

I was just watching TV 5 they said this just passed one of the legislative houses. I did not hear which one.

[xmanhockey7]

So from what I gather you must have a CPL to even purchase and own one. What if you have a CPL then after 5 years it expires and you choose to not renew it, can you legally keep the taser and just not carry it.

[Korey5640]

Sooo...it appears the way it passed, it still includes Tasers being illegal to carry in the PFZs. Well, I don't plan to carry a full "bat belt" around, so I think I'll stick to my pistol.

Which begs the question, how long until there is a self defense case where the prosecution tries to say that the person clearly intended to kill someone because they had the option of carrying a less lethal weapon and carried and used a firearm instead?

[TheQ]

Sooo...it appears the way it passed, it still includes Tasers being illegal to carry in the PFZs. Well, I don't plan to carry a full "bat belt" around, so I think I'll stick to my pistol.

Which begs the question, how long until there is a self defense case where the prosecution tries to say that the person clearly intended to kill someone because they had the option of carrying a less lethal weapon and carried and used a firearm instead?

This bill was given immediate effect -- so when it's sign....it's in.

As to your question, the current stand your ground law already addresses this:

Did you feel your or someone else's life was in immediate threat of:

* Rape
* Great Bodily Harm
* Death

If so, deadly force is appropriate. If not, less than deadly force is appropriate. I think this doesn't effect that status quo as less than deadly options (pepper spray) are already available.

[ILoveMyGlock]

This bill was given immediate effect -- so when it's sign....it's in.

As to your question, the current stand your ground law already addresses this:

Did you feel your or someone else's life was in immediate threat of:

* Rape
* Great Bodily Harm
* Death

If so, deadly force is appropriate. If not, less than deadly force is appropriate. I think this doesn't effect that status quo as less than deadly options (pepper spray) are already available.

I was wondering about this yesterday, glad to see it's nearing passage. Sucks you can't carry in a PFZ...

My question is, wth do you do with the taser? Shoot them and run away while it's running it's cycle?

It's not like you're LE and can zip tie someone into submission.

[TheQ]

I was wondering about this yesterday, glad to see it's nearing passage. Sucks you can't carry in a PFZ...

My question is, wth do you do with the taser? Shoot them and run away while it's running it's cycle?

It's not like you're LE and can zip tie someone into submission.

Law Enforcement model Tasers will fire 5 seconds per pull and allow for repeat pulls.

Civilian model tasers only allow for one pull per cartridge. However, the zap lasts 30 seconds. They are designed to be discharged and then you run away while it's being discharged.

[Unistat76]

I was wondering about this yesterday, glad to see it's nearing passage. Sucks you can't carry in a PFZ...

My question is, wth do you do with the taser? Shoot them and run away while it's running it's cycle?
It's not like you're LE and can zip tie someone into submission.

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. The non-LEO Tasers have a 30 second ride instead of 5 seconds. Taser will replace for free any device that has been used in a self defense situation if you provide a police report saying it was justified and proof of purchase.

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/19/2012 returned to Senate
SB 0030 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 4/19/2012 returned to Senate
SB 0093 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0093)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11, SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/19/2012 returned to Senate

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/24/2012 House requests return

Interesting......

[Cackler]

Make using an EMD device against another person, except under circumstances
that would justify the individual's lawful use of physical force, a high court
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years and/or a
fine of not more than $2,000. This penalty would apply to all persons authorized
to possess and use an EMD device, including peace officers.


While I can see where LEO's should easily be able to articulate a need to utilize an EMD device to take a person into custody, I believe that it will be far more difficult for non-LEO's to make assessments of the need, much less provide sufficient proof of their need.

[zigziggityzoo]

This whole "high-court misdemeanor" trend is annoying, but whatever.

[Cackler]

This whole "high-court misdemeanor" trend is annoying, but whatever.

Annoying like a misdemeanor felonious assault or what?

[zigziggityzoo]

Annoying like a misdemeanor felonious assault or what?
a 2-year "high court misdemeanor" is considered less serious in the eyes of the court than a 1-year felony.

It's just added confusion.

[Cackler]

a 2-year "high court misdemeanor" is considered less serious in the eyes of the court than a 1-year felony.

It's just added confusion.

I agree but, the other problem I see involves the fact that it will only be a misdemeanor to unlawfully tase somebody, even though it could bring serious injury or death.

So, if somebody takes a taser to a gun fight---the person with the gun is looking at a felony for a wrongful shooting but the person with the taser only a misdemeanor. What sense does that make?

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 4/25/2012 re-returned to Senate

[jlucht01]

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 HOUSE INSERTED FULL TITLE

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 POSTPONED TEMPORARILY

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 HOUSE SUBSTITUTE H-1 CONCURRED IN

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 ROLL CALL # 259 YEAS 35 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 FULL TITLE AGREED TO

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 ORDERED ENROLLED

Three Nay's Hovey-Wright, Irwin, Nathan

[matt]

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 HOUSE INSERTED FULL TITLE

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 POSTPONED TEMPORARILY

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 HOUSE SUBSTITUTE H-1 CONCURRED IN

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 ROLL CALL # 259 YEAS 35 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 FULL TITLE AGREED TO

4/26/2012 Expected in
SJ 39 ORDERED ENROLLED

Three Nay's Hovey-Wright, Irwin, Nathan

Please forgive my ignorance on the subject. Does this mean the state senate approved it and it will go to the governor for signing?

Thanks.

[jlucht01]

I believe it does.....

[Roundballer]

I don't thing so. Here is the journal entry:


Senate Bill No. 29, entitled

A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 224a (MCL 750.224a), as amended by 2006 PA 457.

The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill.

The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.

Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,

Senator Meekhof moved that the rule be suspended.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,

Senator Meekhof moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed temporarily.

The motion prevailed.

It looks like there is a flag on the play, a possible delay of game.

[rob49221]

It was presented to the governor today at 11:40 but it still does not say if it was signed

[backhandman]

"holds breath"

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 5/2/2012 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 5/1/2012 @ 11:40 AM
SB 0030 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 5/2/2012 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 5/1/2012 @ 11:42 AM
SB 0093 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0093)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11, SB 0030'11
Last Action: 5/2/2012 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 5/1/2012 @ 11:44 AM

[snakebyte]

How long does it take to sign your name...

[jlucht01]

Maybe he's color blind and is having a heck of a time finding the red crayon......

[Tallbear]

If I remember correctly, the Gov. has 14 days to sign a bill. If not signed in that time it automatically passes.

[jlucht01]

looks like they postponed it for the session.

[TheQ]

Word on the street is, this was signed:

http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,1760.0.html

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120508/POLITICS02/205080400/Snyder-OKs-Tasers-personal-use?odyssey=tab

[Unistat76]

Nevermind

[snakebyte]

The news says consumer model only, but didn't see anything in bill that says that. Only thing i saw as a requirement was that it released tags with identifiers. Also say a 15' limit, but is that part of the law or a description?

[zigziggityzoo]

The news says consumer model only, but didn't see anything in bill that says that. Only thing i saw as a requirement was that it released tags with identifiers. Also say a 15' limit, but is that part of the law or a description?

Neither of those limitations are in the law. However, the TASER company does have such limitations on their consumer models, and does not sell L.E. models to non-LEOs.

[Tallbear]

SB 0029 of 2011 (PA 0122 of 2012) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0029)
Crimes; weapons; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular technology; amend Michigan penal code to allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0030'11
Last Action: 5/9/2012 ASSIGNED PA 0122'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
SB 0030 of 2011 (PA 0123 of 2012) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0030)
Weapons; licensing; sale, possession, and use of device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology; amend firearms act to allow under certain circumstances. Amends title & secs. 5f, 5k & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425f et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11
Last Action: 5/9/2012 ASSIGNED PA 0123'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
SB 0093 of 2011 (PA 0124 of 2012) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0093)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for carrying concealed pistol in prohibited place; revise to include reference to electro-muscular disruption devices. Amends secs. 11b & 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0029'11, SB 0030'11
Last Action: 5/9/2012 ASSIGNED PA 0124'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

[jlucht01]

Is there a good article on when "Less then Lethal Force" maybe used?

[zigziggityzoo]

Is there a good article on when "Less then Lethal Force" maybe used?
This is what the law says:


(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

So basically, if someone is using force against you, and you (and a jury would) reasonably believe that YOUR use of force is necessary to defend/repel against that force, you can do so.

[jlucht01]

Thanks!

The does sound pretty vague. I can see some people getting in trouble with these.

I hope they separate the statistics on who gets their CPL revoked.

[sgtlmj]

So did PFZ's make it into the final law? I just skimmed and didn't see where it did. I did see that you have to declare to an LEO if you have an EMD.

[zigziggityzoo]

So did PFZ's make it into the final law? I just skimmed and didn't see where it did. I did see that you have to declare to an LEO if you have an EMD.
yes.

[sgtlmj]

Found it: "(2) Subject to subsection (5), an individual shall not carry a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology on any of the premises described in subsection (1)."

[snakebyte]

I've read a few times that this isn't effective for 90 days, but thought it said effective immediately.

[zigziggityzoo]

I've read a few times that this isn't effective for 90 days, but thought it said effective immediately.

"Immediately" means the 90-day countdown starts the day it's signed.

Without the "Immediately" the 90-day countdown would start at the end of this legislative session, which ends in December.