H.B. 5282 Transport of firearm

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).

[Cackler]

About time!

[kdogg]

Um, I thought you could already do this? I thought they decided years ago transporting a pistol was OK as long as it wasn't readily accessible.

[Divegeek]

It used to say you could only transport for going to the range or to a place or purchase or repair or certain things like that. Now it says you can transport for all "lawful purposes"

[Legislave]

You still need a CPL :protest: :doh:

[MrMark]

Soooo.... If I DO NOT have a CPL, I can do the following(?):

1. Buy a pistol in the morning
2. Carry it around with me buy leave it in the trunk, unloaded (mags/ammo separate, etc.) running various errands all day until...
3. Arrive at home and store the weapon.

????

Does not compute.

I'm a noob at this, so help me out please.

[Yance]

This sounds great and all...but you still need a CPL to carry in your vehicle. The drafting of this was pretty much a waste of tax payer dollars because you can still do what you could do before, it just made it less wordy. What we need is for this to be ammended to allow the lawful CARRY of a firearm in your vehicle even if you do not possess a CPL.

Waste of time in my opinion.

[Legislave]

Soooo.... If I DO NOT have a CPL, I can do the following(?):

1. Buy a pistol in the morning
2. Carry it around with me buy leave it in the trunk, unloaded (mags/ammo separate, etc.) running various errands all day until...
3. Arrive at home and store the weapon.

????

Does not compute.

I'm a noob at this, so help me out please.

1 Depends on your PD hours.
2. a.OC anywhere not listed in MCL 750.234d. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lndh0fjggqk1qq55bh2o45jk%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-234d premisis, not just buildings. Grocery stores are no go, they have license to sell alcohol.
2. b. gun has to be in a case designed for a firearm, and in the trunk, unless the vehicle has no trunk. In such a vehicle, the gun must be in a case designed for a firearm, unloaded, and in a place not easily accesible to the occupants. The magazines may be loaded, and even in the same case, but not placed in the magazine well, or loaded in the chamber. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lndh0fjggqk1qq55bh2o45jk%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-231a The case does not have to be locked. In a situation where you do not have a trunk, corvette, truck, etc, it is recommended that you lock the case. No duty to disclose without CPL, just refuse to consent to searches, and do not acknowledge the presence of the firearm.
3.You can OC or CC at home.

[MrMark]

Thanks for the insight.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what "PD" means. Police Department?

The pragmatic change I think I'm noticing in this bill (not a law yet, right?) is that sans CPL the pistol's transportation is no longer limited to to-and-from-the-range. Have I got that right?

Something in your 2b confuses me. The bit about grocery stores. They're not selling by the glass to be consumed on the premises. And surely they don't make the majority of their money selling alcohol. I don't see how grocery stores are a no-go for cc with a CPL.

[Venator12]

Okay, let me try to clarify. You can currently transport a handgun in a vehicle without a CPL for all lawful purposes if the handgun is unloaded and cased in truck, etc..

What is confusing is that some PDs still think you can only carry if you are going to and from the places listed in the CURRENT law. The CURRENT law allows ALL LAWFUL purposes AND gives a FEW examples like en route to...

Because there is confusing in this regard the statute proposed above would eliminate this by just saying ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES and get rid of the examples. This makes the legislative intent clearer. That's all this does.

But currently you CAN transport for any and all lawful purposes and self-defense is a lawful purpose.

[Venator12]

Thanks for the insight.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what "PD" means. Police Department?

The pragmatic change I think I'm noticing in this bill (not a law yet, right?) is that sans CPL the pistol's transportation is no longer limited to to-and-from-the-range. Have I got that right?

Something in your 2b confuses me. The bit about grocery stores. They're not selling by the glass to be consumed on the premises. And surely they don't make the majority of their money selling alcohol. I don't see how grocery stores are a no-go for cc with a CPL.

If you do NOT have a CPL you can not possess a FIREARM in OR on the premises of ANY place that has a liquor license unless you have permission, see below. These places are like Krogers, party stores, gas stations, etc.

If you HAVE a CPL you can carry OC or CC in any place that sells alcohol, EXCEPT bars and taverns where you MUST OC to lawfully carry there.


750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.


(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

[MrMark]

I'm beginning to feel like one of the tall tower guards in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. "Now, umm...if..if...ahhh...if...wait..."

But I found these last two posts helpful and clarifying. Thanks!

Cheers!

[TheQ]

This bill is on a fast track. It's already in Third reading, if I read my Gongwer update correctly this afternoon (Maybe I didn't?)

[luckless]

This looks like a good start! It is nice to see a bill that would benefit all gun owners instead of a select few.

[leavitron]

Agreed. Legislave's post on the first page was confusing. Now it's a lot clearer.

I do have one question, though, regarding Venator12's post on this page...

"If you HAVE a CPL you can carry OC or CC in any place that sells alcohol, EXCEPT bars and taverns where you MUST OC to lawfully carry there."

This is not what I remember from my CPL class. Not saying you are wrong, this just differs. I only remember being told that in places that derive >50% of revenue from alcohol (so bar/tavern) you could not concealed carry. I don't recall anything being said about being able to open carry there. Please clarify.

(Forgive me if I start asking a lot of stupid questions in these threads. Really trying to bone up on the laws. Not totally post whoring, I promise.)

[67390FE]

Agreed. Legislave's post on the first page was confusing. Now it's a lot clearer.

I do have one question, though, regarding Venator12's post on this page...

"If you HAVE a CPL you can carry OC or CC in any place that sells alcohol, EXCEPT bars and taverns where you MUST OC to lawfully carry there."

This is not what I remember from my CPL class. Not saying you are wrong, this just differs. I only remember being told that in places that derive >50% of revenue from alcohol (so bar/tavern) you could not concealed carry. I don't recall anything being said about being able to open carry there. Please clarify.

(Forgive me if I start asking a lot of stupid questions in these threads. Really trying to bone up on the laws. Not totally post whoring, I promise.)

This thread will answer a lot of your questions, starting specifically the first bolded paragraph in the 2nd response.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=106501

[Legislave]

Im really sorry if I had confused anyone, that was not my intent. I apologize.

[leavitron]

Im really sorry if I had confused anyone, that was not my intent. I apologize.
No need to apologize. I blame my confusion more on being a n00b that just passed the class and got his permit over anything else. Regardless, thank you for your kindness!

67390FE - your link was most helpful. Thank you!

[Legislave]

Michigan firearms laws ate confusing. MOC had to explain it to the police, one member helped guide the MSP in making the MSP#86, I had to explain it to my state representative, its just one big clust:coocoo: er ****.

[heyyoustoopid]

I was discussing transporting firearms just the other day with my wife. I do not understand MI and transporting firearms laws. The authorities need a warrant to search your vehicle without consent just like your home. I own my vehicle and the title to it, just like my home, a warrant is needed to search it just like my home. I would assume it is like an extension of my home. I should be able to protect myself in my vehicle just like my home without a CPL. No ones business but mine. I do have my CPL btw. Rant over......

[Legislave]

You're exactly right, but, that would simply make too much sense.

[BANNED]

This sounds great and all...but you still need a CPL to carry in your vehicle. The drafting of this was pretty much a waste of tax payer dollars because you can still do what you could do before, it just made it less wordy. What we need is for this to be ammended to allow the lawful CARRY of a firearm in your vehicle even if you do not possess a CPL.

Waste of time in my opinion.

Actually it should be the lawful "possession" of a firearm in and on a vehicle without a CPL.

You aren't "carrying" it in the glove compartment.

[BANNED]

Is Michigan Gun Owners taking any action on this one?

[Tallbear]

Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. John Walsh, Chair

Date: 05/17/2012

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 521 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 5225 (Opsommer) Weapons; firearms; certain procedures for purchase and possession of pistols; revise.

HB 5282 (Rendon) Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand.

SB 760 (Green) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 761 (Kowall) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 762 (Robertson) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

[spartywrx]

Passed 10-1-4 (for-against-pass).

There was a lot of talk about how there were no prosecutions due to this law.

One of the democrats even assured me I have nothing to fear since no one has been prosecuted under this statute yet. He voted against the bill.

Very uneventful and surprising about the lack of opposition at the committee.

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 5/17/2012 referred to second reading

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 5/31/2012 transmitted

[Pyzik]

Thanks for keeping us updated Tallbear. This is one I was not receiving updates on.

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 6/5/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[luckless]

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to just seek and opinion from the Attorney General to clarify the law?

[Bronson]

Wouldn't it be quicker and easier to just seek and opinion from the Attorney General to clarify the law?

AGOs are not binding and it would be just as easy for future AGs to give a different opinion.

Bronson

[detroit_fan]

MCRGO is indicating this has been reported out of Senate Judiciary and is now before the full Senate

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 12/6/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[Tallbear]

HB 5282 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5282)
Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand. Amends sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 12/13/2012 bill ordered enrolled

[erict]

So now one can transport a handgun for lawful purposes other then just going to the range, repair shop...etc without a cpl?

Would defense be a lawful purpose and if so what about a loaded pistol?

[xmanhockey7]

So now one can transport a handgun for lawful purposes other then just going to the range, repair shop...etc without a cpl?

Would defense be a lawful purpose and if so what about a loaded pistol?
This law really changes nothing. All it does is removes the list of stuff that gives EXAMPLES of what "lawful purpose" may be. It was not an all inclusive list although some thought it was which is why it was removed from the law.

[maustin195]

So now one can transport a handgun for lawful purposes other then just going to the range, repair shop...etc without a cpl?

Would defense be a lawful purpose and if so what about a loaded pistol?
Yes defense is a lawful purpose but no loaded transport without a CPL.