HB 5544 Change in knife law

[Tallbear]

HB 5544 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5544)
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.) & repeals sec. 226a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226a).
Last Action: 4/19/2012 referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation

[snakebyte]

Can someone dumb this down a little? I read it, but is it just broadening what knives can be carried to be anything but double edged knives? As long as its with lawful intent?

[xmanhockey7]

I'm against this bill.

[kpearce]

Not just a "knife bill" and I can't support it either.

[snakebyte]

Well, maybe instead of just saying you don't support it, say why, or something that would help others understand it better.

[Dansjeep2000]

Looks like this may have implications for the new Tazer bill.

[Roundballer]

I can get behind this one. It actually loosens up some the restrictions. It will allow the transport/possession of some the previously forbidden forms of knives for work or hobby.

There would be a lot of 18th century reenacters that will be able have better representations of the actual implements used.
I think that quite a few "Renaissance Festival" types would support it too.



Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument knife of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person, concealed on or about his or her person , or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person. ,except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person. This subsection does not apply to either of the following:

(a) A weapon carried by the person in his or her dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(b) A weapon carried in transit between locations described in subdivision (a).

(c) A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade, occupation, or hobby.

[DP425]

I must be reading this differently...

Here is what I read:

"A person shall not carry a doubled edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other objected designed, manufactured or intended to be used to cause death or injury to others concealed on or about his or her person, weather concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person."

It goes on to state it does not apply to:
(c) A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade, occupation, or hobby.




Now, let me explain how I read this. It specifically says what kind of knife is not allowed, but it does not EXCLUDE from this law any other knives. Further, as it mentions the exclusion of "A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade, occupation, or hobby."... One would almost have to make the assumption that anything that could be carried for that use would thus be illegal if carried NOT for that use.

This means possibly pocket knifes, utility knifes (like what use the razor blade with two useable sides; box cutter).

I realize I may be reading it a little... into this... But give them an inch, they will take a mile.

[lwout65]

I would like to see mention of State wide reciprocity so some of these crazy different township/city law's can be put to rest.

And the wording seem's a little loose to me as well.

Preemption is what i was meaning to say here...finger's are faster than my brain at time's

[Roundballer]

I think that you are reading it wrong, here is what I am seeing:

The first sec:


Sec. 226.
A person who, with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person of another, goes armed with a pistol or other firearm, A razor, or A knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
This section covers plain "razors and knives". The restriction is that "one" shall not be armed with "intent". Not really much of a change there, it doesn't specify anything else about the knife. So I would believe that carrying a knife that fits this description would be "OK" provided that there is no premeditated intent.

The second sec:


Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or other wise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person.

This subsection does not apply to either of the following:

(a) A weapon carried by the person in his or her dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(b) A weapon carried in transit between locations described in subdivision (a).

(c) A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade, occupation, or hobby.

This section is specifically talking about "double-edged nonfolding knives". It starts out saying "A person shall not carry", and that means carry at all. Then it goes on to name the exceptions. There needs to be some work done there with applying the word "either" to three conditions, but I have hope.

I just wish that with a change like this one, that they would also introduce "preemption" for knives just like we have for firearms.

[Cackler]

Is there a definition for "double edged" as it applies to this law?

It was easy when it said dagger but with the removal of that language, it might get a little tricky what with the tips that some knives have, one side being sharpened (an edge) and the other side not sharpened but narrowed at the tip to assist in penetration.

[bobdaney]

Ok, so if I read this correctly, it willbe illegal to carry any knife at all, right?

I guess what we need is a CKL (concealed Knife License).

Any lawyers out there thinka knife falls under the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms? Who sez a person can't arm themselves with a knife.

Comments, for or against are appreciated. I also believe in freedom of speech.

[luckless]

Ok, so if I read this correctly, it willbe illegal to carry any knife at all, right?

I guess what we need is a CKL (concealed Knife License).

Any lawyers out there thinka knife falls under the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms? Who sez a person can't arm themselves with a knife.

Comments, for or against are appreciated. I also believe in freedom of speech.


The majority of the legislature is still liberal and it would be hard for conservatives to get anything better to the floor for a vote. Just look how hard it is to get anything pro-gun passed.

[[ion] C2]

I just wish that with a change like this one, that they would also introduce "preemption" for knives just like we have for firearms.
Yep. Without preemption, state knife laws don't really mean much.

[7788]

This bill will repeal the prohibition on switchblades in MI and clarify laws regarding fixed blades. Please contact your senator to support this!!

There is a press release regarding this on the AKTI website, perhaps someone with more than ten posts can add a link to this thread so everyone can read what this bill will actually do.

[MSGT]

http://www.akti.org/news/michigan-bill-will-remove-switchblade-prohibition

Here it is.

[Glossberg]

This bill will repeal the prohibition on switchblades in MI and clarify laws regarding fixed blades. Please contact your senator to support this!!

There is a press release regarding this on the AKTI website, perhaps someone with more than ten posts can add a link to this thread so everyone can read what this bill will actually do.

Is this the link you're referring to?

http://www.akti.org/news/michigan-bill-will-remove-switchblade-prohibition

Sorry, MSGT beat me!

[solarguy]

I'm not comfortable with the "intent" part. If the only thing that saves you or me from legal trouble is my "intent" that morning, how do I prove that. If the prosecutor is very motivated to make you look like a crazy knife toting, gun toting vigilante looking for a chance to use your weapon(s), how do you disprove that?

Your participation in forums like this could be cited as evidence if it was slanted just the right way.

I want it legal, or not. No thought crimes about what I was thinking or intending.

troy

[Roundballer]

http://www.akti.org/news/michigan-bill-will-remove-switchblade-prohibition

Here it is.
WoW.... I missed that line in the bill:


Enacting section 1. Section 226a of the Michigan penal code,
1931 PA 328, MCL 750.226a, is repealed.

This is MCL 750.226a (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-226a)


750.226a Pocket knife opened by mechanical device; unlawful sale or possession; persons exempted.

Sec. 226a.

Any person who shall sell or offer to sell, or any person who shall have in his possession any knife having the appearance of a pocket knife, the blade or blades of which can be opened by the flick of a button, pressure on a handle or other mechanical contrivance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed 1 year or by a fine of not to exceed $300.00, or both.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to any one-armed person carrying a knife on his person in connection with his living requirements.

That is another step in the right direction.

[Roundballer]

Is there a definition for "double edged" as it applies to this law?

It was easy when it said dagger but with the removal of that language, it might get a little tricky what with the tips that some knives have, one side being sharpened (an edge) and the other side not sharpened but narrowed at the tip to assist in penetration.
No....There is no specific definition in MCL about this except MCL 750.222a (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-222a) which is language that covers stone knives made by conchoidal fracturing, and items like arrow heads, as an exception to the law.


I personally believe that if all of the cutting edges are on the same side of the blade, starting at the point and working back, then it is a single edge blade. My statement there is only for "knives" that do have a point.

There are "knives" or "tools" that have two cutting edges, but no point. Look up "Woodsmens Pal", or "Facine Knife". These are both brush clearing tools that have multiple cutting edges. And it looks like it would be OK to transport, possess, use... under sec 227.

JMHCO, IANAL, YMMV

[TAC]

I'm not comfortable with the "intent" part.
troy

Why, what are your intentions? :scratch::whistle::nono::yikes:

[solarguy]

My intentions are perfectly honorable. I'm the squeakiest cleanest guy you could ever hope to meet.

But if unfortunate circumstances force me to use a knife in self defense, as an example, how do I prove that I didn't have any of the "bad" or "illegal" intentions?


The thought police are notoriously inaccurate. Although real time PET scanning and/or functional MRI's are getting better.


Finest regards,

troy

[Roundballer]

My intentions are perfectly honorable. I'm the squeakiest cleanest guy you could ever hope to meet.

But if unfortunate circumstances force me to use a knife in self defense, as an example, how do I prove that I didn't have any of the "bad" or "illegal" intentions?


The thought police are notoriously inaccurate. Although real time PET scanning and/or functional MRI's are getting better.


Finest regards,

troy

The "with intent" language has always been there. They are striking out the 3" blade wording, so it will apply to any blade length.




750.226 Firearm or dangerous weapon; carrying with unlawful intent.

Sec. 226.

Carrying firearm or dangerous weapon with unlawful intent—Any person who, with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person of another, goes armed with a pistol or other firearm or dagger, dirk, razor, stiletto, or knife having a blade over 3 inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than 2,500 dollars.

I don't think it would be up to you to prove the negative, that you did not have "unlawful intent". I think that it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that you did have "unlawful intent". Just how would the prosecutor prove what you were "thinking"?

And as an additional thought, if you have friends or acquaintances that know you have a knife as part of your EDC, it would make it even harder to prove that you were carrying it for an "unlawful intent".

[solarguy]

"Just how would the prosecutor prove what you were "thinking"?"

Exactly. It's a thought crime. So why is it in there? If we have the opportunity to clarify a law and remove gray wishy washy areas, then I'm more in favor of it.


Finest regards,

troy

[Roundballer]

It is there so that the prosecutor "can pile it on", an additional 5yrs, when someone DOES intentionally arm themselves with a "weapon" and go out to commit a crime like robbery, assault, etc....

Please keep in mind, "self defense" is not a crime, so it should not be viewed as "unlawful intent". Just always refer to it as a tool, not a weapon.

[shoxroxice]

Maybe I'm missing something, but AKTI website claims this would be a win for MI knife owners. They claim this would once again allow 'switch blades' but if I'm reading the proposed legislation properly this doesn't seem like it would do that at all:


(1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or other wise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person.

This seems to specifically forbid the carry of a non-folding knife... and switch blades to not fold, but rather retract, correct?

[lwout65]

Maybe I'm missing something, but AKTI website claims this would be a win for MI knife owners. They claim this would once again allow 'switch blades' but if I'm reading the proposed legislation properly this doesn't seem like it would do that at all:



This seems to specifically forbid the carry of a non-folding knife... and switch blades to not fold, but rather retract, correct?

stilettos from my understanding are in the handle and with a push of the button ejects and retracts. A switch blade fold's when being closed.

[RS2]

Maybe I'm missing something, but AKTI website claims this would be a win for MI knife owners. They claim this would once again allow 'switch blades' but if I'm reading the proposed legislation properly this doesn't seem like it would do that at all:



This seems to specifically forbid the carry of a non-folding knife... and switch blades to not fold, but rather retract, correct?


The bill provides for the repeal of MCL 750.226a.

[Roundballer]

Maybe I'm missing something, but AKTI website claims this would be a win for MI knife owners. They claim this would once again allow 'switch blades' but if I'm reading the proposed legislation properly this doesn't seem like it would do that at all:


(1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding knife of any length, or any other object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or other wise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person.

This seems to specifically forbid the carry of a non-folding knife... and switch blades to not fold, but rather retract, correct?
Words mean things. You can't separate a portion of a descriptive phrase to make the sentence apply to something else. The author of the sentence could write it that way.....but they didn't.

The portion of the law you quoted ONLY AFFECTS one group of knives, DOUBLE-EDGED NONFOLDING KNIFE.

That portion of the law would have no affect on single edged nonfolding hunting knives.
That portion of the law would have no affect on any "folding knife".

Further, if you go back up a few posts to where I posted the wording of "226a", the portion of law that would be repealed. You would see that the description of the "switch blades" only mentions that it opens by activating a switch, leaver, button, etc. It makes no mention of how it folds or retracts.

[Quaamik]

I'm on the fence with this one.

It seems to be needlessly convoluted for a win or an expansion of rights. It also does NOT:
- recognize knives as having anly legal purpose related to defense
- recognize double edge knives as having ANY valid legal purpose
- recognize longer edged weapons (machetees, swords) as having any legal purpose related to defense
- recognize any other other object, other than a gun, as having any valid purpose related to defense

As an example, someone carrying one of the popular sefl defense oriented walking sticks who did not need one to walk could find themselves argueing "intent" in a courtroom, with anything related to defense being unable to be considered. And it wouldn't necessarily be thier "intent". A prosecutor could show a Cold Steel video of how thier walking stick can be used as a weapon and claim it was "manufactured ... to be used to cause death or injury".

I think we should tank this in favor of getting something that more clearly protects to the right to self defense with objects other than a gun. Idealy with pre-emption for them.

[Quaamik]

Reading it again (did I mention it seems convoluted?) does it only apply to concealed?

Extreem example: If I left my house, walking, with a double edged sword carried openly in a sheath, would I be violating it?

- It's not carried concealed
- It's not carried in a vehicle

Am I missing something?

[7788]

While I agree that this doesn't address everything that would be nice to have, I don't see that as a reason not to support it. Incremental positive changes are better than no changes. Removing the switchblade prohibition is a huge step in the right direction toward abolishing the other nonsensical MI knife laws.

[Ricebrnr]

So does this mean I can have the false edges on my folding pocket knives sharpened?

[backhandman]

lol Does this mean i can walk around with an automatic knife my buddy in the service "has or hasn't" given me yet?

[7788]

I believe if it passes double edged folding knives would be legal, is that how everyone else interprets this?

[DV8r]

Ok, so if I read this correctly, it willbe illegal to carry any knife at all, right?

I guess what we need is a CKL (concealed Knife License).

Any lawyers out there thinka knife falls under the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms? Who sez a person can't arm themselves with a knife.

Comments, for or against are appreciated. I also believe in freedom of speech.
What we need is for the legislature to STOP making laws that allow good people to exercise their "rights" and concentrate on getting the laws preventing already illegal activities enforced. Like illegal entry into the Country.

[Tankhowland]

A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding KNIFE of any length, or any other OBJECT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED TO BE USED TO CAUSE DEATH OR INJURY TO ANY PERSON, concealed on or about his or her person , or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person.


My problem is the "any other OBJECT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED TO BE USED TO CAUSE DEATH OR INJURY TO ANY PERSON" part. It seems to me prosecutors could twist this statement to apply to any knife.

Here is an example of what I mean. (This is just an example this situation doesn't apply to me) Let us say that I am carrying a pocket knife on me. This pocket knife I strictly carry for self defense as I have to walk through the bad side of town and would like to be able to defend myself in case things get ruff. That being said I'm not planning on causing in trouble it's just for extreme emergency situations.

Now wouldn't that knife in the eyes of the law be intended to cause death or injury. Even though I hope to never use it that way, It is its' intended purpose.

[MJ0865]

[SIZE="3"]My problem is the "any other OBJECT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED TO BE USED TO CAUSE DEATH OR INJURY TO ANY PERSON" part. It seems to me prosecutors could twist this statement to apply to any knife.
Yes they could use it against you

However this section does not apply to:
"A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes, or for use as a tool in the course of the persons trade occupation or hobby".

Most knives are designed and used as tools, and your hobby could be anything you want it to be. Even knife collecting. This would force the prosecutors to prove your intent regardless of the weapons design.
:medsmile:
This bill hasn't even passed the house yet, i don't think it will either, but we will just have to wait and see.

[Revdrshad]

Just wrote Rep. Kandrevas and asked him to support it.
It may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction...

[Tallbear]

House Standing Committee Meeting

Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation, Rep. Frank Foster, Chair

DATE: 11/27/2012

TIME: 9:00 AM

PLACE: Room 307 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
SB 1155 (Sen. Kowall) Water; quality; strategic water quality initiatives fund; modify grant and loan programs.

SB 1156 (Sen. Proos) Water; quality; state water pollution control revolving fund; modify definition of disadvantaged community to be eligible for clean water assistance.

SB 1157 (Sen. Pavlov) Water; quality; safe drinking water revolving fund; revise designation of disadvantaged community and modify points awarded for funding priorities.

SB 1158 (Sen. Hildenbrand) Water; quality; transfer of money from the Great Lakes water quality bond fund; modify distributions.

HB 5897 (Rep. Stamas) Natural resources; wetlands; permit exemptions for wetlands and inland lakes and streams; revise, and require more information from department justifying denial of any part 13 permits.

HB 5544 (Rep. Foster) Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise.

HB 5883 (Rep. Johnson) Natural resources; fishing; netting of fish; allow department of natural resources to issue order.

SB 939 (Sen. Meekhof) Environmental protection; permits; environmental leader program; establish in statute and provide incentives.

SB 940 (Sen. Proos) State financing and management; purchasing; priority consideration; grant to companies in environmental leaders program.

SB 941 (Sen. Casperson) Environmental protection; solid waste; public health code; make parts concerning medical waste and radiation control subject to environmental leaders program.

SB 942 (Sen. Green) Environmental protection; other; safe drinking water act; make subject to environmental leaders program.

SB 1031 (Sen. Casperson) Natural resources; forests; provision related to use of municipal forest property; expand to allow recreational activities on property.

To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord

Committee Clerk: David Mead
Phone: 517-373-2013
e-Mail: dmead@house.mi.gov

[Tallbear]

HB 5544 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5544)
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.) & repeals sec. 226a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226a).
Last Action: 11/26/2012 Analysis File Add

[Tallbear]

House Standing Committee Meeting

Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation, Rep. Frank Foster, Chair

DATE: 12/4/2012

TIME: 9:00 AM

PLACE: Room 307 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
SB 1008 (Sen. Moolenaar) Water; other; groundwater dispute resolution program; restore.

SB 1350 (Sen. Casperson) Natural resources; hunting; gray wolf; include in game list and authorize hunting season.

SB 1206 (Sen. Casperson) Environmental protection; solid waste; bulk biosolids of exceptional quality; exempt from certain rules concerning cumulative loading, management practices, and reporting.

SB 1261 (Sen. Hansen) Natural resources; other; Michigan civilian conservation corps; modify program and authorize another entity to establish and operate a Michigan civilian conservation corps.

SB 1262 (Sen. Casperson) Natural resources; other; Michigan civilian conservation corps act; modify program and authorize another entity to establish and operate a Michigan civilian conservation corps.

SB 1263 (Sen. Pavlov) Natural resources; other; Michigan civilian conservation corps; modify, and authorize another entity to establish and operate a Michigan civilian conservation corps.

SB 1264 (Sen. Warren) Natural resources; other; Michigan civilian conservation corps; modify program and authorize another entity to establish and operate a Michigan civilian conservation corps.

SB 1265 (Sen. Green) Natural resources; other; Michigan civilian conservation corps; modify, and authorize another entity to establish and operate a Michigan civilian conservation corps.

SB 1057 (Sen. Booher) Natural resources; forests; private forest management; provide oversight from the department of agriculture and rural development and provide for conservation district assistance to owners of forestland.

SB 1058 (Sen. Meekhof) Agriculture; other; Michigan agriculture environmental assurance program; expand to include lands not utilized for traditional or production agriculture such as forest management.

SB 1059 (Sen. Booher) Property tax; classification; qualified forest property tax program; modify.

SB 1061 (Sen. Moolenaar) Natural resources; forests; promotion of forestry and the development of the forest products industry in the state; require of the departments of agriculture and rural development and natural resources.

SB 1062 (Sen. Green) Property tax; exemptions; definition of qualified agricultural property; revise.

SB 1287 (Sen. Booher) Property tax; classification; allocation of qualified forest property recapture tax; modify.

SB 1238 (Sen. Booher) Natural resources; funding; procedures of proposed land acquisitions and developments; modify.

SB 1021 (Sen. Casperson) Property tax; other; payment in lieu of taxes on certain state-owned land; increase, and prohibit prorated payments.

SB 1022 (Sen. Booher) Property tax; other; payment in lieu of taxes on certain state-owned land; revise.

SB 1280 (Sen. Casperson) State agencies (existing); natural resources; economic and recreational activities on DNR-managed land; require DNR to maximize, and impose term limits on natural resources commission members.

HB 5544 (Rep. Foster) Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise.

PENDING REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

SB 1328 (Sen. Casperson) Environmental protection; cleanups; procedures for cleanups and funding; modify.

To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord

[Tallbear]

HB 5544 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5544)
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.) & repeals sec. 226a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226a).
Last Action: 12/4/2012 referred to second reading

[Tallbear]

HB 5544 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5544)
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.) & repeals sec. 226a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226a).
Last Action: 12/6/2012 transmitted

[Roundballer]

Well.......As usual they screwed the pooch again. There is no longer any language in there to repeal 750.226a. "Switch Blades" will remain illegal.

They also removed the "hobby" as a legitimate reason to be in possession, so I guess re-en-actors are sill left out. Still prohibited from carrying many forms of traditional "cutlery". But they also eliminated the minimum blade length, so "all" knives are now included.

This one can die in the Senate, it doesn't give us anything, in fact it now takes away. It was a waste of time, paper and effort.

[detroit_fan]

can someone explain t me in laymans terms what this bill does? it is not a knife preemption law, is it?

[xmanhockey7]

can someone explain t me in laymans terms what this bill does? it is not a knife preemption law, is it?
It basically changes some wording around and allows for the transport of weapons like swords and what not similar to transporting a pistol. The bill is really not long in the time it took me to write this you could have read through all the changes.

[Roundballer]

It basically changes some wording around and allows for the transport of weapons like swords and what not similar to transporting a pistol. The bill is really not long in the time it took me to write this you could have read through all the changes.
Not any more. The wording has changed. If it doesn't fit in the line below, you can't "transport" it. Except between places that you "control", ie your own house and your property up north, or the business the you own.


(c) A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade or occupation.

They also took out the language that repealed the switchblade law, and they took out the "Hobby" from the above line.

Read the one that "Passed", not the one that was "Introduced".

[xmanhockey7]

Not any more. The wording has changed. If it doesn't fit in the line below, you can't "transport" it. Except between places that you "control", ie your own house and your property up north, or the business the you own.



They also took out the language that repealed the switchblade law, and they took out the "Hobby" from the above line.

Read the one that "Passed", not the one that was "Introduced".
As passed by the house.......


B) A WEAPON CARRIED IN TRANSIT BETWEEN LOCATIONS DESCRIBED IN
15 SUBDIVISION (A) THAT, UNLESS THE WEAPON IS CARRIED FOR A PURPOSE
16 DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (C), IS IN A PROTECTIVE CASE AND IS
17 INACCESSIBLE TO ANY PERSON IN THE VEHICLE.

[Roundballer]

As passed by the house.......
Yes, now look at the whole thing:

Mark-up edited out down to the plain language, emphasis added.


Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument knife of any length, or any other such object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person, concealed on or about his or her person or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person. This subsection does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A weapon carried by the person in his or her dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(b) A weapon carried in transit between locations described in subdivision (a) that, unless the weapon is carried for a purpose described in subdivision (c), is in a protective case and is inaccessible to any person in the vehicle.

(c) A weapon carried for hunting, fishing, or trapping purposes or for use as a tool in the course of the person's trade or occupation.

By the phrase in (b) you are "allowed" to transport between places listed in (a) IF it is cased and inaccessible, PERIOD.
And by (b) there is no restriction on transport, IF it is for those activities listed in (c).

Now, where do swords and such fit into that.

As I said before, they stripped out the word "Hobby" from (c), which would have opened it up for the Ren-Fest people and the Reenacters.
They stripped out the language that repealed the switchblade law.
They left in the change of language in sec 226, that removes the 3" minimum, so the law applies to a blade of any length.

This is a loss, and needs to be killed or left to die.

Here is the current sec 226:

Sec. 226.

Carrying firearm or dangerous weapon with unlawful intent—Any person who, with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person of another, goes armed with a pistol or other firearm or dagger, dirk, razor, stiletto, or knife having a blade over 3 inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than 2,500 dollars.
How is what they are proposing better than what we have now? There is no restriction on taking a sword to a Civil War reenactment. that is being stripped.

Here is the current sec 227, subsec (1)

Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.
In the current law, the language is narrower, and would not include many of the "implements" of reenacting.

Again.... This needs to go away. It does not give anything to most people, and it takes away from some legal activities.

[luckless]

Not any more. The wording has changed. If it doesn't fit in the line below, you can't "transport" it. Except between places that you "control", ie your own house and your property up north, or the business the you own.



They also took out the language that repealed the switchblade law, and they took out the "Hobby" from the above line.

Read the one that "Passed", not the one that was "Introduced".
Any idea who was responsible for the language change? We need to start keeping track of these enemies of liberty and make sure they lose their seats.

[Roundballer]

Nope, No clue. It has to be in records somewhere, I just don't know where or how to access them.

[luckless]

Nope, No clue. It has to be in records somewhere, I just don't know where or how to access them.
I found a reference on the House Journal but nothing about any amendments or substitutions. Foster's office was little help.

[xmanhockey7]

Yes, now look at the whole thing:

Mark-up edited out down to the plain language, emphasis added.


By the phrase in (b) you are "allowed" to transport between places listed in (a) IF it is cased and inaccessible, PERIOD.
And by (b) there is no restriction on transport, IF it is for those activities listed in (c).

Now, where do swords and such fit into that.

As I said before, they stripped out the word "Hobby" from (c), which would have opened it up for the Ren-Fest people and the Reenacters.
They stripped out the language that repealed the switchblade law.
They left in the change of language in sec 226, that removes the 3" minimum, so the law applies to a blade of any length.

This is a loss, and needs to be killed or left to die.

Here is the current sec 226:

How is what they are proposing better than what we have now? There is no restriction on taking a sword to a Civil War reenactment. that is being stripped.

Here is the current sec 227, subsec (1)

In the current law, the language is narrower, and would not include many of the "implements" of reenacting.

Again.... This needs to go away. It does not give anything to most people, and it takes away from some legal activities.
Thank you for clarifying. I was against this bill from the get-go. Now it's even worse.

[Roundballer]

I found a reference on the House Journal but nothing about any amendments or substitutions. Foster's office was little help.
In House Journal #77 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28rsrwgtyzn4onfj45yd4h3s2i%29%29/documents/2011-2012/Journal/House/htm/2012-HJ-12-04-077.htm) it was reported out of Committee with a recommendation to adopt "H-2" all voting Yeah:
Reps. Foster, Huuki, Wayne Schmidt, Damrow, Hughes, Johnson, Pettalia, Haugh and Stapleton.
It happened in committee some how.

Now who it was that put that substitution in..... No clue.


Thank you for clarifying. I was against this bill from the get-go. Now it's even worse.
I am certainly against it now. As introduced it was really a gain on the whole, although I thought it should contain a preemption of local law to the State level.

[kpearce]

I was against this from the start. They simply need to change the concealed pistol permit to read concealed "weapon" permit like Florida. Then we will be able to carry pretty much anything. The knife people in Michigan do not have the support that the firearms people used to have so getting any statewide laws or preemptions passed will be a long time happening.

I have a neck knife that I will no longer be able to carry if this abomination passes. It amazes me that I have been given a permission slip to carry any firearm concealed on me but I can't carry a knife of my choosing. Who dreams up this stuff.


To all those who voted early to support this please learn to wait till you see the real bill that they want to pass first. What do the supporters do now? Call your politician and say nevermind I didn't mean it?

[esq_stu]

ba-a-a-a-a-a-d bill:-(

[G22]

To all those who voted early to support this please learn to wait till you see the real bill that they want to pass first. What do the supporters do now? Call your politician and say nevermind I didn't mean it?

Yes

[Jared1981]

I was against this from the start. They simply need to change the concealed pistol permit to read concealed "weapon" permit like Florida. Then we will be able to carry pretty much anything. The knife people in Michigan do not have the support that the firearms people used to have so getting any statewide laws or preemptions passed will be a long time happening.

I have a neck knife that I will no longer be able to carry if this abomination passes. It amazes me that I have been given a permission slip to carry any firearm concealed on me but I can't carry a knife of my choosing. Who dreams up this stuff.


To all those who voted early to support this please learn to wait till you see the real bill that they want to pass first. What do the supporters do now? Call your politician and say nevermind I didn't mean it?

I tried to get these things passed in the previous session. I had little support and not many politicians cared about it. I think it may take a lawsuit to get some of these knife laws rolled back. Unless people want to start making it an issue in Lansing, nothing will changed.

I've submitted bill drafts, I've done everything I can on this issue. The only politicians who got back to me were Shreltown (term limited out) and Opsommer (will be term limited out).

[luckless]

I tried to get these things passed in the previous session. I had little support and not many politicians cared about it. I think it may take a lawsuit to get some of these knife laws rolled back. Unless people want to start making it an issue in Lansing, nothing will changed.

I've submitted bill drafts, I've done everything I can on this issue. The only politicians who got back to me were Shreltown (term limited out) and Opsommer (will be term limited out).
The odd thing is that this is Representative Foster's bill trying to make it through the committee he chairs. What kind of pressure must he be getting from either leadership or other republicans on his committee? You mean we can't get a flippin' knife law through that allows you to collect old switch blades? Ridiculous!

[Tallbear]

HB 5544 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5544)
Crimes; weapons; prohibitions against carrying certain weapons; revise. Amends secs. 226, 227 & 231 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226 et seq.) & repeals sec. 226a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.226a).
Last Action: 12/12/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM

[M1A Springfield]

So will this bill get passed, or will it never make it out of review?

[Roundballer]

So will this bill get passed, or will it never make it out of review?
This Bill as introduced was a step in the right direction. As it came out of the First committee, it was a piece of garbage that needed to die. It was passed by the house and sent to the Senate.

The Senate assigned it to Committee, and it has died there.

If we want something like this bill (as introduced), it will have to start from square one. Start all over again.

[kpearce]

Excellent!! I am glad it croaked!!

[M1A Springfield]

Excellent!! I am glad it croaked!!

Yeah, this one went south real quick. Back to the start.

[kpearce]

We need pre-empted knife carry everywhere, period. No restrictions. It is absurd that I can legally carry a gun where I cant carry a knife.

[XDM 40 cal]

Yet almost everyone i've seen carrys a knife.

[ezkl2230]

Can someone dumb this down a little? I read it, but is it just broadening what knives can be carried to be anything but double edged knives? As long as its with lawful intent?

Read the revised summary of the bill on the same page.


The bill would rewrite the Section 227 so that the general prohibition would apply to a double-edged non-folding knife of any length and "any other object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury to any person," when concealed on the person or, whether concealed or not, carried in a vehicle. Specific references to a dagger, dirk, and stiletto would be removed.The bill also would allow for a person found in violation of the section to be fined, imprisoned, or both fined and imprisoned, whereas current law only allows for a fine or imprisonment, but not both.

Under Section 226, generally speaking, a person who, with intent to use the weapon unlawfully against the person of another, goes armed with a pistol or other firearm, a razor, or a knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $2,500. House Bill 5544 would retain that provision but remove references in that provision to daggers, dirks, and stilettos, and remove language referring to knives with blades over three inches in length. It also would allow for a person found in violation of Section 226 to be fined, imprisoned, or both fined and imprisoned, whereas current law only allows for a fine or imprisonment, but not both.

The bill would also repeal Section 226a of the Penal Code, which establishes a misdemeanor penalty for any person that sells, offers to sell, or possesses any knife having the appearance of a pocket knife, of which the blades can be opened by the flick of a button, pressure on a handle, or other mechanical contrivance.


Switchblades would no longer be illegal. Cool!

[Roundballer]

Read the revised summary of the bill on the same page.



Switchblades would no longer be illegal. Cool!
Read the dates on this bill and see that it DIED at the close of Legislature LAST YEAR!

[Quaamik]

I'm not comfortable with the "intent" part. If the only thing that saves you or me from legal trouble is my "intent" that morning, how do I prove that. If the prosecutor is very motivated to make you look like a crazy knife toting, gun toting vigilante looking for a chance to use your weapon(s), how do you disprove that?

Your participation in forums like this could be cited as evidence if it was slanted just the right way.

I want it legal, or not. No thought crimes about what I was thinking or intending.

troy

I agree.

I also look at it further. If Michigan feels I'm "safe" to carry one or more pistols, and to keep an AR-15 and seperate loaded mags in the car, why is it that a 3-4 inch knife is a dangerous deadly weapon? Why is a double edged one even worse? Why is a hatchet carried in my car for camping and if needed for emergancies more likely to get me in trouble than an AR-15?

We need statewide preemption to cover ALL weapons and we need the statewide laws to be based on objective reality, not squishy 'feelings". If it's legal to walk down the street with a holstered pistol or slung rifle, it should be legal to carry a folding knife, combat knife, hatchet or freaking sword as well.

[JohnAPA]

What we need is to have the CPL statute amended to define "pistol' as including: pistols, shotguns, rifles, carbines, knives, batons, and other self-defense implements.

The problems is such a definition would make too much sense to pass the House, Senate and Governor's desk. Heaven forbid law-abiding citizens should have the freedom to defend themselves from criminals. Just let the police do their job, right?

[Kaeto]

What police? Soon no city will have any the way they keep laying them off.

[appliancebrad]

What we need is to have the CPL statute amended to define "pistol' as including: pistols, shotguns, rifles, carbines, knives, batons, and other self-defense implements

And have those items prohibited in the Gun Free Zones? Nope don't want that.

What we simply need is an exemption same as LEO's have for knives, batons, saps, blackjacks etc for those people with a CPL. It's pretty stupid that I can legally carry a pistol or several f them but can't carry an auto knife or a sap.

I don't like this Bill as passed by the House. If anyone has spoken with the Sponsor about it, shoot me a PM.

[LibertyOak]

Ok, so if I read this correctly, it willbe illegal to carry any knife at all, right?

I guess what we need is a CKL (concealed Knife License).

Any lawyers out there thinka knife falls under the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms? Who sez a person can't arm themselves with a knife.

Comments, for or against are appreciated. I also believe in freedom of speech.

Common sense at work here. Call AND write your local "representative." This means you can bear arms but cannot have them in a vehicle. FAIL.

[Roundballer]

Common sense at work here. Call AND write your local "representative." This means you can bear arms but cannot have them in a vehicle. FAIL.

This Bill Died at the end of session
LAST YEAR

PLEASE LET THE THREAD DIE TOO.

Calling and writing about this bill will only make you look foolish in their eyes.

Calling and asking to get something just like HB5544 reintroduced would be good, the amendments to this bill were not good.

[jkaxeman]

Well, maybe instead of just saying you don't support it, say why, or something that would help others understand it better.
This^^^

[jkaxeman]

This Bill Died at the end of session
LAST YEAR

PLEASE LET THE THREAD DIE TOO.

Calling and writing about this bill will only make you look foolish in their eyes.

Calling and asking to get something just like HB5544 reintroduced would be good, the amendments to this bill were not good.
Agreed

[diver dan]

Indiana in july of this year legalized the carry of automatic knives, switchblades.Does this new law allow carry of switchblades?

[Divegeek]

No, it didn't. And by the way.......



This Bill Died at the end of session
LAST YEAR

PLEASE LET THE THREAD DIE TOO.

Calling and writing about this bill will only make you look foolish in their eyes.

Calling and asking to get something just like HB5544 reintroduced would be good, the amendments to this bill were not good.