HB 4105 amend provisions in Michigan penal code

[Tallbear]

HB 4105 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4105)
Weapons; firearms; weapon-free zones; amend provisions in Michigan penal code to include libraries. Amends sec. 234d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.234d).
Last Action: 1/24/2013 referred to Committee on Local Government

[Sgt 45]

Let's hope it stays in committee.

[xmanhockey7]

Let's hope it stays in committee.

+1. Only changes I want to see to 750.234d is a full repeal or an adjustment to the liquor license part. At least not include places like Meijers.

[Roundballer]

+1. Only changes I want to see to 750.234d is a full repeal or an adjustment to the liquor license part. At least not include places like Meijers.
A full repeal would be great.

A minimum should be to exclude parking lots from the premiss restrictions.

[xmanhockey7]

A full repeal would be great.

A minimum should be to exclude parking lots from the premiss restrictions.
As far as places licensed to sell liquor is concerned I really don't think parking lots are included. The other places would/could be a different story. IANAL

[Roundballer]

As far as places licensed to sell liquor is concerned I really don't think parking lots are included. The other places would/could be a different story. IANAL
The law MCL 750-234d (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d) says "premisses" and does not limit the definition. Then it includes the buildings and curtilage of the property.

There is an exemption in MCL 28-425o (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425o) that excludes parking lots, but that ONLY applies to MCL 28.425o.

So it plainly says that possession of a firearm at those places is illegal if you don't have one of the exemptions, one of which is a CPL.

[xmanhockey7]

The law MCL 750-234d (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d) says "premisses" and does not limit the definition. Then it includes the buildings and curtilage of the property.

There is an exemption in MCL 28-425o (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425o) that excludes parking lots, but that ONLY applies to MCL 28.425o.

So it plainly says that possession of a firearm at those places is illegal if you don't have one of the exemptions, one of which is a CPL.


750.234d.
(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.

By definition of R436.1001(i) of the liquor control commission a "licensed premises" is:

Any portion of a building, structure, room or enclosure on real estate that is owned, leased, used, controlled, or operated by a licensee in the conduct of the business at the location for which the licensee is licensed by the commission, except when otherwise specified by commission rule or written commission order.

It would seem to me if talking about an established licensed to sell liquor that their "premises" would NOT include the parking lot. I could be wrong as I am not a lawyer but I do believe that to be legal.

[Roundballer]

What you are doing is exactly the point I was making. You can not take a definition from another law, and especially from "rules" of another department, and apply them to the law in question.

In the MLCC's rules, the word "premises" appears 634 times, "licensed premises" - 205 times within those, "establishment" - 98, and "licensed establishment" 30 of the 98. Only "licensed premises" has a definition, but you will find in many places that it says that "The terms defined in R 436.1001 have the same meaning when used in these rules."

If the Legislature wanted to use the definitions from the MLCC, they would have said so.

Then you will find things like:


(3) If a violation occurs in an establishment that is licensed by the commission for consumption of alcoholic liquor on the licensed premises, a person who is a licensee or the clerk, agent, or employee of a licensee shall not be charged with a violation of subsection (1) or section 801(2) unless the licensee or the clerk, agent, or employee of the licensee knew or should have reasonably known with the exercise of due diligence that a person less than 21 years of age possessed or consumed alcoholic liquor on the licensed premises and the licensee or clerk, agent, or employee of the licensee failed to take immediate corrective action.

Makes one think that "establishment" and "premises" is not interchangeable.

[Harry25]

*sigh* My representative co-sponsored this...

Edit: Email sent. I will let everyone know if/when I receive a reply.