PDA

View Full Version : HB 5085 Use of a pistol by a minor



Tallbear
10-18-2013, 11:32 AM
HB 5085 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-5085)
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 10/17/2013 referred to Committee on Natural Resources

shoxroxice
10-28-2013, 07:48 AM
Is CPL exemption not included in that or addressed elsewhere?

luckless
10-28-2013, 08:26 AM
Is CPL exemption not included in that or addressed elsewhere?
It is defined in section 5j of the public act. The link only shows you Section 2.

No, I didn't look up 5j. It doesn't really matter until we see the watered down version sometime in December of 2014. Until then, we won't even know if this is good or bad. Right now, it is good but very insignificant.

Roundballer
10-28-2013, 11:26 AM
Is CPL exemption not included in that or addressed elsewhere?
Under the current law, a youth under 18 must have a parent or guardian directly supervising him/her to be in possession of a pistol on a recognized range for the purpose of instruction or practice.

With this change, a youth can take instruction or practice with just the presence/direction of someone that has had a safety course or holds a CPL, and the parent/guardian doesn't have to be there.

This law still requires that the owner of the pistol be present, as stated directly in 11e. I would not think that the CPL possession would work there. So this change really means nothing.

zigziggityzoo
10-28-2013, 11:31 AM
Under the current law, a youth under 18 must have a parent or guardian directly supervising him/her to be in possession of a pistol on a recognized range for the purpose of instruction or practice.

With this change, a youth can take instruction or practice with just the presence/direction of someone that has had a safety course or holds a CPL, and the parent/guardian doesn't have to be there.

This law still requires that the owner of the pistol be present, as stated directly in 11e. I would not think that the CPL possession would work there. So this change really means nothing.

Well, I wouldn't say it means nothing.

If you're teaching a course AND providing the firearms used, then it makes good sense for this change.

If you're teaching a course and the students are required to bring their own firearms, well then yeah, you're in the same boat you were in before (owner, usually parent, must be present).

Ideally, if this law were to remain on the books, then it should be changed to "The owner or lawful possessor/guardian of the pistol" must be present. Hard to word that, I guess.

Roundballer
10-28-2013, 11:59 AM
Well, I wouldn't say it means nothing.

If you're teaching a course AND providing the firearms used, then it makes good sense for this change.

If you're teaching a course and the students are required to bring their own firearms, well then yeah, you're in the same boat you were in before (owner, usually parent, must be present).

Ideally, if this law were to remain on the books, then it should be changed to "The owner or lawful possessor/guardian of the pistol" must be present. Hard to word that, I guess.
I will wholly agree. I was thinking along the line of getting youth involved in .22 pistol bulls-eye shooting, similar to the way we can get youth involved with small-bore rifle shooting. Most clubs or other groups can't afford to have that many pistols on hand. For that, it would be useless.

How about:

(e) The owner of the pistol is physically present, or where possession is otherwise allowed by law.

That should then include the Janet Klukluc sp? act, and the CPL exception.

Tallbear
11-26-2013, 01:43 PM
House Standing Committee Meeting

Natural Resources, Rep. Andrea LaFontaine, Chair

DATE: Tuesday, December 03, 2013

TIME: 12:00 PM

PLACE: Room 307, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 5085 (Rep. Potvin) Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals.

Bronson
12-02-2013, 05:07 PM
So this bill would allow me to take my nieces and nephews shooting without having to take their parents along too?

Bronson

Tallbear
12-03-2013, 12:11 PM
HB 5085 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-5085)
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 12/2/2013 Analysis File Added

bradymsu
12-03-2013, 03:23 PM
The Michigan House Natural Resources Committee today unanimously approved HB 5085 which would alter the requirement that an individual under the age of 18 be under the physical presence and supervision of a parent or guardian while at a recognized target range for target practice or instruction in pistol safety. As an alternative to parental supervision the bill would allow the youth to be in the physical presence and under the direct supervision of any individual who is 21 years of age or older and has successfully completed a pistol safety training course certified by a state or national organization and meeting criteria for the safe handling of firearms. Parents or legal guardians would not be required to have pistol safety training as per current law. The bill also makes no adjustments to term "recognized target range or shooting facility". An amendment was attempted to the bill that would have required parental consent prior to youth pistol activities. The amendment was defeated. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.

xmanhockey7
12-04-2013, 02:21 AM
This must be Potvin's attempt at seeming pro-gun.

Tallbear
12-04-2013, 11:27 AM
HB 5085 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-5085)
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 12/3/2013 referred to second reading

that guy
01-23-2014, 05:15 AM
Anyone have any insight / inside info on this one? I see nothing is shown as in if the 2nd reading is coming or has come yet.

I hope it gets thru.

This would be great for us Instructors who want to get children interested in shooting and safety.

Like someone above stated, if an instructor were to provide pistols this should work.

Lets keep hoping it gets moving.

Tallbear
03-14-2014, 11:39 PM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 3/12/2014 placed on third reading

Tallbear
03-14-2014, 11:40 PM
HB 5085 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-5085)
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 3/13/2014 transmitted

Tallbear
03-19-2014, 11:04 AM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 3/18/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Tallbear
04-26-2014, 12:20 PM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 4/25/2014 Analysis File Added

Tallbear
04-28-2014, 09:38 AM
COMMITTEE: Judiciary

DATE: Wednesday, April 30, 2014

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933

PHONE: Tony Mosesso (373-5323)
Committee Clerk



**AMENDED AGENDA**

SB 788 Sen. Jones Torts; premises liability; liability of possessor of land for injuries to trespassers; codify.

SB 841 Sen. Jones Crimes; penalties; penalties for certain violations involving food assistance; revise, and provide for forfeiture of property obtained in the violation.

SB 842 Sen. Jones Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for crime of food stamp fraud; revise to reflect increased penalties.

SB 843 Sen. Jones Human services; other; inspector general within the department of human services to appoint agents with limited arrest powers and the powers conferred on peace officers; allow.

SB 844 Sen. Jones Weapons; other; certain agents of the state department of human services office of inspector general; exempt from certain weapons prohibitions.

SB 857 Sen. Schuitmaker Torts; liability; administration of a drug in response to a drug overdose; provide protection from civil liability.

SB 858 Sen. Schuitmaker Crimes; controlled substances; immunity from criminal prosecution or administrative sanction for prescribing, dispensing, possessing, or administering opioid antagonist; provide for.

SB 859 Sen. Schuitmaker Health; emergency services; protocols that require emergency response vehicles to carry opioid antagonists and require emergency services personnel to be trained; require medical control authority to develop.

SB 860 Sen. Schuitmaker Health; pharmaceuticals; opioid antagonist including naloxone hydrochloride; allow prescribers to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense under certain circumstances to friends or family of individuals who may suffer overdose, and require department to publish a report.

HB 5085 Rep. Potvin Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals.

Tallbear
05-01-2014, 09:23 AM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 5/1/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

Tallbear
05-02-2014, 08:55 AM
HB 5085 of 2013 Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422). Last Action: 5/1/2014 Analysis File Added

appliancebrad
05-03-2014, 09:42 AM
Pam and I oppose this Bill as passed by the House. While we agree that it makes it easier for minors to receive an introduction to pistol shooting, it introduces the idea of "mandatory" training for pistol possession. This can easily morph into requiring a pistol safety class for anyone to simply obtain a purchase permit. Legislators would then look at the CPL system already in place and conclude that it meets "a pistol safety course" requirement. So we then would have mandatory CPL's for pistol ownership. Bad policy.

langenc
05-03-2014, 10:14 PM
So this bill would allow me to take my nieces and nephews shooting without having to take their parents along too?

Bronson

Would also allow minor to rec instruction with a loaned handgun and parent not present.

A local club has a youth league for rifle. This would allow a handgun league, it seems. Club members could supply guns.

Tallbear
06-11-2014, 08:17 AM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 6/10/2014 INSERTED FULL TITLE

gjgalligan
06-12-2014, 06:43 AM
Just a thought, how many people, that would be good at supervising a youth, do not have the required class?

Example: a LEO with no CPL class training. He is good with firearms but would not be able to supervise anybody (under age).

hendo
06-12-2014, 10:30 AM
Currently, taking my 15 y/o nephew to the range to shoot my .22 pistol with his parents permission, but without their presence, is illegal?

Tallbear
06-12-2014, 11:21 AM
HB 5085 of 2013
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception to certain individuals. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 6/11/2014 bill ordered enrolled

Tallbear
08-27-2015, 09:32 AM
HB 5085 of 2013 (PA 201 of 2014)
Weapons; safety and training; requirement for physical presence of parent or guardian during use of a pistol by a minor; provide exception. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).
Last Action: 8/26/2015 Analysis File Added

ninjatoth
08-27-2015, 11:16 AM
The thing I always hate about these rules is that you HAVE to take your child to a recognized shooting facility to make use of a pistol by a minor legal. You could live in a rural area with dozens of secluded acres and your own shooting range like I have, but teaching your own kid to shoot your own handgun would still be illegal there. They need to drop the recognized shooting facility clause.

langenc
08-27-2015, 11:57 AM
Drop the whole thing!! inc the sponsor(s).

Roundballer
08-27-2015, 11:59 AM
The thing I always hate about these rules is that you HAVE to take your child to a recognized shooting facility to make use of a pistol by a minor legal. You could live in a rural area with dozens of secluded acres and your own shooting range like I have, but teaching your own kid to shoot your own handgun would still be illegal there. They need to drop the recognized shooting facility clause.

You might want to read it again, and use the same words that they do. You will also have to keep them in the same order.

What it says is:


(b) The person is at a recognized target range.

Here are a few words that they don't use: public, commercial, approved, facility, improved, or regulated. They also don't give a definition of "recognized range".

It would then fall to a sort of "sensible person" test. "Would a sensible person (that knew what a range was) recognize what you have is a range?"

If there is a "backstop", a "firing line", and "targets", and they are recognizable as such, you have a recognizable range. You would also have to be sure that discharge of a firearm in that area is legal.

ninjatoth
08-27-2015, 12:57 PM
You might want to read it again, and use the same words that they do. You will also have to keep them in the same order.

What it says is:



Here are a few words that they don't use: public, commercial, approved, facility, improved, or regulated. They also don't give a definition of "recognized range".

It would then fall to a sort of "sensible person" test. "Would a sensible person (that knew what a range was) recognize what you have is a range?"

If there is a "backstop", a "firing line", and "targets", and they are recognizable as such, you have a recognizable range. You would also have to be sure that discharge of a firearm in that area is legal.

Somewhere in MI law there is a definition of recognized target range because I have dug into this before, and it differs from the rule for taking a firearm into an area where wild animals frequent. I know under that law any reasonable target can be up to prevent you from being accused of poaching, but as for a recognized range for kids shooting handguns I know that is a different definition.

Roundballer
08-27-2015, 06:14 PM
Somewhere in MI law there is a definition of recognized target range because I have dug into this before, and it differs from the rule for taking a firearm into an area where wild animals frequent. I know under that law any reasonable target can be up to prevent you from being accused of poaching, but as for a recognized range for kids shooting handguns I know that is a different definition.
Here is another concept in laws; you can't apply a definition from another act to the act your are reading.

Here is the ONLY definition for a range, and it is in the Sport Shooting Range Protection Act. "Act 269 of 1989" That act is about the protection of "sportsmen's clubs" and the like. It does not apply to this this section of law:

MCL 691-1541 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-691-1541)


691.1541 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

As used in this act:

(d) “Sport shooting range” or “range” means an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.

And even that does not quantify what would be "recognized" as a range. It just qualifies that if it is used as such, it is.