SB 0015 Michigan firearms freedom act

[Tallbear]

SB 0015 of 2015 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-SB-0015)
Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create. Creates new act.
Last Action: 1/20/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[Walther]

Without reading the entire thing and comparing it to the legislation with the same name they tried a year or two ago, is there anything different in this, or is it the same useless, toothless snoozefest?

[Roundballer]

Yep, that is about it.

This is just a feel good declaration that doesn't really contradict or limit the Feds on anything. It is just a statement of affirmation of State rights.

[Jared1981]

Without reading the entire thing and comparing it to the legislation with the same name they tried a year or two ago, is there anything different in this, or is it the same useless, toothless snoozefest?


I hope you weren't expecting the republicans in Lansing to do anything productive like tie bar a bunch of gun bills to the sitting democrat governors pet projects....


I mean no insult to Granholm, as she actually signed pro gun bills into law.

[45 acp]

Yep, that is about it.

This is just a feel good declaration that doesn't really contradict or limit the Feds on anything. It is just a statement of affirmation of State rights.

It limits the Feds by making all Fed gun laws not applicable to any gun manufactured in Michigan that is sold in Michigan as long as it never leaves Michigan.

Now
01/20/15
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Where it will die and never see the light of day again.

If it ever gets a vote and passes Snyder will veto it.

Not enough balls in the House and Senate to override his veto of it.

So effectively yes This is just a feel good declaration. It is just a statement of affirmation of State rights.

[Roundballer]

It limits the Feds by making all Fed gun laws not applicable to any gun manufactured in Michigan that is sold in Michigan as long as it never leaves Michigan.
Meet me part way on that. It leaves the exclusions below in place, and it doesn't eliminate from current law the requirements for "license" from the Feds to possess NFA items. It does, more or less, eliminate Federal law about MOST "making" of firearms. But that is not regulated for noncommercial purposes now.


Sec. 4. Section 3 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by 1 person.
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1-1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant.
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm.
(d) A firearm that discharges 2 or more projectiles with 1 activation of the trigger or other firing device.



Now
01/20/15
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Where it will die and never see the light of day again.

If it ever gets a vote and passes Snyder will veto it.

Not enough balls in the House and Senate to override his veto of it.

So effectively yes This is just a feel good declaration. It is just a statement of affirmation of State rights.

I %100 agree that this is the destiny of this bill. That is the way the previous Michigan bills like this one has gone.

Also, note that this is written more like a resolution in form than any bill that was introduced with the intent of it becoming law.

PAVLOV use to be my Senator, he talks a good game but has no follow through.

[Walther]

I hope you weren't expecting the republicans in Lansing to do anything productive like tie bar a bunch of gun bills to the sitting democrat governors pet projects....


I mean no insult to Granholm, as she actually signed pro gun bills into law.


It limits the Feds by making all Fed gun laws not applicable to any gun manufactured in Michigan that is sold in Michigan as long as it never leaves Michigan.

Now
01/20/15
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Where it will die and never see the light of day again.

If it ever gets a vote and passes Snyder will veto it.

Not enough balls in the House and Senate to override his veto of it.

So effectively yes This is just a feel good declaration. It is just a statement of affirmation of State rights.

The point is the bill is irrelevant, mostly unenforcable, and silly. These types of bills have been passed in other states, mostly after Sandy Hook and the newest attempt to ban certain guns. They are feel-good legislation that carries ZERO weight. It's just a way for a state legislator to thumb his nose at Washington.

If this bill is written like its predecessor, not a bit of it holds water once you cross the state line and interstate commerce kicks in. So, as long a manufacturer makes a gun part in the state, and it is sold and remains in the state, it counts. How many manufacturers would you expect to jump on board with that?

[xmanhockey7]

The point is the bill is irrelevant, mostly unenforcable, and silly. These types of bills have been passed in other states, mostly after Sandy Hook and the newest attempt to ban certain guns. They are feel-good legislation that carries ZERO weight. It's just a way for a state legislator to thumb his nose at Washington.

If this bill is written like its predecessor, not a bit of it holds water once you cross the state line and interstate commerce kicks in. So, as long a manufacturer makes a gun part in the state, and it is sold and remains in the state, it counts. How many manufacturers would you expect to jump on board with that?

It's still good legislation as long as the Feds don't stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Montana passed a similar law and has had people making guns within the state for sale. I saw one guy making machine guns. Just keep the gun in the state. You're probably not going to be doing this with a carry pistol, but other pistols or long guns would be easy enough to keep in state.

[mosnar87]

Would it actually count as "interstate commerce" if the person owning and possessing the firearm (made in MI, under this law) in another state was a resident of Michigan and not taking up residence in the other state or transferring ownership of the firearm to anyone while outside of Michigan?

I fail to see how any reasonable court could consider possession of ones own privately owned property "commerce" regardless of whether the possession occurred on the inside or the outside of an arbitrary boundary.

[Roundballer]

Would it actually count as "interstate commerce" if the person owning and possessing the firearm (made in MI, under this law) in another state was a resident of Michigan and not taking up residence in the other state or transferring ownership of the firearm to anyone while outside of Michigan?

I fail to see how any reasonable court could consider possession of ones own privately owned property "commerce" regardless of whether the possession occurred on the inside or the outside of an arbitrary boundary.

It would be "transported in Commerce", it itself would not be commerce.

Read Miller vs US. 1939 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html)

[mosnar87]

Wow. Talk about a broad brush. I just started reading that case and it didn't make any logical sense. I then looked up the legal definition of commerce, holy crap. By that definition, if you owned property on the state line, walked into your neighbors yard (in the next state) for a quick chat, then walked back into your own yard, you would have engaged in "interstate commerce". What an absolute pile of overreaching virile male bovine manure.
:rant::cuss::protest::facepalm:

[Roundballer]

What an absolute pile of overreaching virile male bovine manure.
:rant::cuss::protest::facepalm:

Yep, it sure is. The original intent of the "interstate commerce clause" was to provide to the Feds, and to prohibit the States, from making international treaties or creating tariffs between the States. This was a problem in the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. The Articles didn't limit the States, yet the power had to be vested somewhere. The clause was not supposed to be applied the way it is applied today. It was only to make things even between the States and allow for treaties with the Indian Nations and foreign governments that would be honored in all States. There is another clause that they use to expand that, listed below.


(The Congress shall have power) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

(The Congress shall have power) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
US Constitution Article I section 8 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8)
They couple those with the 10th Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment) and claim overreaching power, and through the courts, "redefine" what words like "commerce" mean.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Caliper]

Wow. Talk about a broad brush. I just started reading that case and it didn't make any logical sense. I then looked up the legal definition of commerce, holy crap. By that definition, if you owned property on the state line, walked into your neighbors yard (in the next state) for a quick chat, then walked back into your own yard, you would have engaged in "interstate commerce". What an absolute pile of overreaching virile male bovine manure.
:rant::cuss::protest::facepalm:

Actually, it's even worse. If you make chicken feed for use only to feed your own chickens and that feed never leaves your farm, you are engaged in interstate commerce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[Walther]

What an absolute pile of overreaching virile male bovine manure.
:rant::cuss::protest::facepalm:

Federalists.

[RDak]

Nothing to see here.........Snyder will veto anything like this.

[bigt8261]

If I recall correctly, last year's version was passed out of committee and died on the floor of the Senate.

[bigt8261]

Yep. Here is the bill from last session SB 63 '13

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SB-0063

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary



DATE: Tuesday, February 16, 2016



TIME: 3:00 p.m.



PLACE: Rooms 402 and 403, Capitol Building, 100 S. Capitol Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933



PHONE: Corey Woodby (517) 373-1721

Committee Clerk





AGENDA



SB 15 Sen. Pavlov Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create.



SB 696 Sen. Johnson Crimes; other; reporting of burn injuries by medical personnel; require under certain circumstances.



SB 697 Sen. Jones Insurance; property and casualty; reporting requirement by insured for a nonaccidental building or other structure fire; provide for.



HB 4321 Rep. Lucido Criminal procedure; search and seizure; warrant requirement to search a premises; provide for resident consent exception.



HB 4353 Rep. Santana Animals; animal shelters; animal shelters to deny adoptions under certain circumstances; require, and allow animal shelters to consider prior criminal history before adoption.



HB 4355 Rep. Muxlow Animals; animal shelters; ICHAT search by animal control shelters and animal protection shelters when allowing an animal adoption; require.



HB 4747 Rep. Hughes Property; other; adverse possession; prohibit against local units of government.

[Tallbear]

SB 0015 of 2015
Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create. Creates new act.
Last Action: 2/23/2016 Analysis File Added

[Roundballer]

SB 0015 of 2015
Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create. Creates new act.
Last Action: 2/23/2016 Analysis File Added


SUMMARY OF SUBSTITUTE BILL IN COMMITTEE (Date Completed: 2-23-16)
This document analyzes: SB0015


Analysis of a SUBSTITUTE bill that hasn't been published?

[Kaeto]

The summary of the substitute bill says that the bill wont apply to any of the following:



-- A firearm that could not be carried and used by one person.

-- A firearm that had a bore diameter greater than 1.5 inches and that used smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant.

-- Ammunition with a projectile that exploded using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile left the firearm.

-- A firearm that discharged two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

[MI_XD]

The summary of the substitute bill says that the bill wont apply to any of the following:



-- A firearm that could not be carried and used by one person.

-- A firearm that had a bore diameter greater than 1.5 inches and that used smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant.

-- Ammunition with a projectile that exploded using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile left the firearm.

This would not allow for the new bullet that was just developed that would self destruct after a certain distance, so as to not be hitting innocent people a mile away...

-- A firearm that discharged two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Would this preclude the Judge and the .410 Shotgun shell usage?


Bold is my thoughts

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary



DATE: Tuesday, May 3, 2016



TIME: 3:00 p.m.



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



PHONE: Corey Woodby (517) 373-1721

Committee Clerk





AMENDED AGENDA



SB 15 Sen. Pavlov Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create.



HB 4787 Rep. Price Crimes; other; coercing female to have an abortion against her will; prohibit, and provide penalties.



HB 4830 Rep. Jenkins Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for crime of coercing a female to have an abortion against her will; enact.





Testimony only:

SB 723 Sen. Johnson Criminal procedure; records; automatic expunction of arrest records for wrongful arrest due to mistaken identity or identity theft; provide for.

[Tallbear]

SB 0015 of 2015
Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create. Creates new act.
Last Action: 5/4/2016 Analysis File Added

[Tallbear]

SB 0015 of 2015
Weapons; firearms; Michigan firearms freedom act; create. Creates new act.
Last Action: 5/5/2016 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1