HB 4846 Military to carry in PFZ

[Tallbear]

HB 4846 of 2015 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-HB-4846)
Weapons; firearms; waiver for certain individuals to carry a concealed pistol in pistol-free zones; expand to include certain members of the military. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 8/20/2015 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[45 acp]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of the PFZ's for everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The list of special class citizen's just keeps getting longer. MOC, MCRGO & MGO all need to make it clear that we will not put up with any more special class citizens. We need to get a bill to remove the PFZ and if necessary find reps and senators that will introduce a bill to get rid of pfz every single day they are in session until it happens.

[jgillmanjr]

The subject is slightly deceptive, to the extent that exemption only applies while in uniform.

[G22]

The subject is slightly deceptive, to the extent that exemption only applies while in uniform.

That's because the legislature believes that out of uniform military are not as special as out of uniform police.

[Roundballer]

The subject is slightly deceptive, to the extent that exemption only applies while in uniform.
AND

There is something else afoot. They have struck out some language for some reason.


(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may , but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision.

[Divegeek]

AND

There is something else afoot. They have struck out some language for some reason.

As long as it says "may" it is still optional and isn't a real change. I don't know why they would remove that language but it doesn't really change anything.

[luckless]

Who's constituents asked for this crap?

[Roundballer]

As long as it says "may" it is still optional and isn't a real change. I don't know why they would remove that language but it doesn't really change anything.
I still think that something is strange about it.

Also, take into account the number of people that don't know the difference between "can", "may", and "shall". The extra verbiage made things clear.

It is like posting a "no guns" sign, when it can't be enforced. This leaves doubt in the minds of MLCC licensees' and they could start posting the signs even if they didn't meet the minimum "primary source" level, just because they think that they have to.

[jgillmanjr]

Had breakfast with Tom and Ron this morning.

The strikeout was something that LSB did - they didn't request it - most likely as just a clean up.

I'm not sure how 'may' could be construed as 'must', though.

[G22]

Had breakfast with Tom and Ron this morning.

The strikeout was something that LSB did - they didn't request it - most likely as just a clean up.

I'm not sure how 'may' could be construed as 'must', though.

Did you happen to ask them why they feel that introducing legislation to exempt specific classes is acceptable?

[luckless]

Had breakfast with Tom and Ron this morning.

The strikeout was something that LSB did - they didn't request it - most likely as just a clean up.

I'm not sure how 'may' could be construed as 'must', though.

I assume Tom is the sponsor. Who's Ron?

[DEVIL DOG]

Being military does NOT make a person any more trustworthy than anyone else. When I was in, there were plenty of guys that I wouldn't want carrying a gun in to combat, let alone into a PFZ.

These special exemptions are just plain stupid & reckless.

[bigt8261]

I assume Tom is the sponsor. Who's Ron?

Tom's legislative director.

[Leader]

Being military does NOT make a person any more trustworthy than anyone else. When I was in, there were plenty of guys that I wouldn't want carrying a gun in to combat, let alone into a PFZ.

These special exemptions are just plain stupid & reckless.

But... I thought putting a uniform on or working for the government made you better and more trust worthy then just any ol' working man or even a welfare recipient.

[jgillmanjr]

Did you happen to ask them why they feel that introducing legislation to exempt specific classes is acceptable?

So to start, this only would apply while in uniform.

I'm sending up an RFI about whether or not AR 670-1 (Army uniform and appearance reg) would prohibit the open carry of personal firearms. 1-5(b) indicates that *might* be the case, but I'm not sure.

Indeed, carve outs to 28.425o are weak. However, if it is the case that OC is prohibited while in uniform (and this isn't even taking into account the regs for the other branches that I know jack dick about), this would at least allow for a form of carry in these zones while in uniform.

[luckless]

Being military does NOT make a person any more trustworthy than anyone else. When I was in, there were plenty of guys that I wouldn't want carrying a gun in to combat, let alone into a PFZ.

These special exemptions are just plain stupid & reckless.
I encourage you to share your concerns with the sponsor of this legislation.

PHONE: 517-373-0853
EMAIL: TomBarrett@house.mi.gov

[Jared1981]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of the PFZ's for everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The list of special class citizen's just keeps getting longer. MOC, MCRGO & MGO all need to make it clear that we will not put up with any more special class citizens. We need to get a bill to remove the PFZ and if necessary find reps and senators that will introduce a bill to get rid of pfz every single day they are in session until it happens.

Ummm, MOC has fought carve outs and has taken heat from an unnamed "gun group" and has taken heat from certain elitist GOP politicians who were very upset that MOC had the guts to question their authority.

[G22]

Ummm, MOC has fought carve outs and has taken heat from an unnamed "gun group" and has taken heat from certain elitist GOP politicians who were very upset that MOC had the guts to question their authority.

When you're taking heat for something you believe in, you're doing it right.