H.B. 4003, 4004, 4005 4006 consitutional carry bills

[Tallbear]

HB 4003 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4003)
Weapons; concealed; permit requirement to carry and transport a concealed pistol; eliminate for certain individuals. Amends sec. 12a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432a).
Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017




HB 4004 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4004)
Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references. Amends secs. 12 & 15 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432 & 28.435). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4005'17
Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017




HB 4005 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4005)
Crimes; weapons; transportation and possession of a firearm; allow for certain individuals. Amends secs. 227 & 230 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227 & 750.230) & repeals sec. 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.231a).
Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017

HB 4006 of 2017
Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references. Amends sec. 43510 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43510). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4005'17
Last Action: 1/12/2017 bill electronically reproduced 01/11/2017

[Kaeto]

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!

[DrScaryGuy]

what am i missing about 4003 that's so bad?
looks like it will make a form of constitutional concealed carry, with bonus good times for people that actually bother to get permits.

[Kaeto]

Constitutional Carry only for Police Officers, Correctional Officers, Active Duty Military is what it does.

[DrScaryGuy]

am I wrong in reading it that all of that is currently in effect, and only the stuff in bold would get added?
sections a-k happened this year already http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(j0ygmsgxzmhh0myvi02qnizy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-432a

[zigziggityzoo]

The reason it's a heck no for me: This makes it fully legal to carry concealed with no permit but 1) Requires disclosure anyway when legally stopped, and 2) allows police to detain you for the purposes of verifying you're legal to carry, without any RAS that you're not legal to carry.

Number two is the bigger deal here. There's no need to make sure you're legal UNLESS they develop a Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion that you're not legal.

And also, Michigan should not require disclosure anymore. More than 40 states get by without any increased risk to their police officers without mandatory disclosure. It does not make police or citizens measurably safer, so why, then, is it required?

[detroitbassist]

Kaeto,

Help me see what I'm missing. I read the html versions, which show changes in boldface. In the first one (4003), a concealed carry permit would no longer be required by ANY adults 21+ who are allowed to have a pistol, carriers would have the same duty to disclose that CPL holders already have, and a $500 max civil infraction if you don't. The changes to the other bills just seem to clean up language.

Sec. 12a. (1) The requirements of this act for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol do not apply to any of the following:
(l) An individual who is 21 years of age or older and who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

[Roundballer]

It would be constitutional carry for everyone over 21, but it also extends "duty to inform", and is a poorly written POS.


When are these guys going to learn, take the play from the anti's book.

Just trash several laws, and then negotiate from there. Start off by revoking "duty to inform" making CC into "Constitutional Carry", not "Concealed Carry", and wiping out all costs having to do with a CPL, and let them negotiate back a little. Maybe throw in the repeal of training certificate expiration.

ETA:
Most everything else in there is just "house keeping". Things like referencing the correct section of law caused by other changes and Capitalization of proper names.
I don't understand the shall be to IS changes.

[PhotoTom]

No way in heck will the State give-up the cash cow known as CPL fees.

Failure to disclose (under this bill) is a civil infraction of $500…so one failure to disclose in less than 25 years = no saved CPL fees for the individual.

There are a LOT of CPL applicants that don't realize they don't qualify when they apply…so what is the penalty for those carrying concealed that honestly "thought" they qualified to carry concealed…but don't? Felony CCW? That's one way to turn an otherwise good evening into a nightmare when pulled-over for rolling a stop sign...

[zigziggityzoo]

No way in heck will the State give-up the cash cow known as CPL fees.

Failure to disclose (under this bill) is a civil infraction of $500…so one failure to disclose in less than 25 years = no saved CPL fees for the individual.

There are a LOT of CPL applicants that don't realize they don't qualify when they apply…so what is the penalty for those carrying concealed that honestly "thought" they qualified to carry concealed…but don't? Felony CCW? That's one way to turn an otherwise good evening into a nightmare when pulled-over for rolling a stop sign...

This is a blanket exemption for people 21+ that are eligible to possess a firearm. Regardless of whether they currently qualify for a CPL, if they still have their gun rights, they can carry concealed.

They butchered the wording in the CCW law in order to make an exemption for anyone carrying a firearm concealed, or concealed/otherwise in a vehicle, but that law basically doesn't count at all for pistols.

[PhotoTom]

This is a blanket exemption for people 21+ that are eligible to possess a firearm. Regardless of whether they currently qualify for a CPL, if they still have their gun rights, they can carry concealed.

They butchered the wording in the CCW law in order to make an exemption for anyone carrying a firearm concealed, or concealed/otherwise in a vehicle, but that law basically doesn't count at all for pistols.

Background checks for a LTP 20 years ago are not the same as background checks today. Someone that has "legally possessed" a pistol for years and years may come to the rude awakening that they don't qualify based on today's means of digging things up from their past.

[zigziggityzoo]

Background checks for a LTP 20 years ago are not the same as background checks today. Someone that has "legally possessed" a pistol for years and years may come to the rude awakening that they don't qualify based on today's means of digging things up from their past.

still, the new wording of the CCW law provides a blanket exception. They won't get a CCW charge for it. It certainly won't mean there might not be other charges (felon in possession), but I feel like people ought to know whether they're a felon.

[PhotoTom]

still, the new wording of the CCW law provides a blanket exception. They won't get a CCW charge for it. It certainly won't mean there might not be other charges (felon in possession), but I feel like people ought to know whether they're a felon.

I processed thousands of CPL applications/background checks for Wayne County. I'm here to tell you…people applied and had no idea they had felonies on their records, warrants out for their arrest, etc.

Maybe it's just a Wayne County thing?

We see people here asking about past charges…if they will show-up…if they will affect their application eligibility, etc. For every one that bothers to ask…there are numerous individuals that assume they are good to go based on what they were led to believe by the prosecutor and/or their lawyer at the time. Some just have no idea of the difference between a felony, misdemeanor or a civil infraction. Typically, if they apply for a CPL today, they find-out (although I caught a number of instances where felons were granted CPL's before my time).

[JasonJ]

I'm good with the anyone 21 years of age or older exception, I'm even good with duty to inform (I'd do it out of courtesy in most cases anyhow), what bugs me is the ability for law enforcement to detain me to check on my legality... if there is no RAS, as is the case now with open carry, the possession alone should not be sufficient to detain. Now if I'm doing something I'm not supposed to, or it's a traffic stop because I'm doing 90 in a 55, well, ok yeah... they're going to run their checks.

[DEVIL DOG]

I would hope that when this makes it to a committee, they will chip away at the bad parts & add some good stuff before it hits the floor.

[luckless]

I would hope that when this makes it to a committee, they will chip away at the bad parts & add some good stuff before it hits the floor.

Name the gun bill that ever got better in committee because they chipped away at the bad parts.

It just doesn't happen that way.

[Caliper]

I'm even good with duty to inform (I'd do it out of courtesy in most cases anyhow)

I could tolerate a duty to inform (could always fix it later) but, a $500 fine for failing to inform? NO.

[JasonJ]

I could tolerate a duty to inform (could always fix it later) but, a $500 fine for failing to inform? NO.

Especially if there was no RAS to begin with.... that's just insult to injury.

[Garymac]

I believe some states with constitutional carry (CC) do have a duty to inform clause. I think Alaska is one. I don't like Duty to Inform but If that's what it takes to get CC initially it can always be changed in the future. As for a fine, maybe $25 is appropriate but not $500.

If we were able to get CC passed would be any provisions for still obtaining a CPL in case you wanted to go to another state that requires one?

If so, maybe we could bargain to get the current system scrapped and replaced with a simple endorsement on one's driver's license or state ID. Pay for it like a motorcycle endorsement.

So maybe we bargain for this. Give us CC but allow people who want or need a CPL to get one. They still have to take a class but you simply take the cert to the SOS, they run you and you get an endorsement on your DL or SID. That makes everybody happy, the state, firearms instructors, legislators etc. Maybe take the duty to inform out of the deal if you get a permit. After all if you are in the system they already know you are carrying at least in a traffic stop.

[luckless]

The CPL laws would remain. You would still be able to get a CPL for reciprocity.

[Leader]

I could tolerate a duty to inform (could always fix it later) but, a $500 fine for failing to inform? NO.

This would be the BEST time to "fix" the duty to inform.
We have it with our currant CPL & haven't been able to "fix it", in fact, it has gotten WORSE.

[Roundballer]

Sorry Gary:

I believe some states with constitutional carry (CC) do have a duty to inform clause. I think Alaska is one. I don't like Duty to Inform but If that's what it takes to get CC initially it can always be changed in the future. As for a fine, maybe $25 is appropriate but not $500.
There are only about 12 States that have "duty to inform", some of them may also be CC states. We already have it, and it is one of those things that need fixing NOW, because they just increased the penalty. That "fix it later" concept never happens.

If we were able to get CC passed would be any provisions for still obtaining a CPL in case you wanted to go to another state that requires one?
In this instance, they are adding it as an exception to the requirement for the permit. They are not touching the permit law at all. Past attempts at this just removed it from being a crime.

If so, maybe we could bargain to get the current system scrapped and replaced with a simple endorsement on one's driver's license or state ID. Pay for it like a motorcycle endorsement.
They are not changing the current system, and many, many people don't want it on their DL to advertise to every person you have to show the DL to that you may be carrying.

So maybe we bargain for this. Give us CC but allow people who want or need a CPL to get one. They still have to take a class but you simply take the cert to the SOS, they run you and you get an endorsement on your DL or SID. That makes everybody happy, the state, firearms instructors, legislators etc. Maybe take the duty to inform out of the deal if you get a permit. After all if you are in the system they already know you are carrying at least in a traffic stop.The problem is that they have no reason to bargain with us on this subject. This bill (if they will allow CC at all) gives them everything up front, nothing to "bargain away" to get it passed.

[DP425]

This isn't going to happen with snyder, and there won't be enough votes to over-turn a veto. As if it could ever get so far as a veto- snyder has the legislature in his pocket.

[langenc]

Name the gun bill that ever got better in committee because they chipped away at the bad parts.

It just doesn't happen that way.

I was surprized to read that one. I am not a legal eagle but dont recall much that was improved in committee.

[confused8122]

Don't know if anyone on here has an opinion on gun owners of America, but I sent them a link. This was the response, which was mostly agreed so far. The harassment possibility, and the probably won't pass.

Overall, House Bill 4003 looks like a pretty good bill.

Our one concern is the provision allowing the police to detain anyone with a concealed weapon to determine whether they have a criminal record.* This could result in harassment.

On the other hand, in Michigan, this could be the best concealed carry bill which is politically possible.

We will look at the alternatives and discuss this among our staff to see if we should put out an alert endorsing it.

And thanks again for contacting us. If you haven’t already, please consider signing up for GOA’s free Email Alerts, which includes pre-written letters you can send to officials in a few clicks:*gunowners.org/alerts

[jebates]

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!

What does this do to open carry for those that do not have CPL? It also allows officers to detain people if an officer wants to for what ever reason. I could wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.

[DV8r]

I don't understand the shall be to IS changes.
I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.

[luckless]

I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.

Like, "Thou shall not lie"?

They have switched to common core legislation. They are also changing "person" to "individual" because they want to include corporations into the law. I still don't understand how they expect to send a corporation to prison.

I would really like to know who is responsible for mandating the change. Who told all of the legislators to change?

[Roundballer]

I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.


Like, "Thou shall not lie"?

They have switched to common core legislation. They are also changing "person" to "individual" because they want to include corporations into the law. I still don't understand how they expect to send a corporation to prison.

I would really like to know who is responsible for mandating the change. Who told all of the legislators to change?

I have done more research into this question since I posted that. I didn't understand why some of the changes. I always took "Shall" as a concise directive like "duty to preform", when it was used in law. It seems that there is a SCOTUS decision, that is very convoluted, and they concluded (so the case could continue) that "Shall" can be interpreted as "May". They also concluded that "Will, Will not and Is" are the absolute directives. We have been seeing Michigan legislation grammar police changing that wording in every bill since that time.

And luckless picked a prime example. "Thou shall not lie" is a directive, but it is also a denial of permission, not a removal of the capability to do it. The sentence would say the same thing if the word "may" was substituted. It would still only deny permission, not totally prevent or some how remove the capability.

[Flash-hider]

By your research is, "shall not be infringed" in jeopardy.

[luckless]

By your research is, "shall not be infringed" in jeopardy.

Yes. That is the strategy. Change the meaning of the word and you change the constitution. It is why they teach our kids that the constitution is a living document that changes as society changes. If they support racist policy, all they have to do is get us to agree on a new definition of racism and viola, what they do is no longer racist. Want to attack the family and church, just change the definition of family and church. They have already done it with "milita" and have used it quite successfully.

[Roundballer]

By your research is, "shall not be infringed" in jeopardy.

In my personal opinion, substituting the word "may" for "shall" does not change the meaning of that sentence. It is an unlimited directive towards GOVERNMENT denying them permission to enact any law that infringes on a specific right. MAY not or SHALL not both deny permission.

[Flash-hider]

In my personal opinion, substituting the word "may" for "shall" does not change the meaning of that sentence. It is an unlimited directive towards GOVERNMENT denying them permission to enact any law that infringes on a specific right. MAY not or SHALL not both deny permission.

For me using the word "may" gives a option of choice for an action. If I would want to be more limiting and more direct I would use the word "shall" as the directive to my intentions.

[Roundballer]

For me using the word "may" gives a option of choice for an action. If I would want to be more limiting and more direct I would use the word "shall" as the directive to my intentions.

I would agree that "shall" has a stronger sound than "may", but the next word is "not". "Shall not" and "may not" are pretty much synonymous. Try switching it to "will not" and see how it reads. All three, just end up with an absolute denial of permission.

This is just a discussion on semantics, syntax. We won't be changing the 2nd amendment anytime soon. And the intent of the 2nd Amendment remains as denying the government (at all levels) the authority or power to regulate "arms".

[frmathiasen]

I believe there is definitely a difference between "Shall" and "May"

this is a good article on the word shall vs may.

differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/differences-between-shall-and-may-in-english-grammar/

[Roundballer]

I believe there is definitely a difference between "Shall" and "May"

this is a good article on the word shall vs may.

differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/differences-between-shall-and-may-in-english-grammar/

That is very nice and all, but when SCOTUS says that it can be interpreted either way, all the grammar lessons in the world won't change what happens in court.

And even by your example, the use of the word "shall" does not always make something compulsory.

[mittenman]

From what I've seen of goverment legal jargan ie codebooks (I'm an electrician) Shall always means you must do and May indicates that you have a choice.

[Roundballer]

From what I've seen of goverment legal jargan ie codebooks (I'm an electrician) Shall always means you must do and May indicates that you have a choice.

And what is the past tense of "shall"?

[DrScaryGuy]

And what is the past tense of "shall"?

"did"?

[71commander]

I'm even good with duty to inform (I'd do it out of courtesy in most cases anyhow),

And what happens when you're in a vehicle with someone that you DON"T want to know that you carry a gun?

[mosnar87]

And what happens when you're in a vehicle with someone that you DON"T want to know that you carry a gun?

Exactly, and since everyone in the vehicle is "stopped" during a traffic stop, if you are riding with an anti-gun idiot and they get pulled over you have a choice between disclosure (thus outing yourself to the anti-gun driver) and risking a potential failure to disclose charge.

[luckless]

:
From what I've seen of goverment legal jargan ie codebooks (I'm an electrician) Shall always means you must do and May indicates that you have a choice.


And what is the past tense of "shall"?


"did"?

That made me wonder, what is the past tense of may?

:coffee:

[JasonJ]

And what happens when you're in a vehicle with someone that you DON"T want to know that you carry a gun?

Like whom? I have before and can continue to be discreet about my inform. I often hand the officer my license and CPL and state that I am currently in possession of the licensed item and ask for discretion with the occupants, in that case. Yes, it's not without any doubt clear; but it fulfills the requirement and is clear enough in the interaction with the officer, that he/she knows what my meaning is without anyone saying "gun" or "firearm".

Honestly, the passengers in my vehicle (who are exceedingly rare outside of my wife and son) would be not likely to be paying attention anyhow.

I mean, I get it... I'd rather there be NO duty to inform; but if there is, it doesn't cause such an issue in my life that I get all upset about it.

[luckless]

Exactly, and since everyone in the vehicle is "stopped" during a traffic stop, if you are riding with an anti-gun idiot and they get pulled over you have a choice between disclosure (thus outing yourself to the anti-gun driver) and risking a potential failure to disclose charge.

You could leave your CPL at home and carry under this new law. When you leave the state, take your CPL with you for reciprocity.

[PhotoTom]

:





That made me wonder, what is the past tense of may?

:coffee:

Shoulda...

[Roundballer]

And what is the past tense of "shall"?

"did"?

That made me wonder, what is the past tense of may?

:coffee:
Shall - Should
May - Might
Can - Could
Do - Did

The SCOTUS has determined that the use of "shall" is not always the decisive directive that we have always assumed it to be, when used in laws. The better language makes the statement that it "IS", "WILL", or "WILL NOT".


Shoulda...

https://iwanticewater.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/why-i-oughta.jpg

[TangoDown3727]

Name the gun bill that ever got better in committee because they chipped away at the bad parts.

It just doesn't happen that way.

^^^THIS.:yeahthat: