HB 4416, 4417, 4418 4419 Right to carry

[Tallbear]

HB 4416 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4416)
Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal. Amends secs. 227, 227b, 230 & 237a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227 et seq.) & repeals secs. 227a & 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227a & 750.231a).
Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
HB 4417 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4417)
Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references. Amends secs. 12 & 15 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432 & 28.435). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
HB 4418 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4418)
Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references. Amends sec. 43510 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43510). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017
HB 4419 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4419)
Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 12, ch. II & sec. 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 762.12 & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
Last Action: 3/29/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/28/2017

[Kaeto]

Translation Please?

[Roundballer]

Translation Please?

Very basic and over simplified: They are removing carry of a loaded pistol as a crime if you are not otherwise prohibited. The BIG problem that Zig pointed out in another thread is that they are not also cleaning up the PFZ mess. Without the CPL, there is no OC exception, and of course no CPL exception.

Well intended, poorly thought out. In my opinion, it should not pass as written. It creates problems for those that haven't read the laws.

[zigziggityzoo]

The basic translation: They're just eliminating the CCW felony charge. All other aspects of the law remain the same.

Means that you can legally carry concealed without a CPL. However, without a CPL, you are not exempt from MCL 750.234d gun-free zones. Also, without a CPL, you are not at all subject to MCL 28.425o Concealed-PFZs.

[Revdrshad]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.

[Leader]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.


I'll second that.

[Tallbear]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?

[luckless]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.


I'll second that.


Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?

HB 4003 is the bill with detention and disclosure.

[Revdrshad]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?

That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?

[Leader]

That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?

Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.

[luckless]

That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?

If the non CPL holders don't have a duty to inform, then it would be a good argument for repeal of duty to inform for CPL holders. Judge this legislation on its own merits. If this passes, it won't impose more restrictions in exchange for less, elsewhere. There are no losers if this passes. This bill treats effects everyone, equally.

[luckless]

Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.

A solution that is elegant in its simplicity.

[zigziggityzoo]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.


Maybe I missed it, but I didn't read "disclosure" in this bill. Care to point it for me?


Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.

Right - the issue is that if you have a CPL you must disclose, and if you have no CPL you do not.

I still like this bill because it effectively removes the felony. Another bill later on can easily clean this up because this bill creates justification for the cleanup once it's law.

[G22]

I think one of the key things is a clean simple bill. If we can propose singular changes, per bill, there's very little they can try to amend as opposed to lumping everything we want into one.

Then get it on the Gov. desk regardless of whether he will sign it or not. <--- That seems to be another big hurdle.

[luckless]

I think one of the key things is a clean simple bill. If we can propose singular changes, per bill, there's very little they can try to amend as opposed to lumping everything we want into one.

Then get it on the Gov. desk regardless of whether he will sign it or not. <--- That seems to be another big hurdle.

That's going to be my new nickname for Riki Tiki Snyder, "Governor Hurdle".

[AxlMyk]

Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.
Until you drive into Ohio, with a concealed gun, and no CPL.

[Leader]

Until you drive into Ohio, with a concealed gun, and no CPL.

Now that I am retired, I see no reason to go to Ohio.

[IraqVet1982]

Until you drive into Ohio, with a concealed gun, and no CPL.

Wouldn't a Virginia no-res CCW solve that problem and eliminate your duty to notify in Michigan?

[Remo]

Very basic and over simplified: They are removing carry of a loaded pistol as a crime if you are not otherwise prohibited. The BIG problem that Zig pointed out in another thread is that they are not also cleaning up the PFZ mess. Without the CPL, there is no OC exception, and of course no CPL exception.

Well intended, poorly thought out. In my opinion, it should not pass as written. It creates problems for those that haven't read the laws.

Define this please? Prohibited as in possession? Or as in don't qualify for CPL?

I ask because I can purchase and posses firearms, however I am disqualified for a CPL until 2019.

[luckless]

Define this please? Prohibited as in possession? Or as in don't qualify for CPL?

I ask because I can purchase and posses firearms, however I am disqualified for a CPL until 2019.

Can you possess a handgun? If so, and this passes, you will be able to possess it in a concealed manner. CPLs will still be available and you will still be disqualified for one until 2019.

[Remo]

Can you possess a handgun? If so, and this passes, you will be able to possess it in a concealed manner. CPLs will still be available and you will still be disqualified for one until 2019.


Lmao, might as well repeal all requirements for CPL.... What's the point.

[zigziggityzoo]

Lmao, might as well repeal all requirements for CPL.... What's the point.


The point is to have constitutional carry, but have the option to have a CPL for reciprocity (and NICS Exemption) purposes.

[Remo]

The point is to have constitutional carry, but have the option to have a CPL for reciprocity (and NICS Exemption) purposes.

No I mean what's the point of having restrictions on a CPL if we go with anyone can carry that's allowed to possess.

This seems to be half hearted proposal. Baby steps I guess.

[zigziggityzoo]

No I mean what's the point of having restrictions on a CPL if we go with anyone can carry that's allowed to possess.

This seems to be half hearted proposal. Baby steps I guess.

This package of laws literally only removes the MCL 750.227 felony. All other aspects of the law are untouched.

[Remo]

This package of laws literally only removes the MCL 750.227 felony. All other aspects of the law are untouched.

Well, at least it's a start I suppose.

[Revdrshad]

I support it... I guess I was just hoping for something "Complete." Not, IMO, half-hearted.

[Roundballer]

I appreciate the effort, but it seems like a half hearted attempt... Possibly to prevent a real Constitutional bill from being introduced?

As mentioned, without the needed changes, this could just get people in trouble.

At the least, disclosure needs to be removed.


That's the problem... No repeal of disclosure anywhere. No discussion anywhere that I saw. So, to me, it seems like it is maybe setting a non-CPL holder who chooses to conceal, up for failure. And holding a CPL recipient to a higher standard of "Disclosure" (to an LEO), than a non-permit holder.
See how it all seems contradictory. As mentioned, poorly thought out.

I could be reading it wrong. Thoughts?


I support it... I guess I was just hoping for something "Complete." Not, IMO, half-hearted.

Sounds like a reversal in what, five days?

[Revdrshad]

Sounds like a reversal in what, five days?

Eh, Not a reversal per se. I'm just disappointed our Reps can't seem to do better. I have no choice but to support it. I will never have a "But" after any kind of "I support guns," statement.

[Flash-hider]

Whom are the authors of this and any gun legislation that is introduced in Lansing getting their direction from? I ask because I tend to agree with Revdrshad's statement "I'm just disappointed our Reps can't seem to do better."

[DrScaryGuy]

But remember, pro gun laws are all part of the fun lobby and paid for by the nra.
Considering the patchwork and fishnet nature of these laws... I want my member dues back!

[nmuskier]

Simple, I'll just let my CPL expire, then I wont have a duty to inform anymore.

Does this mean you could have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, and have it not considered "concealed"?

[luckless]

Does this mean you could have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, and have it not considered "concealed"?

Yes. If it passes and Governor Hurdle signs it.

[Soup76]

Received an email today that these bills will be on the agenda for Wednesday...

————————————————————————————————————————

Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. Jim Runestad, Chair

DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 2017

TIME: 2:30 PM or after committees are given leave by the House to meet, whichever time is later.

PLACE: Room 326, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 4416 (Rep. Hoitenga) Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal.

HB 4417 (Rep. Hornberger) Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references.

HB 4418 (Rep. Allor) Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references.

HB 4419 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update.

OR ANY BUSINESS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE

To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord

Committee Clerk: Matt Carnagie
Phone: 517-373-2115
e-Mail: mcarnagie@house.mi.gov

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may contact the Chair's office.

Schedule changes or cancellations available at http://www.house.mi.gov/publiccommitteeschedule/

Notice posted: 5/5/2017

[Tallbear]

Received an email today that these bills will be on the agenda for Wednesday...

————————————————————————————————————————

Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. Jim Runestad, Chair

DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 2017

TIME: 2:30 PM or after committees are given leave by the House to meet, whichever time is later.

PLACE: Room 326, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 4416 (Rep. Hoitenga) Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal.

HB 4417 (Rep. Hornberger) Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references.

HB 4418 (Rep. Allor) Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references.

HB 4419 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update.

OR ANY BUSINESS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE

To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord

Committee Clerk: Matt Carnagie
Phone: 517-373-2115
e-Mail: mcarnagie@house.mi.gov

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may contact the Chair's office.

Schedule changes or cancellations available at http://www.house.mi.gov/publiccommitteeschedule/

Notice posted: 5/5/2017

This meeting was cancelled.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, May 16, 2017



TIME: 2:30 PM or after committees are given leave by the House to meet, whichever time is later.



PLACE: Room 326, House Office Building, Lansing, MI



AGENDA:

HB 4416 (Rep. Hoitenga) Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal.


HB 4417 (Rep. Hornberger) Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references.


HB 4418 (Rep. Allor) Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references.


HB 4419 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update.

[khicks]

how does MGO fell about this group of bills

[Tallbear]

how does MGO fell about this group of bills

I'll be testifying in "support as written" of these bills tomorrow at committee.

[tenthumbs]

I'll be testifying in "support as written" of these bills tomorrow at committee.

Thank You Mike!

A little late but here is a easy way to contact the Committee members.

https://act.nraila.org/composeletters.aspx?AlertID=1726&_ga=2.145169520.535231559.1494944854-603069438.1479077020

[ONeill]

How did the meeting go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tallbear]

How did the meeting go?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We were out number probably 5 to 1 by the "other" side.

Meeting got started late because of session getting out late (around 3:20).
Started with the bill writers testimony with questions from committee. Then came testimony from both sides ( first from a couple on our side then a couple from the "other" side, back and forth.) Lasted till almost 6pm.

Some of the testimony from those flocks had little to do with the bills (kids getting guns, drive by shootings, etc) then of course they wanted more training. No vote today only testimony.

[Tallbear]

Another misquote from Kathleen Gray. What I said was before 2001 and a “CPL” was required . Another example of poor journalism.

“But Michael Thiede of the Michigan Gun Owners Association said before concealed-weapons permits were required, "I didn’t have to take a class to tell me I was going to be safer to do all of these things. I didn’t have to give state an extra $105. Concealed pistol permits didn’t make this state any more safe. It just made it richer."
Contact Kathleen Gray: 313-223-4430 or kgray99@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @michpoligal.

[Tallbear]

HB 4416 of 2017
Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal. Amends secs. 227, 227b, 230 & 237a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227 et seq.) & repeals secs. 227a & 231a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.227a & 750.231a).
Last Action: 5/16/2017 Analysis File Added

HB 4417 of 2017
Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references. Amends secs. 12 & 15 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432 & 28.435). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
Last Action: 5/16/2017 Analysis File Added

HB 4418 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 4416'17
Last Action: 5/16/2017 Analysis File Added

HB 4419 of 2017
Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 12, ch. II & sec. 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 762.12 & 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4416'17
Last Action: 5/16/2017 Analysis File Added

[khicks]

it was said that there will be another hearing on this matter next week, any idea when that will be

[Tallbear]

it was said that there will be another hearing on this matter next week, any idea when that will be

I'll post it as soon as it is scheduled.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, May 23, 2017

TIME: 2:30 PM or after committees are given leave by the House to meet, whichever time is later.

PLACE: Room 326, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
SB 333 (Sen. Jones) Courts; business court; types of cases heard by the business court; revise.

HB 4416 (Rep. Hoitenga) Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal.

HB 4417 (Rep. Hornberger) Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references.

HB 4418 (Rep. Allor) Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references.

HB 4419 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update.

[bigt8261]

Tehehe. Watch Lyin' Linda get called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtdP_E2AEY

[wizzi01]

Tehehe. Watch Lyin' Linda get called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtdP_E2AEY

When you get called out by Tim Skubick, you know you have no argument.

[JasonJ]

Tehehe. Watch Lyin' Linda get called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtdP_E2AEY

Wow.. she really has NO CLUE about the facts of the matter, does she? She sticks to her guns (pun intended) even in the face of the truth. 900,000 concealed carriers with a license, another 100,000 people open carrying now, if we did not require licensing and training, we'd still have a million armed Michiganders. How is that more guns in the hands of more people in more places?

Good Lord...

[radiogoon]

We were out number probably 5 to 1 by the "other" side.

Meeting got started late because of session getting out late (around 3:20).
Started with the bill writers testimony with questions from committee. Then came testimony from both sides ( first from a couple on our side then a couple from the "other" side, back and forth.) Lasted till almost 6pm.

Some of the testimony from those flocks had little to do with the bills (kids getting guns, drive by shootings, etc) then of course they wanted more training. No vote today only testimony.

Where would one find the transcript of this meeting?

[luckless]

Tehehe. Watch Lyin' Linda get called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtdP_E2AEY

She MUST be related to Debbie Stabenow.

[Tallbear]

Where would one find the transcript of this meeting?

This the video of LAST weeks (05/16/17)committee meeting.

http://www.house.mi.gov/MHRPublic/PlayVideoArchive.html?video=JUDI-051617-2.mp4

[confused8122]

So... Any word on when they are voting on this in committee?

[luckless]

So... Any word on when they are voting on this in committee?

Not until the MSP gets their fingers out of it. We'll have to wait and see what the new legislation looks like. I wish they would treat the MSP more like staff and less like a third legislative branch of the government. I hope the new version is done in time for the citizens to give some input. The MSP has never been helpful to our cause so their changes could be anywhere from "ho hum" to "you've got to be kidding me". Call the Judiciary committee members and ask them what the hold up is.

[Leader]

This the video of LAST weeks (05/16/17)committee meeting.

http://www.house.mi.gov/MHRPublic/PlayVideoArchive.html?video=JUDI-051617-2.mp4

Thank you VERY much Mike.
This was very informative.

[Jared1981]

Somewhere between a charter bus with 2 flat tires and a train wreck.

What's great about this process is that the MSP are actually learning what the MCL really says.

They finally figured out that disclosure doesn't apply to non-residents. So an 18 year old from Indiana, with a LTC, can carry in Michigan and he or she isn't subject to disclosure at all.

They also FINALLY figured out that vehicle carry isn't "considered concealed"... now only if we can get "experts" on the forums and in CPL classes to stop parroting that crap.

[luckless]

Somewhere between a charter bus with 2 flat tires and a train wreck.

What's great about this process is that the MSP are actually learning what the MCL really says.

They finally figured out that disclosure doesn't apply to non-residents. So an 18 year old from Indiana, with a LTC, can carry in Michigan and he or she isn't subject to disclosure at all.

They also FINALLY figured out that vehicle carry isn't "considered concealed"... now only if we can get "experts" on the forums and in CPL classes to stop parroting that crap.

I think they know what the law says. MSP has excelled at using the letter of the law to thwart the intent of the law.

[Leader]

Somewhere between a charter bus with 2 flat tires and a train wreck.

What's great about this process is that the MSP are actually learning what the MCL really says.

They finally figured out that disclosure doesn't apply to non-residents. So an 18 year old from Indiana, with a LTC, can carry in Michigan and he or she isn't subject to disclosure at all.

They also FINALLY figured out that vehicle carry isn't "considered concealed"... now only if we can get "experts" on the forums and in CPL classes to stop parroting that crap.

But if people from out of state haven't been informing, why don't we have more MSP bodies laying around the hi ways & by ways of the state?

[wizzi01]

Not until the MSP gets their fingers out of it. We'll have to wait and see what the new legislation looks like. I wish they would treat the MSP more like staff and less like a third legislative branch of the government. I hope the new version is done in time for the citizens to give some input. The MSP has never been helpful to our cause so their changes could be anywhere from "ho hum" to "you've got to be kidding me". Call the Judiciary committee members and ask them what the hold up is.

This so much. MSP is law enforcement not an executive branch.

[Jared1981]

This so much. MSP is law enforcement not an executive branch.

Try telling them that. It also doesn't help that half of the republicans lick their boots when they testify with endless accolades about their service and how brave they are etc.

[mittenman]

MSP is law enforcement not an executive branch.
Well said. MSP should be charged with enforcing the law not helping to write it.

[Remo]

This so much. MSP is law enforcement not an executive branch.


Try telling them that. It also doesn't help that half of the republicans lick their boots when they testify with endless accolades about their service and how brace they are etc.


Well said. MSP should be charged with enforcing the law not helping to write it.

Yeah since when was MSP ever on a election ballot to represent the people?

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, May 30, 2017

TIME: 12:00 PM

PLACE: Room 326, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 4416 (Rep. Hoitenga) Weapons; firearms; certain provisions regarding weapons; repeal.

HB 4417 (Rep. Hornberger) Weapons; firearms; 1927 PA 372; update references.

HB 4418 (Rep. Allor) Weapons; firearms; natural resources and environmental protection act; update references.

HB 4419 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; sentencing guidelines; update.

SB 333 (Sen. Jones) Courts; business court; types of cases heard by the business court; revise.

SB 223 (Sen. Jones) Law enforcement; records; maintain record for separation of employment; require, and establish that agency is immune from civil liability.

SB 219 (Sen. Green) Weapons; licensing; application process for licensing; modify.

[Kaeto]

What is SB 219?

Never mind I found it.

[G22]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/capitol/2015/03/04/dch-signs-lobbyist/24324605/


It's been common practice for other state departments to lobby legislators. The records show 16 executive departments have spent a combined $4.8 million on such activities since 2001, the earliest year for which such records are available online. That's more than three times the amount state-worker unions spent on lobbying.


State departments lobbying

A look at the total amount state departments have spent on lobbying since 2001, the first year for which online records were available.

State Police


$500,817.90

[Kaeto]

Channel 4 just reported it has been sent for a vote by the house and senate.

[luckless]

It has been reported out of committee but, it has been amended. I'll reserve judgement until I read the new legislation.

[wizzi01]

It has been reported out of committee but, it has been amended. I'll reserve judgement until I read the new legislation.


From MOC's facebook page

*** Breaking - Michigan House Committee Passes Constitutional Carry Package. ***
Moments ago, the Michigan House Judiciary Committee approved HB 4416-4419 by a vote of 6-4 along party lines and sent the bills to the floor with the recommendation they pass.

A few small changes were made in committee. The only one worth noting was a significant change to disclosure. Under the adopted change, disclosure would change to upon request rather than immediate as it is now. Disclosure would also apply to anyone carrying a concealed firearm, not just those "licensed under the act" (MI CPL holders) as it is currently. Lastly, the fine for failing to disclose would be reduced from a $500 fine and 6 month license suspension, to just a $100 fine.

Amendments attempting to require training for anyone constitutionally carrying (a defacto license), attempting to apply the CPL disqualifiers to those constitutionally carrying (incredibly onerous for officers to enforce), and attempting to maintain the current severe disclosure penalties were all NOT adopted.

The bills will now head to the "floor" where they will await a vote from the full Michigan House of Representatives.

This is the time to contact your rep and urge them to support these bill in caucus and on the floor. If you have already contacted your rep, CONTACT THEM AGAIN!
If you need to find your rep, you may do so here:
http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

[Remo]

Didn't see that one coming. Disclose on request, moving in the right direction. NOT ASKED DONT TELL. I like it.

Would that mean directly asked or in earshot as a passenger in a vehicle while its pulled over.

[mittenman]

This is the time to contact your rep and urge them to support these bill in caucus and on the floor. If you have already contacted your rep, CONTACT THEM AGAIN!
If you need to find your rep, you may do so here:
http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting the link I just emailed my State Rep.

[Jared1981]

Didn't see that one coming. Disclose on request, moving in the right direction. NOT ASKED DONT TELL. I like it.

Would that mean directly asked or in earshot as a passenger in a vehicle while its pulled over.

It took A LOT of effort on the part of MOC to get this accomplished. The NRA helped us on it as well.

The catalyst was that people FINALLY listened to what the MOC legislative team has been saying for years which was that disclosure does not apply to non-residents so if it's ok for an 18 year old from Indiana to carry in MI without disclosing then why can't people here.

This gave leverage because the MSP now realize that they should read the law more carefully and they saw that we were correct.

[luckless]

From MOC's facebook page

*** Breaking - Michigan House Committee Passes Constitutional Carry Package. ***
Moments ago, the Michigan House Judiciary Committee approved HB 4416-4419 by a vote of 6-4 along party lines and sent the bills to the floor with the recommendation they pass.

A few small changes were made in committee. The only one worth noting was a significant change to disclosure. Under the adopted change, disclosure would change to upon request rather than immediate as it is now. Disclosure would also apply to anyone carrying a concealed firearm, not just those "licensed under the act" (MI CPL holders) as it is currently. Lastly, the fine for failing to disclose would be reduced from a $500 fine and 6 month license suspension, to just a $100 fine.

Amendments attempting to require training for anyone constitutionally carrying (a defacto license), attempting to apply the CPL disqualifiers to those constitutionally carrying (incredibly onerous for officers to enforce), and attempting to maintain the current severe disclosure penalties were all NOT adopted.

The bills will now head to the "floor" where they will await a vote from the full Michigan House of Representatives.

This is the time to contact your rep and urge them to support these bill in caucus and on the floor. If you have already contacted your rep, CONTACT THEM AGAIN!
If you need to find your rep, you may do so here:
http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

Awesome! I can live with this!

[wizzi01]

Do we have enough votes(if they finally grow balls) to override a Snyder veto if it comes to it?

[Jared1981]

Do we have enough votes(if they finally grow balls) to override a Snyder veto if it comes to it?

No

[DrScaryGuy]

This is the time to contact your rep and urge them to support these bill in caucus and on the floor. If you have already contacted your rep, CONTACT THEM AGAIN!
If you need to find your rep, you may do so here:
http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

Thanks for posting the link I just emailed my State Rep.[/QUOTE]

My rep? HAH!
I've got whittenberg, the guy who wants to make it easier for guns to be confiscated on the basis of "reasonable cause" rather than "due process".

Maybe I should start a call by saying that I am a person of color... who has been assaulted/threatened by an angry cop who mistook my required declaration of having a CPL and threatened to shoot me. It's 100% true and a great reason why mandatory disclosure is freaking dangerous.

[G22]

My rep? HAH!
I've got whittenberg, the guy who wants to make it easier for guns to be confiscated on the basis of "reasonable cause" rather than "due process".

Maybe I should start a call by saying that I am a person of color... who has been assaulted/threatened by an angry cop who mistook my required declaration of having a CPL and threatened to shoot me. It's 100% true and a great reason why mandatory disclosure is freaking dangerous.

Wanna trade for Sander Levin?

I'll be call his office this afternoon in support of this package, for all the good it will do!

[Remo]

I'll be writing my rep (Hiotenga) and thanking her for this package of bills, and to keep up the good work.

[luckless]

I'll be writing my rep (Hiotenga) and thanking her for this package of bills, and to keep up the good work.

Call her. They might be voting today.

[Remo]

Call her. They might be voting today.

Fantastic idea, which I executed. Ended up on the line with Beth(secretary). I voiced my support for this package of bills. It's was short and sweet not much chit chat, was at the end of my lunch break. I will email later also.

[DrScaryGuy]

well, I wasted my time calling whittenberg's voicemail, so you can't say I didn't try.

[RayMich]

So, if these bills pass and Constitutional Carry as proposed in these bills passes, will they extend the "home" protection to your vehicle and remove the felony CCW charge for having a loaded handgun in your vehicle without a license, as long as you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm?

How about having a loaded long gun in your vehicle? Are they covered also?

[DP425]

It's great to hear this is getting traction, and with positive changes in committee to boot... But it's still a pipe dream that snyder would consider signing this. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Leader]

It's great to hear this is getting traction, and with positive changes in committee to boot... But it's still a pipe dream that snyder would consider signing this. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

Agreed, a snowball has a better chance in hell then this bill on Snyders desk.

[LP560]

http://i.imgur.com/gXADHj6.png

[Iambusy3]

All these proposed laws really do is remove some of the "gotcha" aspects of the current laws. In fact the reason I joined the ACLU years ago and remain a member is because of their strong opposition to "gotcha" laws and enforcement. It might be time to remind some of our reps like my anti gun Dem that these revised laws will prevent many of her constituents from falling into trouble because of poorly written laws regarding gun rights.

[Gray Man]

All these proposed laws really do is remove some of the "gotcha" aspects of the current laws. In fact the reason I joined the ACLU years ago and remain a member is because of their strong opposition to "gotcha" laws and enforcement. It might be time to remind some of our reps like my anti gun Dem that these revised laws will prevent many of her constituents from falling into trouble because of poorly written laws regarding gun rights.

The ACLU? I wouldn't join that left wing organization if someone else paid my dues. I'd rather send more money to the NRA/ILA or to MGO. Feck the ACLU!

[DP425]

The ACLU? I wouldn't join that left wing organization if someone else paid my dues. I'd rather send more money to the NRA/ILA or to MGO. Feck the ACLU!

ACLU has come to the defense of gun owners and gun rights before. They strongly opposed the social security gun ban as well as the VA ban.

No doubt they would prefer if the 2A didn't exist, but they still support the constitution and individual freedoms; which includes the 2A. They have also done a ton of good for 4A issues. They are not as bad as they're reputation with the right would lead you to believe.

[MI_XD]

ACLU has come to the defense of gun owners and gun rights before. They strongly opposed the social security gun ban as well as the VA ban.

No doubt they would prefer if the 2A didn't exist, but they still support the constitution and individual freedoms; which includes the 2A. They have also done a ton of good for 4A issues. They are not as bad as THEIR reputation with the right would lead you to believe.

Tell that to the School superintendant who had his health destroyed by the ACLU hounding, when a "Former" student (no longer attending the school) was the front man for an Anti Christian ACLU attack that caused a school to have to remove a painting of Jesus, because it offended that student. The REST of the people were more offended by that kid and the ACLU's actions! So, what about THEIR feelings??? And the Super's health and reputation?? (Rest his Soul, he just passed away last month.)

They ARE as bad as we hear!! Liberal beast-defecations! What little they do for our side is by far overshadowed by the garbage they do for the Libbies!

[Gray Man]

ACLU has come to the defense of gun owners and gun rights before. They strongly opposed the social security gun ban as well as the VA ban.

No doubt they would prefer if the 2A didn't exist, but they still support the constitution and individual freedoms; which includes the 2A. They have also done a ton of good for 4A issues. They are not as bad as they're reputation with the right would lead you to believe.

No need for me to read anything else that you have to say about the ACLU ....

[DP425]

Tell that to the School superintendant who had his health destroyed by the ACLU hounding, when a "Former" student (no longer attending the school) was the front man for an Anti Christian ACLU attack that caused a school to have to remove a painting of Jesus, because it offended that student. The REST of the people were more offended by that kid and the ACLU's actions! So, what about THEIR feelings??? And the Super's health and reputation?? (Rest his Soul, he just passed away last month.)

They ARE as bad as we hear!! Liberal beast-defecations! What little they do for our side is by far overshadowed by the garbage they do for the Libbies!

Public schools shouldn't be advocating one religion over another- and if this superintendent wanted to fight removing it, that's his problem.

I bet you'd be throwing a fit if a huge crescent moon sculpture were placed in the middle of a high school.

[Leader]

Public schools shouldn't be advocating one religion over another- and if this superintendent wanted to fight removing it, that's his problem.

I bet you'd be throwing a fit if a huge crescent moon sculpture were placed in the middle of a high school.

And I'll bet that MI_XD wouldn't mind a bit if a PAINTING of a crescent moon was displayed in the school even if it was along side of the painting of Jesus.

[luckless]

And I'll bet that MI_XD wouldn't mind a bit if a PAINTING of a crescent moon was displayed in the school even if it was along side of the painting of Jesus.

What is MI_XD?

[Leader]

What is MI_XD?

The poster that DP425 quoted.

[luckless]

I see. I was kind of thinking along the same lines. "Did the ACLU sue because the student wasn't allowed to hang a moon painting or did they just demand that the Jesus painting be removed because they are offended by Jesus"?

However, I can envision an ACLU that feeds itself by winning payouts from the government. Sueing for Christians on one day, Muslims the next and Atheists on the third. What might REALLY matter to them is the ACLU, not religious liberty.

[DP425]

And I'll bet that MI_XD wouldn't mind a bit if a PAINTING of a crescent moon was displayed in the school even if it was along side of the painting of Jesus.

Good call... huge sculpture isn't really an equivalent to a Jesus painting.

[DP425]

However, I can envision an ACLU that feeds itself by winning payouts from the government. Sueing for Christians on one day, Muslims the next and Atheists on the third. What might REALLY matter to them is the ACLU, not religious liberty.

That could be too. I guess the up shot is, the constitution sees protection as a result.

[Roundballer]

That could be too. I guess the up shot is, the constitution sees protection as a result.

What is protected in the Constitution is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

[DP425]

What is protected in the Constitution is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

So you're telling me that if Dearborn want's to put a crescent moon over every door in their schools, and install a nice big "peter"- call to prayer tower, you'd be good with it? Cause- freedom OF religion, not from. You don't have to practice it just because you're immersed in it.

[Roundballer]

So you're telling me that if Dearborn want's to put a crescent moon over every door in their schools, and install a nice big "peter"- call to prayer tower, you'd be good with it? Cause- freedom OF religion, not from. You don't have to practice it just because you're immersed in it.

I would be VERY upset if DEARBORN was to do that. That is the other portion of the amendment, SHALL ESTABLISH NO. If the "people" wish to, they may. Right next to the crosses and six pointed stars, statues of Buddha, the Ankh, etc: They may not bar one in preference of another, just as those that are lacking should not be able to bar those that have a right to the "Free exercise there of".

Nice try on putting words in my mouth.

[JasonJ]

I would be VERY upset if DEARBORN was to do that. That is the other portion of the amendment, SHALL ESTABLISH NO. If the "people" wish to, they may. Right next to the crosses and six pointed stars, statues of Buddha, the Ankh, etc: They may not bar one in preference of another, just as those that are lacking should not be able to bar those that have a right to the "Free exercise there of".

Nice try on putting words in my mouth.

I concur with Round' on this. People often think there is "separation of Church and State". Incorrect. Don't think so? Look at your money and count all of the religious (probably Judeo-Christian) references. No where in the Constitution do the words "separation of" and "Church and State" appear. It is a clause prohibiting the State from establishing an official religion of the country. True to the Constitution, there can be religious symbols and references all over any government building ... so long as there is no preference of one over the other or any action that establishes one as "the correct religion".

Given Dearborn's high Muslim population, if the people who lived there were fine putting Islamic symbolism plastered over the sides of their post offices, fine. But if someone who isn't Muslim wants to put a crucifix or lamb/lion on that same building, it needs to be given equal value and visibility... but that would be up to the people who live there, not me.

There is a significant difference between freedom OF religion, to choose and practice as you wish provided it does not impede or cause harm to the rights of others, and to be free from exposure to religion at all.

[detroitbassist]

Wow, thought I clicked on the wrong thread until the second try. At the risk of derailing a spirited debate, do we know when the house votes on this?

[Roundballer]

Wow, thought I clicked on the wrong thread until the second try. At the risk of derailing a spirited debate, do we know when the house votes on this?

It has been reported out of committee and placed on the order of second reading. It is more or less up to the House leaders to move it forward. The second reading is when it is open for amendment from the floor. Any amendments must be voted on and a vote to move it up. After that, it is read a third time and then voted on.

[dclark77l]

update showing today 4416 ,4418, 4419 has H-1 substitute adopted, 4417 H-2 substitute adopted.

6/6/2017 Expected in
HJ 53 read a second time
6/6/2017 Expected in
HJ 53 substitute H-1 adopted
6/6/2017 Expected in
HJ 53 placed on third reading

[detroitbassist]

So if I understand correctly, there is no timeline; the next step happens when someone decides to put it on the agenda, or maybe never?
Forgive my ignorance of the process, and thanks Roundballer for helping to fill gaps in my knowledge, which you've done in many more threads than I've posted in.

[Leader]

So if I understand correctly, there is no timeline; the next step happens when someone decides to put it on the agenda, or maybe never?
Forgive my ignorance of the process, and thanks Roundballer for helping to fill gaps in my knowledge, which you've done in many more threads than I've posted in.

RB is GOOD at that.

:)

[luckless]

So if I understand correctly, there is no timeline; the next step happens when someone decides to put it on the agenda, or maybe never?
Forgive my ignorance of the process, and thanks Roundballer for helping to fill gaps in my knowledge, which you've done in many more threads than I've posted in.

I hear tomorrow would be a really good time to call your Representative and express your desire to see this passed out of the House.

[Remo]

So, if these bills pass and Constitutional Carry as proposed in these bills passes, will they extend the "home" protection to your vehicle and remove the felony CCW charge for having a loaded handgun in your vehicle without a license, as long as you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm?

How about having a loaded long gun in your vehicle? Are they covered also?

Anyone have an answer to this. The bill clearly states firearm in place of pistol in several spots. Does this indeed mean we can conceal carry rifles or have loaded rifles in the vehicle if this becomes law as is?

[Kaeto]

So what did they change in Sub H1?

[luckless]

So what did they change in Sub H1?

They added a duty to inform. The penalty goes down and the officer has to ask if you are carrying.

[Leader]

They added a duty to inform. The penalty goes down and the officer has to ask if you are carrying.

Duty to inform should be eliminated until they can show PROOF that it does some good.

It is nothing but a "Got ya". The ONLY reason it is in there is to trip up & punish someone for carrying a gun.

[Remo]

They added a duty to inform. The penalty goes down and the officer has to ask if you are carrying.


Duty to inform should be eliminated until they can show PROOF that it does some good.

It is nothing but a "Got ya". The ONLY reason it is in there is to trip up & punish someone for carrying a gun.

At least it's duty to inform on request and not immediately like it is now for CPL holders. It's a small step in the right direction.

[loki993]

Small is the key word..have you ever been pulled over and the officer doesn't ask if you have any weapons in the car? I know I haven't and trust me I don't fit any of their "profiles".

[luckless]

It is up for a vote right now. There is a lot of grandstanding by the liberal antigunners.

[wizzi01]

It is up for a vote right now. There is a lot of grandstanding by the liberal antigunners.

4416 passed 59-49

[luckless]

4416 passed 59-49

They all had 49 votes against. They all passed. 4417 was amended.

I might have missed something because I was working while watching.

Looked like a party line vote.

[wizzi01]

They all had 49 votes against. They all passed. 4417 was amended.

I might have missed something because I was working while watching.

Looked like a party line vote.

The Detroit news says two passed 59-49 One passed 60-48 and the last 61-47. It doesn't say which ones passed with the numbers our if I've was amended.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/07/concealed-guns-without-permits/102600024/

[glock24]

I' m sorry if I missed this in the past twelve pages . . . but I have a question;

How would this affect a handgun sale at dealers in MI? Is there still some value in having a CPL and avoiding the background check, or does this do away with CPLs all together?

[zigziggityzoo]

I' m sorry if I missed this in the past twelve pages . . . but I have a question;

How would this affect a handgun sale at dealers in MI? Is there still some value in having a CPL and avoiding the background check, or does this do away with CPLs all together?

Everything about our existing CPL structure stays the same. All this does is remove the felony on the books for CCW.

So it's no longer a crime to conceal carry, but if you want your CPL for reciprocity, Pistol-free-zone exemptions in 750.234d, and avoiding the NICS check, you still get the permit for that.

[rcoe]

Looks like the house passed them today.

[Roundballer]

Preliminary passage postings are up, They all passed.

HB 4417 WAS amended from the floor, but it looks pretty benign.

They have added a subsection to 5e:


(6) THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL ANNUALLY PUBLISH A FIREARMS MANUAL ON THE USE AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. THE MANUAL MUST INCLUDE A SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FIREARMS LAWS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE USE OF REASONABLE FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE.

On to the Senate.....

[Fixxxer]

This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.

[wizzi01]

This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.

I'm pretty sure if it passes disclosure becomes upon request instead of immediately.

[Remo]

This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.

It does change the rule with disclose. Changed from disclose immediately to disclose upon request. Not asked don't tell.


With that I have a question. I'm a passenger of a car being pulled over I'm carrying my firearm, do I have to be asked directly or when the officer asks the driver if there are any weapons in the car(oh and I'm in the 3rd row of a suburban not going to hear much back there).

[Roundballer]

This wouldn't change the rule on having to disclose to an officer that you are carrying, correct? I have been driving out of state a lot and am surprised at how you don't have to disclose if you have a firearm if you are pulled over for speeding in a number of other states. My guess is that will stay a rule with law enforcement if this is passed.
What is in there as it passed the house is below. Strike is deleted and Bold added.

There have reduced the "duty to inform" to a "inform upon request", and have reduced the fine to $100, striking out everything else.


(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol FIREARM or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall, immediately UPON REQUEST BY THE PEACE OFFICER, disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol FIREARM or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

(4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) THIS SECTION is responsible for a state civil infraction and shall be fined $100.00.

(5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and shall be fined as follows:
(a) For a first offense, by a fine of $500.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months.
(b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked. 4
(6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under subsection (5), the peace officer shall notify the department of state police of that civil infraction. The department of state police shall notify the county clerk who issued the license, who shall suspend or revoke that license. The county clerk 9
shall send notice by first-class mail of that suspension or revocation to the individual's last known address as indicated in the records of the county clerk. The department of state police shall immediately enter that suspension or revocation into the law enforcement information network.
(7) A pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol or portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The individual has his or her state-issued driver license or personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.
(b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed to carry a concealed pistol.

[Raspberrysurprise]

It sucks that they didn't remove/amend 750.243d, meaning it will still be illegal to carry in a bank or place "licensed by the liquor control act" unless you have a CPL.

[luckless]

It sucks that they didn't remove/amend 750.243d, meaning it will still be illegal to carry in a bank or place "licensed by the liquor control act" unless you have a CPL.

Here is the legislation you want.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?380749-HB-4565-4566-4567-4568-elmiinate-most-PFZ-s


The problem in previous years was that pro gun legislation got loaded up with enough stuff that it was like playing whack-a-mole to get support. The antis, read "governor", could always pick some narrow part of the bill and use it to rationalize their opposition. With narrower bills, the antis don't have as much wiggle room. Our side was able to frame this debate as a "coat tax". You can carry openly for free, if you are cold you'll have to pay the government to put your jacket on. That is a nice, simple sound bite and some legislator can't argue that, "the lives of bank tellers are more important than your desire to wear a jacket" in order to derail our progress.

[Roundballer]

Here is the legislation you want.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?380749-HB-4565-4566-4567-4568-elmiinate-most-PFZ-s


That doesn't remove "licensed facilities" from the PFZ list, it just corrects where in the MCL the license laws are located.

[Jared1981]

Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.

[G36 Shooter]

Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.

Well said.

[zigziggityzoo]

Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.

Getting rid of immediate disclosure was a HARD effort. MOC spend hours on that alone.

The only reason we got disclosure watered down was because we pointed out that non-residents already don't have to disclose at all.

Seems like an equal protection argument could be made.

[Jared1981]

Seems like an equal protection argument could be made.

For sure.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with the MSP and the MSA. These people actually pushed hard to add a clause to require OC'ers to carry ID and to present it on demand. They have no understanding of the 4th and 5th Amendment and I don't think they care to either.

[Remo]

For sure.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with the MSP and the MSA. These people actually pushed hard to add a clause to require OC'ers to carry ID and to present it on demand. They have no understanding of the 4th and 5th Amendment and I don't think they care to either.

This is exactly why law enforcement shouldn't have their fingers in legislation. They are to enforce laws not write then.

[Leader]

I would add something sarcastic but nothing can justify or even make fun of the STUPID gun laws in Michigan.

[RayMich]

Removing 234d is a non starter at this time and it's easy to overcome, getting a license to carry from any state will exempt you from it.
Except Michigan does not recognize non-resident licenses from other states and even if they did, you still have to contend with the 1,000 feet from a school Federal law if you don't have a Michigan CPL.

[luckless]

Now is the time to contact the Senate. My fear is that this will get assigned to the local government committee or somewhere else to die. We need to rattle Meekhof's chain and find out if he is willing to support the gun owners.


Arlan Meekhof's number.
(517) 373-6920

Ask what his intentions are with this legislation.

[dfrak]

I just received very positive words of support from Senator Colbeck. He seems like someone we can count on if the bills come out of committee.

[dclark77l]

Legislature website updated :

6/13/2017 Expected in SJ 57 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

[luckless]

Legislature website updated :

6/13/2017 Expected in SJ 57 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

That might not be a good thing....

[Roundballer]

That might not be a good thing....

It might not be too bad. One of the co-sponsors (Tom Barrett) sits on that committee.

[luckless]

It might not be too bad. One of the co-sponsors (Tom Barrett) sits on that committee.

It is in the Senate Committee on Government Operations. I think Barret is a Representative.

[Roundballer]

It is in the Senate Committee on Government Operations. I think Barret is a Representative.

Yep, my bad. It was a long day at the range.

If it helps any, every Senator in the Senate Committee on Government Operations voted in favor of SB 245 (switchblades) except Hood.

But then again, the chair, Meekhof is the Majority Leader. If Ricky wants to bury something, he would be the guy to go to.

[luckless]

I called Meekhof's office. They assured me he is pro gun.:rolleyes: She went on to tell me that if his committee meets it will be on a Tuesday. There is no agenda to look up so I guess she wants me to call every Wednesday to see if there is any progress. I reminded her that a lot of good gun legislation has been tanked by Senators that assured us they were pro gun. I would think that if Meekhof was in n favor of this legislation and was planning on using his committee to usher it through, he would be a little more forthcoming.

I hope past performance is not an indicator of future returns.

[Ruger50]

I just got off the phone with Meekhof's office. I was told there was no movement and that I shouldn't expect movement for several weeks until the budget is passed. We need active citizens to engage his office until there is movement on this issue.

1. Write your individual senator
2. Call Senator Meekhof's office and simply ask why there hasn't been any movement on this issue. Be polite but firm with your support of the legislation and that you will be calling weekly to check on the progress. If the phone keeps ringing they will make it a priority

[ArtsNCrash]

I contacted my Senator about this issue. If you live in Oakland County, please consider contacting this Senator and remember this when you vote:


Dear Arthur,

Thank you for contacting me regarding House Bill 4416, House Bill 4417, House Bill 4418, and House Bill 4419. This package of bills was introduced by Reps. Hoitenga (R-102nd), Cole (R-105th), Allor (R-106th), and Hornberger (R-32nd). I strongly believe that we need more common sense gun laws, and this would be a step backwards in stemming the flow of gun violence. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure the safety of all citizens from those who seek to do harm with guns. Sponsors of these bills argue that a person still needs to go through a background check to purchase a weapon. They will also say that you don't need a permit to "open carry" a weapon. There must be reasonable safeguards in place to ensure that only law-abiding citizens have access to a gun. Michigan is a "shall" issue state, so as long as you are not otherwise disqualified you are able to own/buy a gun.

With ownership comes responsibility, and there have to be minimum training and accountability standards. When I took my CPL class, taught by two police officers in my district, they covered various topics, including how to handle a weapon, how to store it safely and how to shoot it properly. Both of my instructors agreed that the training is not sufficient, and they encouraged class members to take additional classes. These are police officers, and they don't think the current level of training is enough, and they are not alone. The State Police, the Michigan Sheriff's Association, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police and Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy (the Prosecutors Attorneys Association of Michigan -did not find this one actually testified) testified against these wrongheaded bills in committee.

Our Constitution and our communities are only as safe as our willingness to protect them. The late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, in his Heller opinion (2008), concurred with a majority of his colleagues that just like all amendments to the constitution, there are restrictions on the Second Amendment. There should be. There must be. I urge you to reach out to your State Senators and Governor Snyder to voice your opposition to these bills.
These bills were referred to the House Judiciary Committee. I do not serve on this committee but if the bills come to the floor for a vote, I will oppose them. That being said, we may not always agree on every issue, but it is my job as an elected official to hear the concerns of my constituents.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. If you have any other thoughts or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Robert

Robert Wittenberg
State Representative, 27th District
P.O.Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-0478; Toll Free: (855) REP-WITT wittenberg.housedems.com

[luckless]

That is your Representative and he sounds like a douche.

I believe your senator is Vincent Gregory.


senvgregory@senate.mi.gov 517-373-7888

125 W Allegan St # 1015, Lansing, MI 48933

It now sits in the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

Please contact your Senator.

[ArtsNCrash]

That is your Representative and he sounds like a douche.

I believe your senator is Vincent Gregory.


senvgregory@senate.mi.gov 517-373-7888

125 W Allegan St # 1015, Lansing, MI 48933

It now sits in the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

Please contact your Senator.
Oops!

Hey, I was hit by an idiot stick as a child. Don't invade my "Safe Space!" <snicker>

Thanks. I'll take appropriate action.

Still... Douché seems like a good title.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

[DrScaryGuy]

Originally Posted by Rep Robert Wittenburg Distric 27
... I strongly believe that we need more common sense gun laws, and this would be a step backwards in stemming the flow of gun violence. ... I do not serve on this committee but if the bills come to the floor for a vote, I will oppose them. That being said, we may not always agree on every issue, but it is my job as an elected official to hear the concerns of my constituents.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. If you have any other thoughts or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.

Looks like I have a phone call to make...

[ArtsNCrash]

Looks like I have a phone call to make...
Please!

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

[DrScaryGuy]

Please!

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

left a message
city, zip, name, phone, I STRONGLY encourage you to support 4416-4419 right to carry, thank you

[71commander]

democrat, oak park

[khicks]

is there any word as to when the committee will have a hearing on these bills

[luckless]

is there any word as to when the committee will have a hearing on these bills

The committee meets on Tuesday, if it meets. The agenda is posted about twelve hours before the hearing. They may, or may not, accept testimony on the bills being discussed. When the committee meets it may, or may not, follow the agenda. I believe that they are out of session for about three weeks. The only thing we can really do is call every Tuesday morning ((517) 373-6920) and ask Arlan Meekhof's office if he is holding a hearing that day and if our items, HB4416-4419, are on the agenda.

[jmartin]

Right - the issue is that if you have a CPL you must disclose, and if you have no CPL you do not.

I still like this bill because it effectively removes the felony. Another bill later on can easily clean this up because this bill creates justification for the cleanup once it's law.

How about just ONE bill that does it right to start with. Worthless politicians! Just making more work for themselves (to make them look needed.)

[zigziggityzoo]

How about just ONE bill that does it right to start with. Worthless politicians! Just making more work for themselves (to make them look needed.)

This bill was since amended, IIRC, and notifying the police is now no longer required "Immediately" in either case. Now, if an officer asks "Are you armed?" you must truthfully disclose. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-4417

As it is no longer a crime to carry concealed, it would not be a 5th amendment violation to require the answer.

The penalty is a $100 civil infraction. As there is no longer a CPL to revoke for people, there is no more loss of CPL for failure to disclose, or escalating offenses for repeat failures.

[G22]

How about just ONE bill that does it right to start with. Worthless politicians! Just making more work for themselves (to make them look needed.)

For years there has been legislation that bundled a bunch of issues together, in hopes of getting the whole thing passed. It never worked. There will always be legislators who vote against an all in one bill because part E is a deal breaker, even though they like part A,B,C, and D.

Breaking down the issues and putting them in separate bills is the way to go. It gives each bill an equal fighting chance on its own merits.

[Ruger50]

I was told by Meekhof's office that it will be several weeks before it is discussed due to the budget. I'm skeptical

[Cletus]

I was told by Meekhof's office that it will be several weeks before it is discussed due to the budget. I'm skeptical

I think constitutional carry was sacrificed to get the budget deal.

[mittenman]

I emailed Governor Snyder's office a few weeks back. I commemteded that I strongly hoped that he would support these bills. The response was less than encouraging and a lot of run around with nothing concrete. The jist of it was that he was more concerned with the economy.

[luckless]

I was told by Meekhof's office that it will be several weeks before it is discussed due to the budget. I'm skeptical
Good work! Now, call them every Monday or Tuesday morning and ask if the committee is meeting and if our legislation will get a hearing and vote. That is the only way to know what is happening.

[luckless]

I emailed Governor Snyder's office a few weeks back. I commemteded that I strongly hoped that he would support these bills. The response was less than encouraging and a lot of run around with nothing concrete. The jist of it was that he was more concerned with the economy.

Rick Snyder hates us. He won't sign anything pro gun unless he is forced to do it. Please don't vote for candidate that Governor Hurdle endorses.

[luckless]

I think constitutional carry was sacrificed to get the budget deal.

I think Meekhof will sit on this without any bargaining. I don't think he needs any encouragement from Snyder to tank pro gun bills. I don't think he cares about us one way or the other. He's on his way out and I think he is looking to feather his bed with lobbyist cash before he leaves. The pro gun movement doesn't have enough money to offer Meekhof in order to get his support.

[Ruger50]

The best and only thing we can do is call Meekhof's office as much as possible. People underestimate powerful people's patience for being badgered. Light that phone up and make the call. Tie up the aides and people answering the senators phone with calls supporting the bill.

Most importantly ask questions and take your time, you should shoot for 5 min of dialogue per phone call and call twice a week, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE IN HIS DISTRICT. They will wear down and do what's necessary to get the dang phone to stop ringing. 100 people calling twice a week for 10 min total is 1000 minutes a week that office will spend answering questions about this one piece of legislation. Get a buddy to make the calls.

[luckless]

The Senate is gone until the twelfth. No love for the gun owners, yet. Call your senator's office and see if they are having any coffee hours or public events so you can talk to them face to face.

[Ruger50]

With the budget passed there are no more excuses, time for them to get this this bill through committee and on Snyder's desk. I think he will let it sit, neither signing it nor vetoing it which would be a win for gun owners.

[Flash-hider]

The Senate is gone until the twelfth. No love for the gun owners, yet. Call your senator's office and see if they are having any coffee hours or public events so you can talk to them face to face.

Phone calls to your Senator are good. Face to face dialogue is golden.

[mittenman]

Is there any new information on this series of bills?

[luckless]

No. They won't be back until September. Now is the time to hunt down your Senator. If they aren't a lame duck, they'll be making public appearances.

[mikeb32]

No. They won't be back until September. Now is the time to hunt down your Senator. If they aren't a lame duck, they'll be making public appearances.

:yeahthat:

[dpgperftest]

bingo you got it now

[michaelm_ski]

So did any of the ' right to carry ' bills pass ?

[PhotoTom]

So did any of the ' right to carry ' bills pass ?

No…it passed the House, transferred to the Senate where it was sent to the Committee of Government Operations back in June and has sat ever since.

[Roundballer]

So did any of the ' right to carry ' bills pass ?

No…it passed the House, transferred to the Senate where it was sent to the Committee of Government Operations back in June and has sat ever since.
And, I believe, that the guy that is the subject of THIS THREAD (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?387263-Timing-isn-t-right-for-permitless-carry-gun-bill-says-Michigan-Senate-leader) is the chair of that committee.

[Flash-hider]

And, I believe, that the guy that is the subject of THIS THREAD (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?387263-Timing-isn-t-right-for-permitless-carry-gun-bill-says-Michigan-Senate-leader) is the chair of that committee.

Well, he waiting for all the planets to line up properly before he proceeds and then it will be very cautiously.

[dpgperftest]

Well, he waiting for all the planets to line up properly before he proceeds and then it will be very cautiously.

If I moved this slow at work I would be fired. Time too drain the swamp in Lansing

[loki993]

Nothing should sit this long....either you are ok with it and get the thing on the floor or you're not and get it the hell out, but this waiting in limbo for "the right time" or whatever is crap and the ******* governor should be worried about his job too because he is probably about the get his butt booted too.

[luckless]

Nothing should sit this long....either you are ok with it and get the thing on the floor or you're not and get it the hell out, but this waiting in limbo for "the right time" or whatever is crap and the ******* governor should be worried about his job too because he is probably about the get his butt booted too.

Meekhof wants something that the supporters of this bill don't want. He is looking to make a trade.

[Remo]

Meekhof wants something that the supporters of this bill don't want. He is looking to make a trade.

Any clue as to what he wants?

[luckless]

Any clue as to what he wants?

No. It would be something popular with the Senate and unpopular with the House. I doubt it is another tax increase. I know Meekhof hates the term limits and had been looking for support in the House, though....

[Remo]

No. It would be something popular with the Senate and unpopular with the House. I doubt it is another tax increase. I know Meekhof hates the term limits and had been looking for support in the House, though....

I was wondering seeing if it would be terms limits. Nope , keep them this nation as a whole has proven it can't handle unlimited terms. We keep voting in the same people decade in decade out.

[Roundballer]

No. It would be something popular with the Senate and unpopular with the House. I doubt it is another tax increase. I know Meekhof hates the term limits and had been looking for support in the House, though....

Term limits was a constitutional amendment. He would have to get passed by a vote of the people, it is not something the legislature can change on their own.

[luckless]

Term limits was a constitutional amendment. He would have to get passed by a vote of the people, it is not something the legislature can change on their own.
He will need the House to get it on the ballot. I think he either truly believes we have changed our minds or someone who supports the change has a job waiting for him. Or, he could be holding out for something else, entirely. It is one of those things that we can only speculate until it happens.

[Roundballer]

He will need the House to get it on the ballot. I think he either truly believes we have changed our minds or someone who supports the change has a job waiting for him. Or, he could be holding out for something else, entirely. It is one of those things that we can only speculate until it happens.

All true, except there are a few of things we don't need to speculate about:

He is RINO Rick's lackey.
He does not have the educational requirements for many appointed positions.
He is term limited NOW.

[dpgperftest]

It seems that gun bills are stacking up at tricky Dick‘s desk he’s going to drag it out. Does anyone remember tricky Dick coming to one of our picnics in Kensington when he was first running for office all she could say is yes I am for gun rights not restricting guns I am here For people like Michigan gun owners and I won’t let you down anyone remember ? What do you think of him now I didn’t like him than but everybody loved him

[PhotoTom]

It seems that gun bills are stacking up at tricky Dick‘s desk he’s going to drag it out. Does anyone remember tricky Dick coming to one of our picnics in Kensington when he was first running for office all she could say is yes I am for gun rights not restricting guns I am here For people like Michigan gun owners and I won’t let you down anyone remember ? What do you think of him now I didn’t like him than but everybody loved him

Nothing new on these bills since June...

[dpgperftest]

Nothing new on these bills since June...

Can he leave it or just sitting or can he just pass the buck or does he have to make a decision it doesn’t sound like he’s going too ?

[PhotoTom]

Can he leave it or just sitting or can he just pass the buck or does he have to make a decision it doesn’t sound like he’s going too ?

The Senate has done nothing with these bills since they received them in June…it is nowhere near the Governor's desk.

[dpgperftest]

The Senate has done nothing with these bills since they received them in June…it is nowhere near the Governor's desk.

I think we need a anti-sitting law > that they have to react to these within 60 days

[Remo]

I think we need a anti-sitting law > that they have to react to these within 60 days
What would that accomplish?

[Roundballer]

What would that accomplish?

Create a sword that cuts both ways. Bills that NEED to die would get a hearing too, but then will also get to a vote.

[Remo]

Create a sword that cuts both ways. Bills that NEED to die would get a hearing too, but then will also get to a vote.

I can get on board with that, but I also think there should be a longer minium wait time so bills can't get rushed through. The process should be slow by design, that way knee jerk reaction bills don't become law with out much thought.

[dpgperftest]

What would that accomplish?

Well it would be a law to force them to do their job there’s got to be something done they are not doing their job

[Remo]

Well it would be a law to force them to do their job there’s got to be something done they are not doing their job

As a positive, if they "aren't doing there job" no new laws making new classes of criminals out of us.

[dpgperftest]

As a positive, if they "aren't doing there job" no new laws making new classes of criminals out of us.
I️ agree