HB 4474 Allow CPL carry on armory

[Tallbear]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 4/20/2017 bill electronically reproduced 04/19/2017

[MP Miller]

Is this just a law to support what the guard is already doing?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[DP425]

Is this just a law to support what the guard is already doing?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sounds like it. TAG changed policy a few years ago to permit carry.

[Roundballer]

Is this just a law to support what the guard is already doing?


Sounds like it. TAG changed policy a few years ago to permit carry.

What this does is shift who makes THIS decision to the legislature, and takes it out of the Adjutant Generals' purview.

It firmly sets preemption for Michigan Military facilities and prevents a future TAG from changing the rules.

[MP Miller]

The TAGs first memo basicly stated that because guard bases are state property, they are preempted by law.

Sets a fairly strong precedent to me.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Tallbear]

HB 4474 of 2017
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 5/1/2017 Analysis File Added

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 10/12/2017 Analysis File Added

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2017-SFA-4474-L.pdf

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 10/17/2017 Analysis File Added

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2017-SFA-4474-F.pdf

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 10/17/2017 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[Roundballer]

The TAGs first memo basicly stated that because guard bases are state property, they are preempted by law.

Sets a fairly strong precedent to me.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

There have been a couple advancements of this bill that weren't noted in the thread.

The House committee offered an H1 amendment, this line was added:


(3) The adjutant general shall not promulgate rules unduly burdening on the ability of military personnel to possess a concealed weapon as described in subsection (1).

They HAVE taken it completely out of TAGs control,

The bill has passed the House, and is now out of committee in the Senate and refereed to the Committee of the Whole.

[MP Miller]

There have been a couple advancements of this bill that weren't noted in the thread.

The House committee offered an H1 amendment, this line was added:



They HAVE taken it completely out of TAGs control,

The bill has passed the House, and is now out of committee in the Senate and refereed to the Committee of the Whole.Excellent

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action:
12/21/2018 PASSED ROLL CALL # 1038 YEAS 34 NAYS 4 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0
12/21/2018 returned from Senate without amendment with full title
12/21/2018 bill ordered enrolled

[Roundballer]

Wow, they wait 14 months to bring this up and vote on it. They do it at the very last chance.

It is now entirely up to RINO Rick, and he doesn't have to do anything at this point, and legislature is not there to do anything if he doesn't do anything.

Pocket Veto or the last chance to do the right thing. Which one will he choose?

[michaelm_ski]

We should try to pressure him

[luckless]

We should try to pressure him

He shut down the constituent service line last week. He, literally, couldn't care less about your opinion.

[michaelm_ski]

Typical politician !

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 12/28/2018 presented to the Governor 12/27/2018 @ 3:38 PM

[michaelm_ski]

HB 4474 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 12/28/2018 presented to the Governor 12/27/2018 @ 3:38 PM

Well let us keep fingers crossed as he has passed things I couldn't wrap my head around maybe before he leaves office he may do ONE thing for the gun rights !

[luckless]

Well let us keep fingers crossed as he has passed things I couldn't wrap my head around maybe before he leaves office he may do ONE thing for the gun rights !

This really won't do anything for gun rights. It is a fix for a few individuals with CPLs. If he signs it it will do nothing for the vast majority of gun owners and won't make his tenure any more palatable to me.

[michaelm_ski]

Well we found out he didn't do ANYTHING for ANY gun owners .

[DEVIL DOG]

I actually had great expectations for our rights 8 yrs. ago. Total disappointment in so many levels.

[PhotoTom]

HB 4474 of 2017 (PA 685 of 2018) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4474)
Military affairs; facilities; possession of concealed firearms on military premises; allow. Amends 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.501 - 32.851) by adding sec. 338.
Last Action: 12/31/2018 assigned PA 685'18

[luckless]

You can feel the liberty oozing out of Lansing and creeping over the rest of the state.

I'm glad to see Rick Whatshisname is out of Lansing!

[MI_XD]

You can feel the liberty oozing out of Lansing and creeping over the rest of the state.

I'm glad to see Rick Whatshisname is out of Lansing!

Oh, you mean Rino Ricky??

[michaelm_ski]

Oh, you mean Rino Ricky??

So is it still a no go on those locations ?

[luckless]

So is it still a no go on those locations ?

He signed it.

[michaelm_ski]

So we can Conceal Carry on those places ? I really didn't understand the bill the wording throws me for a loop , sorry to seem dense but if we don't ask for help we can get ourselves in trouble and that is something I DON'T want .

[luckless]

This bill allows you to carry concealed in a Michigan National Guard Armory.

I've never actually been to one in Michigan.

I'm not sure when the law takes effect so it might not actually be legal to do it, yet.

[jgillmanjr]

This bill allows you to carry concealed in a Michigan National Guard Armory.

I've never actually been to one in Michigan.

I'm not sure when the law takes effect so it might not actually be legal to do it, yet.

If the previous TAG's memo didn't get rescinded with the change, it would still be good to go anyway.

This was more or less a codification of a policy issued by the previous TAG.

[michaelm_ski]

When it say Veterans Affairs that can cover a broad spectrum such as the V.A. hospitals and other buildings BUT I would be willing to bet they can and will be making amendments .

[jgillmanjr]

When it say Veterans Affairs that can cover a broad spectrum such as the V.A. hospitals and other buildings BUT I would be willing to bet they can and will be making amendments .

Except the bill, now public act, doesn't say anything about "Veterans Affairs" in it.

[michaelm_ski]

What is the difference between Military affairs and Veterans affairs ?

[MP Miller]

What is the difference between Military affairs and Veterans affairs ?State vs Federal

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Purebass04]

For clarification, this bill only allows concealed carry in areas under the control of the state TAG (Army National Guard Armories and bases and Air National Guard bases.) It has nothing to do with US Department of Veterans Affairs property.

Even then, the areas you can carry on a state military installation is limited. For instance, at Selfridge, you cannot carry a firearm in any configuration inside the DeCA owned commissary. You also cannot carry in any area posted, such as the flight line restricted area. Therefore, you will not be allowed to concealed carry on base for the 2020 airshow at Selfridge.

[jgillmanjr]

You also cannot carry in any area posted, such as the flight line restricted area. Therefore, you will not be allowed to concealed carry on base for the 2020 airshow at Selfridge.

The flight line isn't under the authority and control of the TAG?

[Purebass04]

The flight line isn't under the authority and control of the TAG?

Just passing the info along. Not arguing semantics. The flightline at Selfridge is posted as a no carry area. I work out there and I'm not willing to be the test case. But you're more than welcome to be if you want to give it a try. There is a big yellow sign that says you can carry a concealed weapon EXCEPT in posted areas.

[Jared1981]

The bill was the solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t do any harm as concealed carry was already clearly defined under MCL 28.425c.

There was no statute in this section that authorized the Guard to restrict concealed carry.

While there are many federal buildings on base, many of them are not. And the ones that are not that have the red sign, they mean nothing and visitors can ignore them with impunity because it’s not against the law for them to carry there. Those red signs on non-federal buildings Are equally as enforceable as they would be if they were on your local Secretary of State office.

[DP425]

Just passing the info along. Not arguing semantics. The flightline at Selfridge is posted as a no carry area. I work out there and I'm not willing to be the test case. But you're more than welcome to be if you want to give it a try. There is a big yellow sign that says you can carry a concealed weapon EXCEPT in posted areas.

The flight line is likely controlled and/or owned by DOD, and administered by MING.

[Purebass04]

The bill was the solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t do any harm as concealed carry was already clearly defined under MCL 28.425c.

There was no statute in this section that authorized the Guard to restrict concealed carry.

While there are many federal buildings on base, many of them are not. And the ones that are not that have the red sign, they mean nothing and visitors can ignore them with impunity because it’s not against the law for them to carry there. Those red signs on non-federal buildings Are equally as enforceable as they would be if they were on your local Secretary of State office.

I imagine you're correct, however, the base commander could certainly trespass you from entering the installation again. And for military members, carrying a weapon in one of those areas could certainly bring charges under Article 92 of the UCMJ.

[Jared1981]

I imagine you're correct, however, the base commander could certainly trespass you from entering the installation again. And for military members, carrying a weapon in one of those areas could certainly bring charges under Article 92 of the UCMJ.

UCMJ applies to state national guard???

[jgillmanjr]

I imagine you're correct, however, the base commander could certainly trespass you from entering the installation again. And for military members, carrying a weapon in one of those areas could certainly bring charges under Article 92 of the UCMJ.

Well seeing as the installation commander couldn't prohibit it as per the statute, I'm not sure how they would be hit with Art. 92.

Additionally, in re the airshow, Joe civilian certainly isn't going to be subject to the UCMJ, and are expressly authorized under the statute as well.

[michaelm_ski]

So would it be unlawful to conceal carry taking a person to work at the Tank base off of 11 mile in Warren ?

[Roundballer]

So would it be unlawful to conceal carry taking a person to work at the Tank base off of 11 mile in Warren ?

That is not a State installation, it is Federal. So, pretty much unlawful.

[jgillmanjr]

That is not a State installation, it is Federal. So, pretty much unlawful.

Indeed. TACOM isn't a MING facility.

[michaelm_ski]

That is what I said but thought to get input to make sure , Thank you all for backing my belief .

[nmuskier]

UCMJ applies to state national guard???

Absolutely. As do all other Army regulations like physical fitness, wear and appearance of the uniform, customs and courtesy...

[luckless]

When it say Veterans Affairs that can cover a broad spectrum such as the V.A. hospitals and other buildings BUT I would be willing to bet they can and will be making amendments .
Can you carry concealed in Michigan hospitals?

https://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1878_1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

[michaelm_ski]

I didn't go into the hospital it was a professional building , Thanks for all of the answers .

[Purebass04]

UCMJ applies to state national guard???

UCMJ applies any time you are performing federal duty (on Title 10 or Title 32 orders). In addition to the federal UCMJ, Michigan also has it's own version of the UCMJ titled the Michigan Code of Military Justice of 1980 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(epxj0zbhasxtuh451ysam125))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-523-of-1980.pdf). Members are subject to the MI Code of Military Justice any time they are performing state duty such as drill time or annual required active duty.

[Bcar]

Indeed. TACOM isn't a MING facility.
but isn't it state owned land leased by the feds?

[Roundballer]

but isn't it state owned land leased by the feds?

Nope, it is Federal owned and operated by a Contractor. It was first established in 1940 as a GOCO facility with Chrysler Operating the facility and building the buildings. The Contract Operator have changed several times over the years, but it has always been Government Owned. Much the same as Post Offices are, US Government, but sort of not Government.