Removal of CEZ's

[Tallbear]

HB 4334 of 2009 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-HB-4334)
Weapons; concealed; list of specified premises on which a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon may not carry that weapon; eliminate.
Last Action: 2/18/2009 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[Tallbear]

Here is our chance to eliminate the "can't carry" area's in the law. This bill actually removes that section of the law that lists those area's.

To be effect we most contact our Representatives and "ask" them to support this bill. The more people that we can get to do this, the better chance we have that they will listen.

[Rugergirl]

Emails already sent:)

[esq_stu]

HB 4334 of 2009 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-HB-4334)
Weapons; concealed; list of specified premises on which a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon may not carry that weapon; eliminate.
Last Action: 2/18/2009 referred to Committee on JudiciaryNeeds work. Section 28.425o is not deleted or changed, and IMO, meets the criteria of "otherwise provided by law." They're going to have to do something about Section 28.425o.

Glad to see someone's working on it, though.

[Tallbear]

Needs work. Section 28.425o is not deleted or changed, and IMO, meets the criteria of "otherwise provided by law." They're going to have to do something about Section 28.425o.

Glad to see someone's working on it, though.



(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise provided by law........

With "section 5o" being stricken it would no long be valid.

[mkls0]

email sent

[Scoop]

What part of 28.425o was already ammended, effective this April 6, 2009? (I don't have time to read/compare, but both before/after are on the MI Legislature web site).

[jcurtis]

http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

for those who do not already have it.

[Tallbear]

What part of 28.425o was already ammended, effective this April 6, 2009? (I don't have time to read/compare, but both before/after are on the MI Legislature web site).

You can find the latest version of P.A. 372 here.........

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...ct-372-of-1927 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-372-of-1927)

It will show the latest updates in red like this...........


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...8-425o-amended (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425o-amended)

[BOSS302]

This needs to happen. There are no logical reasons we should not be able to carry in those places. Does it have a snowballs chance in hell of happening?

[Tallbear]

. Does it have a snowballs chance in hell of happening?

That will depend on the "support" it gets. And that will depend on the "pressure" we ALL put on our representatives to support it.

[joed]

This needs to happen. There are no logical reasons we should not be able to carry in those places. Does it have a snowballs chance in hell of happening?

I believe so if debated correctly. The statistics of CPL holders being the most responsible citizen's and the data for us carrying in non CEZ's are 100% in our favor.

[Glock2340ACP]

Sent an e-mail to my rep, Thanks!

[esq_stu]

(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise provided by law........

With "section 5o" being stricken it would no long be valid.Section 5o is not deleted. Just the reference to section 5o is deleted. It seems to me that as long as the CEZs in 5o remain in 5o, those CEZs remain as "otherwise provided by law" and are not gone. We need to see Section 5o with a bunch of lines through it. At best, the change is ambiguous. What am I getting wrong?

[NickS]

Section 5o is not deleted. Just the reference to section 5o is deleted. It seems to me that as long as the CEZs in 5o remain in 5o, those CEZs remain as "otherwise provided by law" and are not gone. We need to see Section 5o with a bunch of lines through it. At best, the change is ambiguous. What am I getting wrong?

Read the last line. It states:

"Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, is repealed."

I'm not a lawyer but I think that means it's gone! Erased!. Expunged! Stricken!

[esq_stu]

Read the last line. It states:

"Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, is repealed."

I'm not a lawyer but I think that means it's gone! Erased!. Expunged! Stricken!Duh! Thank you. That was very sloppy reading on my part. :banghead:

[Scoop]

You can find the latest version of P.A. 372 here.........

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...ct-372-of-1927 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-372-of-1927)

It will show the latest updates in red like this...........


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...8-425o-amended (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425o-amended)When I look at both of those links, the ONLY things in red are the words: "***** 28.425o.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 2009 ***** "

There's nothing in the text of the sections (that you linked to) that is in red to indicate what has changed.

Which is exactly why I was asking for clarification (those were the exact sources I was referring to when I first posted my question).

[Rootsy]

Mr. Kurtz has been notified.

[Tallbear]

When I look at both of those links, the ONLY things in red are the words: "***** 28.425o.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 2009 ***** "

There's nothing in the text of the sections (that you linked to) that is in red to indicate what has changed.

Which is exactly why I was asking for clarification (those were the exact sources I was referring to when I first posted my question).

Sorry......Misunderstood the question.

Addes judges to the "exempt from" section.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/publicact/htm/2008-PA-0407.htm

[Super Trucker]

Bob Constan has been notified.

[RS2]

So has Lisa Brown in the 39th.

[langenc]

Emails are good. I believe that snail mail is better cause someone will probably have to write an answer and you then have someting written.

Secondly, and a bit harder. When the Rep/Sen have 'office hours' or town hall visits-visit them and hand them some GOOD reprints that show our point of view and ask "and why do we have these areas?" What are you doing to remove them??

This is the same thought process they go thru passing xxxx legislation. They know it wont pass, but introduce anyway. Maybe next year, or therafter. Tell them this system is broken and needs fixing. Last year 6+ months were spent on 'the budget' and not much else moved. The answer was "as soon as the budget is done" balh blah blah.

Interestingly. ILLINOIS is now worried that 'blood will run in the streets'. At least they have the police Chiefs Assn as a 'we need CCW'. Id bet the state police dont approve--political, esp the head dude-probably a Col or some BS.

[rustyreel]

IL. has a bill asking for $1,000,000 liability policy for laa gun owners. glen beck had it on tonight.

[Rootsy]

I send 5 , what I feel are well thought out paragraphs, and I get a three sentence reply... But at least it is what I sort of wanted to hear... The second portion raises my brow... This is a direct cut and paste.

Thank you,
I will support this effort that Rep. Lori introduced as it is. I will also keep an eye to make sure nothing is added to this bill that would cause me to be against it. If you have further concerns, please let me know.

Ken Kurtz

[Edgar]

anyone care to share some text that would help a person inexperienced in such matters craft an email to their appropriate representative?

I believe this is an appropriate amendment to the existing legislation

:help:

[_DK_]

anyone care to share some text that would help a person inexperienced in such matters craft an email to their appropriate representative?

I believe this is an appropriate amendment to the existing legislation

:help:

I found this on NRA-ILA website based on a suggestion from Tallbear. Writing your reps (http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/GrassRootsActivism.aspx?ID=11)

[that guy]

Michael Lahti just got an email from me


I hope he will support it

[karcent]

Now we have another bill:


HB 4348


February 19, 2009, Introduced by Reps. LeBlanc, Sheltrown, Amash, Genetski, Polidori and Agema and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled

"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act," by amending section 5c (MCL 28.425c), as amended by 2002 PA 719; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 5c. (1) A license to carry a concealed pistol shall be in a form, with the same dimensions as a Michigan operator license, prescribed by the department of state police. The license shall contain all of the following:

(a) The licensee's full name and date of birth.
(b) A photograph and a physical description of the licensee.
(c) A statement of the effective dates of the license.
(d) An indication of exceptions authorized by this act applicable to the licensee.
(e) An indication whether the license is a duplicate.

(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee to do all of the following:

(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.
(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed, anywhere in this state.

Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, is repealed.

[Red Sector A]

I recently moved and have a new rep. Anyone know how Deb Kennedy states on gun issues?

I am composing a letter now.

I havent read both bills completely but I dont see any difference yet. Does anyone else?

[PhotoTom]

In both of these bills, there is an additional, very important piece of "housekeeping" that NEEDS to be done...or we may end up with new frustrations...

This also needs to be stricken from 28.425c(1):


(d) An indication of exceptions authorized by this act applicable to the licensee.

The above referenced item refers to the current exemption check box on the license itself (upper right corner). Leaving it behind may give some gun boards an idea that they are authorized to make restrictions ("except as otherwise provided by law") and allow exemptions to their county imposed restrictions per this provision.

[MI-copperhead]

E-mail sent to my Rep. and info forwarded to my gun owning friends.

[springerdave]

E-mail sent with admonition for not sponsoring the bill in the first place.springerdave.

[kc8opc]

You can find the latest version of P.A. 372 here.........

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...ct-372-of-1927 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-372-of-1927)

It will show the latest updates in red like this...........


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq...8-425o-amended (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lcq3kj5521huip45tsy4t122))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425o-amended)

The second link is dead.

Has this been decided yet?

[bornyesterday]

Apparently not. The issue was referred to the Committee on Judiciary in February.

[GlockWorkOrange]

does that mean we should email them ? need some direction here ----<><><><><><><><><><><>

[Zoolander]

Is this bill still active? I just wrote a note to Tom McMillin voicing my support. He never returns e-mails though. I may actually show up to a town hall to call him out on it.

[UPpatriot]

Emailed my rep Steve Lindberg. He's also my next door neighbor and has been open to my talks about gun regs. Hopefully he'll support this one.

[daj86]

In both of these bills, there is an additional, very important piece of "housekeeping" that NEEDS to be done...or we may end up with new frustrations...

This also needs to be stricken from 28.425c(1):



The above referenced item refers to the current exemption check box on the license itself (upper right corner). Leaving it behind may give some gun boards an idea that they are authorized to make restrictions ("except as otherwise provided by law") and allow exemptions to their county imposed restrictions per this provision.

I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't that be prohibited under Michigan's Preemption Law?

[BOSS302]

[QUOTE=Zoolander]Is this bill still active?

I don't know. I thought they had to start over after the end of the year. This one may be doa.

[PhotoTom]

[/b]

I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't that be prohibited under Michigan's Preemption Law?

Yep...problem is, a number of gun board members don't know this, or they simply don't care.

[Leader]

Yep...problem is, a number of gun board members don't know this, or they simply don't care.

Or ....Is it that those in government often think they are above the law?

[appliancebrad]

Is this bill still active? I just wrote a note to Tom McMillin voicing my support. He never returns e-mails though. I may actually show up to a town hall to call him out on it.

Bills are active for the term that they are introduced in. A legislative term is 2 years in length,the same period as terms in both the Michigan and U.S. House.

It will not go anywhere. Former Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows Chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Meadows holds the record as having the lowest score on a SAFR PAC survey ever. He is as anti gun as they get and will not allow the Bill to be heard.

Bills like this are a gesture to get people talking about the issue. The sponsor knows it will not go anywhere after it was sent to Judiciary. Get it to Rep. Sheltrown's Committee on Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation and it would at least get a hearing. In Meadow's committee, the Bill will die at the end of 2010.

[langenc]

Most people dont want it chnged.

80% of posters here have NOT contacted their reps on this bill!!

[bsf]

Bills are active for the term that they are introduced in. A legislative term is 2 years in length,the same period as terms in both the Michigan and U.S. House.

It will not go anywhere. Former Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows Chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Meadows holds the record as having the lowest score on a SAFR PAC survey ever. He is as anti gun as they get and will not allow the Bill to be heard.

Bills like this are a gesture to get people talking about the issue. The sponsor knows it will not go anywhere after it was sent to Judiciary. Get it to Rep. Sheltrown's Committee on Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation and it would at least get a hearing. In Meadow's committee, the Bill will die at the end of 2010.

Can Dillon pluck it out of the Judiciary and plop it in Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation? How likely is that to happen?

[appliancebrad]

Can Dillon pluck it out of the Judiciary and plop it in Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation? How likely is that to happen?

Yes the Speaker can do that but I doubt it will happen. We have seen that be the case with a couple of gun bills that went to Judiciary. I can't see it happening with this one. Look at the backlash to campus preemption. the anti's killed us on contacts to the legislators. They spun simple preemption into "guns in dorms and classrooms". That idea isn't getting any traction. Now add daycares (it's for the children) bars (we can't have guns and alcohol in the same place, they don't mix you know), schools (OMG!!!!!!) and sports arenas (they'll be shooting at the Red Wings) Actually that's the only one that makes any sense for those attending a game at Ford Field :)

[cmoe25027]

Representative Haugh notified!

Cheers,
Collin

[malignity]

Most people dont want it chnged.

80% of posters here have NOT contacted their reps on this bill!!

Probably because we don't know who to contact.

[G22]

Probably because we don't know who to contact.

That was covered by post #8 in this very thread.

Again for those who missed it:
http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp


This is the guy who can move this bill from the judiciary to the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation committee where it at least may be heard. In the judiciary committee its DOA.

Andy Dillon
Speaker of the House

District 17
andydillon@house.mi.gov
Ph: 517.373.0857
Room 166 Capitol Buildin

[dpgperftest]

I believe so if debated correctly. The statistics of CPL holders being the most responsible citizen's and the data for us carrying in non CEZ's are 100% in our favor.


most responsible citizen's LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL stop it

[HK USP]

most responsible citizen's LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL stop it

I believe joed is referring to the fact that CPL holders have the lowest rate of criminal activity and license revoked of any group, including police officers....

[dpgperftest]

I believe joed is referring to the fact that CPL holders have the lowest rate of criminal activity and license revoked of any group, including police officers....


thank you .