HB 5220 of 2017
Weapons; other; purchase and possession of certain self-defense spray concentration; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Last Action: 11/7/2017 bill electronically reproduced 11/02/2017
Printable View
HB 5220 of 2017
Weapons; other; purchase and possession of certain self-defense spray concentration; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Last Action: 11/7/2017 bill electronically reproduced 11/02/2017
Looks like it is essentially just proposing taking the legal limit of oleoresin capsicum from 10% to 18%.
HB 5220 of 2017
Weapons; other; purchase and possession of certain self-defense spray concentration; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Last Action: 12/4/2017 Analysis File Added
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-76FFFACF.pdf
HB 5220 of 2017
Weapons; other; purchase and possession of certain self-defense spray concentration; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Last Action: 2/7/2018 referred to second reading
It will be interesting to see who will oppose this.
I also would like to see who actually does oppose, but most of that will not be done in the open where we can see it.
I expect opposition from anyone that is exempt from that law: MCL 750-231
HB 5220 of 2017
Weapons; other; purchase and possession of certain self-defense spray concentration; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Last Action: 2/13/2018 Analysis File Added
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-4FBAAC7D.pdf
We missed a little movement on this one:
2/7/2018 HJ 13 Pg. 204 reported with recommendation without amendment
2/7/2018 HJ 13 Pg. 204 referred to second reading
It is out of committee and back to the house for voting.
This part is also interesting:
That part also kind of angers me. The MSP should not have any voice in law making. It is one thing to have an individual (who happens to be a cop) testifying, but having an MSP "representative" (a part of the Executive branch) regularly weighting in as "pro, neutral or con" is wrong.Quote:
POSITIONS:
A representative from Damsels in Defense testified in support of the bill. (12-5-17)
A representative from the Michigan State Police indicated a neutral position regarding the bill. (12-5-17)
Analysis as Reported From Committee (2/13/2018) is a pretty good read.
Having MSP input angers me too. They are not a lobbying group, their salaries come from tax payer money. Having to get the the opinions from the MSP looks to much like a "police State."
It is one way the governor exerts his influence. The MSP does what the governor tells them. He is their boss and they are his personal lobbying arm.