SB 0029, 0030, 0093 Tazer bills

[BANNED]

The bill has not finished the "process" and will allow testimony by anyone before it goes to a final vote before passing (or failing).

So there is lots of time then to weigh in on this?

[Tallbear]

So there is lots of time then to weigh in on this?

The "timeline" has yet to be set by the committee considering the bill. So, we keep track of the bill to be available for testimony. The house can make amendments if they so choose and we need to be ready to address them if need be.

[BANNED]

The "timeline" has yet to be set by the committee considering the bill. So, we keep track of the bill to be available for testimony. The house can make amendments if they so choose and we need to be ready to address them if need be.

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

[TheQ]

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

I am working to get the added 2.425o exception removed or at least better defined/narrowed.

[Tallbear]

Thanks. So there is no need to be involved in any of the possible changes? Or is there a chance that there is a possibility of influencing this?

Changes to the bill can take place any where in the process up to the final floor vote. Any changes in the house must be voted on when the bill returns to the senate for approval there. When both house and senate agree on any change, then it can sent to the Governor for signage or veto.

[appliancebrad]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

[Cackler]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

Thanks again for the clarification Brad. Now if more would see the light.

[BANNED]

This Bill as passed by the Senate reinforces that there is validity to the No Carry (CEZ, PFZ, etc) Zones. If one should not have a means of Less Than Lethal self defense in the places we can't carry firearms, then it give weight to the argument that Michigan needs to leave them in place for pistols. A vote for this Bill is a vote against removing the PFZ's. SAFR opposes it in it's current form.

Additionally, since Tasers are not firearms, they are not subject to Preemption. Even if Michigan legalizes them, local units of government may still ban them. Want your $300 stun gun confiscated? Just get pulled over in the wrong community.

This is bad policy and hopefully the Committee will see so.

This is great news to us that the stream firearm organizations, MCGRO, SAFR, and MOC, are letting the legislatures know our opposition to these bills as written. It gives us individuals insight as to how these bills will affect each of us. More importantly, these groups are out in front of the process instead of waiting around for something to happen.

Thank you MOC, SAFR, AND MCGRO!!!

[BANNED]

Thanks again for the clarification Brad. Now if more would see the light.

You mean those that are sitting around waiting?!?!? We can only poke them so much to do something before they get mad. But keep poking Cackler, it does help. (No sarcasm intended either.)

[Cackler]

This is great news to us that the stream firearm organizations, MCGRO, SAFR, and MOC, are letting the legislatures know our opposition to these bills as written. It gives us individuals insight as to how these bills will affect each of us. More importantly, these groups are out in front of the process instead of waiting around for something to happen.

Thank you MOC, SAFR, AND MCGRO!!!

Say what? It looks to me like MOC is SUPPORTING the damned thing.

I turned in a card on behalf of MOC supporting the bill. Brady from MCRGO also turned in a card supporting the bill.


Another concern I have (but stayed silent on) is it applies current CPL law to tasers, including PFZs and alcohol limits -- I could do without those restrictions being applied to tasers.

Despite these concerns, "we" supported the bill.

I'd expect a vote next week. If we don't get one, I'll launch a grassroots campaign to get attention to the bill to get a vote.