H.B. 4003, 4004, 4005 4006 consitutional carry bills

[Leader]

I could tolerate a duty to inform (could always fix it later) but, a $500 fine for failing to inform? NO.

This would be the BEST time to "fix" the duty to inform.
We have it with our currant CPL & haven't been able to "fix it", in fact, it has gotten WORSE.

[Roundballer]

Sorry Gary:

I believe some states with constitutional carry (CC) do have a duty to inform clause. I think Alaska is one. I don't like Duty to Inform but If that's what it takes to get CC initially it can always be changed in the future. As for a fine, maybe $25 is appropriate but not $500.

There are only about 12 States that have "duty to inform", some of them may also be CC states. We already have it, and it is one of those things that need fixing NOW, because they just increased the penalty. That "fix it later" concept never happens.

If we were able to get CC passed would be any provisions for still obtaining a CPL in case you wanted to go to another state that requires one?

In this instance, they are adding it as an exception to the requirement for the permit. They are not touching the permit law at all. Past attempts at this just removed it from being a crime.

If so, maybe we could bargain to get the current system scrapped and replaced with a simple endorsement on one's driver's license or state ID. Pay for it like a motorcycle endorsement.

They are not changing the current system, and many, many people don't want it on their DL to advertise to every person you have to show the DL to that you may be carrying.

So maybe we bargain for this. Give us CC but allow people who want or need a CPL to get one. They still have to take a class but you simply take the cert to the SOS, they run you and you get an endorsement on your DL or SID. That makes everybody happy, the state, firearms instructors, legislators etc. Maybe take the duty to inform out of the deal if you get a permit. After all if you are in the system they already know you are carrying at least in a traffic stop.

The problem is that they have no reason to bargain with us on this subject. This bill (if they will allow CC at all) gives them everything up front, nothing to "bargain away" to get it passed.

[DP425]

This isn't going to happen with snyder, and there won't be enough votes to over-turn a veto. As if it could ever get so far as a veto- snyder has the legislature in his pocket.

[langenc]

Name the gun bill that ever got better in committee because they chipped away at the bad parts.

It just doesn't happen that way.

I was surprized to read that one. I am not a legal eagle but dont recall much that was improved in committee.

[confused8122]

Don't know if anyone on here has an opinion on gun owners of America, but I sent them a link. This was the response, which was mostly agreed so far. The harassment possibility, and the probably won't pass.

Overall, House Bill 4003 looks like a pretty good bill.

Our one concern is the provision allowing the police to detain anyone with a concealed weapon to determine whether they have a criminal record.* This could result in harassment.

On the other hand, in Michigan, this could be the best concealed carry bill which is politically possible.

We will look at the alternatives and discuss this among our staff to see if we should put out an alert endorsing it.

And thanks again for contacting us. If you haven’t already, please consider signing up for GOA’s free Email Alerts, which includes pre-written letters you can send to officials in a few clicks:*gunowners.org/alerts

[jebates]

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!

What does this do to open carry for those that do not have CPL? It also allows officers to detain people if an officer wants to for what ever reason. I could wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.

[DV8r]

I don't understand the shall be to IS changes.

I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.

[luckless]

I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.

Like, "Thou shall not lie"?

They have switched to common core legislation. They are also changing "person" to "individual" because they want to include corporations into the law. I still don't understand how they expect to send a corporation to prison.

I would really like to know who is responsible for mandating the change. Who told all of the legislators to change?

[Roundballer]

I see 'shall be' as conditional but without definition or time and 'is' as now and unconditional.

Like, "Thou shall not lie"?

They have switched to common core legislation. They are also changing "person" to "individual" because they want to include corporations into the law. I still don't understand how they expect to send a corporation to prison.

I would really like to know who is responsible for mandating the change. Who told all of the legislators to change?

I have done more research into this question since I posted that. I didn't understand why some of the changes. I always took "Shall" as a concise directive like "duty to preform", when it was used in law. It seems that there is a SCOTUS decision, that is very convoluted, and they concluded (so the case could continue) that "Shall" can be interpreted as "May". They also concluded that "Will, Will not and Is" are the absolute directives. We have been seeing Michigan legislation grammar police changing that wording in every bill since that time.

And luckless picked a prime example. "Thou shall not lie" is a directive, but it is also a denial of permission, not a removal of the capability to do it. The sentence would say the same thing if the word "may" was substituted. It would still only deny permission, not totally prevent or some how remove the capability.

[Flash-hider]

By your research is, "shall not be infringed" in jeopardy.