As drafted in S1:
That will screw-over LEO's that have CPL's…especially reserve/auxiliary officers.(11) AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED UNDER THIS ACT TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL, OR WHO IS EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE UNDER SECTION 12A(H), SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL ON THE PREMISES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (1)(A) TO (H) UNLESS 1 OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
(A) THE INDIVIDUAL OWNS THE PREMISES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1).
(B) THE INDIVIDUAL IS EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED BY THE OWNER OR OTHER PERSON WITH CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) AND THE POSSESSION OF THE PISTOL IS TO PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES FOR THE PREMISES OR IS OTHERWISE IN THE SCOPE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.
(C) THE INDIVIDUAL IS ACTING WITH THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES OR AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES.
(12) (6) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the individual is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $500.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol suspended for 6 months.
(b) For a second violation, the individual is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.
(c) For a third or subsequent violation, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. The court shall order the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol revoked.
That will also screw-over anyone that accidentally allows their firearm to be seen.
Does "printing" count? If not, how "thick" or "opaque" must the fabric be?
Not good...
Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will RogersDISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.
The NRA-ILA is urging members to SUPPORT these bills…
If you follow their lead, this is the auto-generated letter that will be sent (you CAN edit it, though):
As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter in your district, I urge you to please support SB 0527, SB 0584, SB 0585, and SB 0586.
SB 0527 ensures that anti-gun bureaucrats do not prevent loving and supporting homes from caring for foster children just because prospective foster parents choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Foster parents are like any other parents who simply want to care for their children, including exercising their Second Amendment rights in order to protect their families. The needs of foster children should be placed above any gun control agenda.
So called gun-free zones leave law-abiding citizens defense while doing nothing to address criminals who carry firearms illegally. Senate Bills 0584, 0585, and 0586 will reform gun-free zones to ensure that law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry firearms are not left defenseless once they cross arbitrary thresholds into certain areas.
Again, please consider voting for SB 0527, SB 0584, SB 0585, and SB 0586. Thank you.
Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will RogersDISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.
And there is a section that kills any chance of getting to carry on university campuses: "(10) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAS THE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 TO ENACT AND ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CARRYING, USE, OR TRANSPORTATION OF A PISTOL FROM ENACTING OR ENFORCING SUCH AN ORDINANCE."
Thank you Tom!
A good question... probably just "more restraint". I can't imagine what would be taught that would make any difference.
I like the idea of these bills, except for the part where it makes open carry a criminal offense, and strengthens a college/university's ability to restrict. Those are no good. Otherwise, I see it as a stepping stone. If we had this, where CPL holders could carry into current PFZ's, and after a few years of no incidents, where nothing happens.. we can point and say "See? Concealed carriers aren't the problem." For whatever that's worth. And it may open the door to more firearms freedoms.