Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<
December MGO Holiday Meeting & Fun Shoot / Firingline Westland 12-15-2017…Raffle Drawing, Door Prizes, Food and FUN! CLICK——>>MORE INFO HERE!!<<—CLICK

Firearm Exchange

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: SB 0668 of 2017 - PPO; possession of firearms; require individual who is restrained to relinquish firearms

  1. #1
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    20,496

    SB 0668 of 2017 - PPO; possession of firearms; require individual who is restrained to relinquish firearms

    SB 0668 of 2017
    Civil procedure; personal protection orders; possession of firearms; require individual who is restrained to relinquish firearms. Amends secs. 2950 & 2950a of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2950 & 600.2950a).
    Last Action: 11/28/2017 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  2. #2
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    17,398
    Oh HELL NO!

    As part of a "PPO" without a trial or conviction, they will demand that you give up your 2A rights to purchase or possess, and demand that you turn over what you do have to the LEOs or sell them. No chance to turn them over to a lawyer until the dispute gets cleared up.

    It it that ID10t from A2 again, REBEKAH WARREN


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  3. #3
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator SteveS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ingham County
    Posts
    14,237
    This is a terrible bill, but there is already a provision that allowed courts to deny someone their second amendment rights. What would happen if the respondent had guns is that they would be dragged back into court and penalized in some way.

    Regardless, the police shouldn’t be able to demand your firearms.
    My contact information for both legal and FFL services can be found here.

    Opinions and comments made by me on this forum should not be considered legal advice.

  4. #4
    So when I had Melissa read the actual bill, she stated almost immediately that there is a very serious due process issue with it the way it is currently written. It appears from reading the bill that you could be made to sell all your firearms, "ex-parte" and she says that doesn't pass constitutional muster. See the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
    The Law is not necessarily just, Nor is Justice necessarily legal........---Col. Jeff Cooper

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by kpearce View Post
    So when I had Melissa read the actual bill, she stated almost immediately that there is a very serious due process issue with it the way it is currently written. It appears from reading the bill that you could be made to sell all your firearms, "ex-parte" and she says that doesn't pass constitutional muster. See the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
    Wasn't there a supreme court case not that long ago that dealt with a similar issue, and essentially said, ownership rights cannot be relinquished, and it is there for, the decision of the owner on how said firearms are to be disposed? In other words, they could not be forced to "sell to an FFL, or turn over to PD"... if they wanted to say, give their firearms away to friends and family, they could.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by DP425 View Post
    Wasn't there a supreme court case not that long ago that dealt with a similar issue, and essentially said, ownership rights cannot be relinquished, and it is there for, the decision of the owner on how said firearms are to be disposed? In other words, they could not be forced to "sell to an FFL, or turn over to PD"... if they wanted to say, give their firearms away to friends and family, they could.
    Yes there was a case recently that addressed an issue like this. If I remember correctly in that case the police had seized his guns and were going to destroy them after his felony conviction. The US Supreme court ruled that they were his guns and could dispose of them in any legal manner that he wished. ....found it....Henderson v. United States

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter