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<<<<<

MDFI

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: HB 5535 of 2018 - Allow Purchase and Possession of Stun Guns for Individuals Over Age 21

  1. #1
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    22,151

    HB 5535 of 2018 - Allow Purchase and Possession of Stun Guns for Individuals Over Age 21

    HB 5535 of 2018
    Weapons; other; purchase and possession of stun guns; allow for individuals over age 21. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a).
    Last Action: 2/13/2018 bill electronically reproduced 02/08/2018

    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
    18,539
    This one is pretty good. All it does is say that a "stun gun" is legal for anyone 21 or over and defines what is a "stun gun".

    BUT, I also see that it has just a single sponsor. That means that this is most likely a campaign move, and is expected to go no where and even the sponsor won't push it very much. Yet, she will be able to point at it as her support of us.


    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
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    22,151
    I could see it gaining traction if it were "sold" as a viable alternative to carrying a gun. I'm sure there are a LOT of folks that would NOT carry a gun…ever…but would be very happy to see this bill passed so they can carry a "stun gun" legally.

    Problem is, it can also backfire…"on the fence" legislators pointing to it saying, "we already gave you this…why do we need to continue to loosen gun laws further now?

    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.

  4. #4
    Stun guns were already legalized by People v Yanna. It’s statewide precedent and it said the ban on stun guns and the ban on openly carrying stun guns was unconstitutional.

    The problem is some prosecutors pretend Yanna doesn’t exist and when it’s brought up, they offer plea deals that clients don’t want to say no to.

    Where is the Attorney General on this? Why doesn’t he pursue action against these prosecutors?

    Oh, that’s right, he’s asleep at the wheel like he is on everything, except when the tobacco lobby needs an opinion in 5 minutes. It’s unfortunate that Michigan elects AG’s, but that’s another story.

  5. #5
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Stun guns were already legalized by People v Yanna. It’s statewide precedent and it said the ban on stun guns and the ban on openly carrying stun guns was unconstitutional.

    The problem is some prosecutors pretend Yanna doesn’t exist and when it’s brought up, they offer plea deals that clients don’t want to say no to.

    Where is the Attorney General on this? Why doesn’t he pursue action against these prosecutors?

    Oh, that’s right, he’s asleep at the wheel like he is on everything, except when the tobacco lobby needs an opinion in 5 minutes. It’s unfortunate that Michigan elects AG’s, but that’s another story.
    The old law was struck down.

    then they made a new law restricting stun guns, but allowing licensed people to have them (So long as they meet the requirements - serialized graffiti, etc).

    The new law has not yet been challenged in the same way.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” --Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    NOTHING IN THIS POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult an attorney for all legal matters.
    ALL of the posts I make are my own, and do not speak for MGO as a forum or as an organization.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    The old law was struck down.

    then they made a new law restricting stun guns, but allowing licensed people to have them (So long as they meet the requirements - serialized graffiti, etc).

    The new law has not yet been challenged in the same way.
    Tasers are not the same as stun guns. Shyster’s been irked by this (rightfully so) for years now.

  7. #7
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    18,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Tasers are not the same as stun guns. Shyster’s been irked by this (rightfully so) for years now.
    But (previous to this bill) they didn't use either word. They prohibit any device that uses electrical power to incapacitate a person. Then they make an exception to allow certain individuals and allow certain devices. One of the restrictions on the device is that it leaves the serialized confetti. They separated the two types without naming them.


    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.

  8. #8
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    But (previous to this bill) they didn't use either word. They prohibit any device that uses electrical power to incapacitate a person. Then they make an exception to allow certain individuals and allow certain devices. One of the restrictions on the device is that it leaves the serialized confetti. They separated the two types without naming them.
    It is definitely possible to make a stun gun that spits out serialized confetti when you activate it.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” --Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    NOTHING IN THIS POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult an attorney for all legal matters.
    ALL of the posts I make are my own, and do not speak for MGO as a forum or as an organization.

  9. #9
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    18,539
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    It is definitely possible to make a stun gun that spits out serialized confetti when you activate it.
    And if "they" did, I would assume that they would be legal under the present law.

    Yet, that would also require that they would no longer work without having sufficient confetti in them.


    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.

  10. #10
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    And if "they" did, I would assume that they would be legal under the present law.

    Yet, that would also require that they would no longer work without having sufficient confetti in them.

    Taser brand tasers only shoot confetti on the first pull of the trigger for each incident... re-activating the shock will not shoot more graffiti. This alone would be a grey area in current law.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” --Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    NOTHING IN THIS POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult an attorney for all legal matters.
    ALL of the posts I make are my own, and do not speak for MGO as a forum or as an organization.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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