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<<<<<

AmazonSmile

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

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

  1. #11
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    18,759
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    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.
    Yah, maybe I am not stating my point clearly enough. The law specifies "initially used", and with a Taser type device, to use it on a second person, it would have to have fresh "cartridges" loaded.

    (ii) The device contains an identification and tracking system that, when the device is initially used, dispenses coded material traceable to the purchaser through records kept by the manufacturer, and the manufacturer of the device has a policy of providing that identification and tracking information to a police agency upon written request by that agency. However, this subdivision does not apply to a launchable device that is used only by law enforcement agencies.
    For that requirement to be met by a "direct contact" type of device, it would have to be adapted to only fire once with the marker, or have a supply on board to cover it for the initial use on the next person.

    With this bill, they are adding the "stun gun", and then defining it so that it stands alone.


    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.

  2. #12
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Genesee County
    Posts
    6,594
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    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.
    The mere citizenry tasers are a one-time deal. Confetti and one dose of juice per cartridge. I guess this is why they are referred to at times as a shoot-drop-run taser.

  3. #13
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    22,030
    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: 2/22/2018 referred to Committee on Tax Policy

    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. #14
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    18,759
    WTF, Over!

    Why did they pull this out of the Judiciary Committee and put it in the Committee on Tax Policy?


    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.

  5. #15
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    4,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    WTF, Over!

    Why did they pull this out of the Judiciary Committee and put it in the Committee on Tax Policy?
    It only has one sponsor. The move could be to kill the bill or to insure he vote for something that the Chairman of the tax committee and House leadership wants. She has recently been touting the new tax/spend plan for more money to the roads. Coincidence?

  6. #16
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    WTF, Over!

    Why did they pull this out of the Judiciary Committee and put it in the Committee on Tax Policy?
    I basically had the exact same thought when I posted it this morning!
    Then, I wondered if they are planning on taxing the "luxury" of having a stun gun…or if it is just a mistake...

    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.

  7. #17
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    sw michigan
    Posts
    3,384
    I am questioning the possession of a stun gun by persons 21 and older. That leaves the 18-21 college chicks swinging in the wind or am I not reading it correctly.

  8. #18
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    4,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash-hider View Post
    I am questioning the possession of a stun gun by persons 21 and older. That leaves the 18-21 college chicks swinging in the wind or am I not reading it correctly.
    Yep, grope away my friend!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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