HB 4020 of 2019
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: 1/15/2020 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HB 4020 of 2019
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: 1/15/2020 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
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 same committee that gun bills have gone to die. Hmmmmm... Anyone among us have a good relationship with Mike Shirkey that would be willing to ask him?
Just me
Instructor: Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Hunter Safety
NRA Life Member
President of the Chippewa County Shooting Association
I am confused...
I've been under the impression that electro-muscular disruption devices (such as a Taser) are already legal as long as you have a valid CPL. Isn't a stun gun an electro-muscular disruption device?
How is this different than the law about Tasers? Does it simply lower the age to 18 and no CPL needed?
Last edited by RayMich; 02-05-2020 at 04:36 PM.
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.
Hmm...
Lookin in the online PDF file Firearm Laws of Michigan (Dated April 2018 )
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/docum...s/Firearms.pdf
I have searched the whole file and the term "direct contact" does not appear anywhere in the file.
The only place were I can find anything remotely related to civilian Tasers is at 750.224a(7) where it states that "(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." So I guess this is where a "Stun Gun" would be excluded.
(7) As used in this section:(a) “A device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology” means a device to which both of the following apply:(i) The device is capable of creating an electro-muscular disruption and is used or intended to be used as a defensive device capable of temporarily incapacitating or immobilizing a person by the direction or emission of conducted energy.
(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.
Otherwise, I find nothing else that would exclude a direct contact electro-muscular disruption device. I guess this is probably enough to exclude direct contact devices, since they don't dispense any type of coded material traceable to the owner.
Since the direct contact devices do not dispense such coded material, maybe that requirement for launchable devices should be eliminated as unnecessary.
Will direct contact devices be exempt in Gun-Free-Zones?
Please, let me know where I may be able to find additional information about this.
what are the chances that Whitmer will sign this bill?
Thanks.
Go right back to your own reference and read (1). As usual, they outlawed all, then gave exceptions to a few below.
MCL 750-224a
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.
Thanks.
I see what you mean that they outlaw everything and then grant exceptions below. But from what I read, the only feature that applies only to a launchable device, such as a Taser, is "...that, when the device is initially used, dispenses coded material traceable to the purchaser..." This is a feature in Tasers for civilian use and a direct contact device does not have. What am I missing?
If these direct contact electro-muscular devices are still restricted in gun-free-zones, I see no advantage over some other type of self defense weapon. At least Pepper Spray allows for some distance and doesn't require direct contact with the attacker.
In the new bill they give a separate definition for a "stun device", HB-4020 which clears it up and declares that it is not a launchable device.
MCL 750-234d does not list them at all, only firearms. And MCL 28-425o uses the same language as for a "Taser" and would not include a "stun device".Originally Posted by HB 4020
And is mostly useless when there is much of a wind. The stun device is just another tool in the box. It can be held at the ready and deployed instantly, they are rechargeable and don't expire with time like most sprays.
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.
Thanks!
So, I take it that an individual over 18 years of age may possess a stun device without a CPL and therefore is not restricted by PFZ laws.
Since a stun device cannot "disperse" identifiable "confetti", such requirement for civilian tasers is overly restrictive and should be eliminated. The civilian taser is designed to be dropped and left while the owner flees, so it would be identifiable when LE recovers it.
This is interesting...
According to Federal law, any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year is in effect considered a FELONY, especially with respect to firearm laws. So calling it a misdemeanor is highly misleading and totally abusive.An individual who violates this subdivision subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Last edited by RayMich; 02-13-2020 at 04:58 PM.
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.