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<<<<<
MGO Annual Member's Meeting! Great Food! IMPORTANT ELECTION BALLOTS! THIS SUNDAY!!CLICK——>>HERE<<—CLICK FOR MORE DETAILS!

Dirty Bird Industires (AR15 Discounts)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: HB 4020 of 2019 - Allow individuals over 21 to purchase and possess stun guns

  1. #1
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    22,915

    HB 4020 of 2019 - Allow individuals over 21 to purchase and possess stun guns

    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: 1/15/2019 bill electronically reproduced 01/10/2019
    2019 MGO Board of Directors Candidate
    Please vote "YES" for ALL Proposed BYLAWS CHANGES!
    Get Your Election Ballot —>HERE<— ELECTION BALLOT RECEIPT DEADLINE: JULY 20, 2019
    You Can Vote Immediately After Your Membership is Processed! JOIN —>HERE<—

    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
    19,695
    This one looks to be cleanly written and does exactly what the description says.

    I think we should support. This is sponsored by a single representative.


    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
    MGO Member DEVIL DOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEAR METRO AIRPORT
    Posts
    5,980
    I would think a whole lot of folks would be ok carrying a less than lethal weapon. Hell, I don't want to take anyone's life. But I'm too old to wrestle.
    ΥΣΜΧ SEMPER FIDELIS !

    LIFE MEMBER OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST FRATERNITY

    60 AND COUNTING

  4. #4
    (D) "STUN GUN" MEANS A DEVICE THAT 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 AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE DIRECTION OR EMISSION OF
    CONDUCTED ENERGY. STUN GUN DOES NOT INCLUDE A LAUNCHABLE DEVICE.
    So does that mean that a tazer style device that shoots barbs out would not qualify? If so this would only apply to the cheap pieces of junk that you have to be in contact distance to use.

  5. #5
    Administrator zigziggityzoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    16,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Divegeek View Post
    So does that mean that a tazer style device that shoots barbs out would not qualify? If so this would only apply to the cheap pieces of junk that you have to be in contact distance to use.
    It looks to not changes TASERs, but just makes stun guns legal.

    To use a TASER, you still need a CPL, and it is subject to the CPL PFZ.
    "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
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    19,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Divegeek View Post
    So does that mean that a tazer style device that shoots barbs out would not qualify?
    Tasers are already allowed under the proper conditions, this would not affect them at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divegeek View Post
    If so this would only apply to the cheap pieces of junk that you have to be in contact distance to use.
    The changes do only affect direct contact type devices, but not all of them are junk in construction or operation.



    In reviewing this an additional time, I think it needs to be expanded. There is nothing wrong with the current bill, as a starting point.

    One of the areas and groups that could really use this legislation would be young women on college campuses. I would guess that most freshmen and sophomores are under 21 and even a number of juniors, only by the time they are seniors does the demographic drastically change.
    I am not suggesting that they make a valid school ID mandatory for those 18-20, but they have done similar stuff in the past. Hey the call box is just on the other side of the parking lot, and the campus cops are just a few minutes away.


    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.

  7. #7
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Waterford, Michigan
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post

    One of the areas and groups that could really use this legislation would be young women on college campuses. I would guess that most freshmen and sophomores are under 21 and even a number of juniors, only by the time they are seniors does the demographic drastically change.
    Not that I disagree with your analysis, but wouldn't colleges still be able to ban them (or see a need to) like they do with just about everything else? Your run of the mill community college may not be able to ban them, but I'd be willing to bet that UM and MSU will...

  8. #8
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    19,695
    Yes, they could.

    And we might be able to turn that to our advantage. Maybe actually fix Preemption? At least (with what is in the bill) the State would not be doing it, they just restrict the age.


    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.

  9. #9
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    sw michigan
    Posts
    3,669
    I would have thought they would have written it to allow 18 and above. With all the talk of assaults on college campi it would have been a no brainer.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by DEVIL DOG View Post
    I would think a whole lot of folks would be ok carrying a less than lethal weapon. Hell, I don't want to take anyone's life. But I'm too old to wrestle.
    Amen to that !

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