SB 0076 - 0078 of 2023 - Require license or background check for purchase of firearms

[PhotoTom]

SB 0076 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; license or background check for purchase of firearms; require.
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

SB 0077 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; references to pistol in penal code; update.
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

SB 0078 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; references in sentencing guidelines; update. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0076'23
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

[matt11]

SB 0076 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; license or background check for purchase of firearms; require.
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

SB 0077 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; references to pistol in penal code; update.
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

SB 0078 of 2023
Weapons: firearms; references in sentencing guidelines; update. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0076'23
Last Action: 2/16/2023 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Not sure what the licenses actually is, but it looks like everyone will be required to get one for every firearm they already have? Sound like registration that requires government approval for ownership.
I do not understand the Person to individual? Is that to cover something that does not consider themselves a person.

[Scandiacus]

From my reading, it looks like the license to purchase a firearm other than a pistol would not have to be turned in. As in, this would not require registration of long guns, just the background check to get a LTP? Am I reading that correctly? How do they expect to enforce it?

Also, it looks like this would allow you to loan a firearm to a minor for hunting purposes, but not another adult? No provision to even "loan" my wife a hunting rifle? This is bullocks.

[Scandiacus]

Another thing:

Sec. 2a. (1) The following individuals are not required to
obtain a license under section 2 to purchase, carry, possess, use,
or transport a firearm:
[...]
(d) An individual purchasing a firearm other than a pistol who
has a federal national instant criminal background check performed
on the individual by a federally licensed firearms dealer not more
than 5 days before the purchase.


It doesn't specify they have to actually be approved by that background check. So regardless of whether someone actually passes that NICS check, state law would still allow them to buy a long gun from a private seller - without a LTP - as long as the purchase happens within 5 days of any NICS check? Talk about a loophole.

[10x25mm]

NRA-ILA emailed a bulletin indicating possible Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee hearings tomorrow, February 23rd:

Michigan: Gun Control Hearings As Early As Tomorrow

Tomorrow, the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to meet, weather permitting. They will hear three gun control bill packages: to criminalize private transfers, require firearms be made unavailable for self-defense, and allow Second Amendment rights to be suspended without due process. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these gun control schemes.

In addition, NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are invited to attend the hearing. Click here for more information. The official agenda has not yet been posted as of this time.

Thursday, 12:00 PM
Room 1300, Binsfeld Office Building
201 Townsend Street, Lansing, MI 48933

Senate Bills 76, 77, and 78 further criminalize private transfers of firearms by expanding Michigan’s handgun permit-to-purchase system to all firearms. Such “universal” background check systems can never be universal, because criminals, by definition, do not comply with the law. These laws are unenforceable without a firearm registry and turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals for simply loaning firearms to friends or many family members.

Senate Bills 79, 80, 81, and 82 impose a mandatory storage scheme for firearm owners, not taking into account an individual’s particular situation. Those not storing firearms in compliance face prison time up to 15 years and fines up to $7,500, for unauthorized access by minors. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that storage provisions that prevent a law-abiding American from having ready access to a firearm for self-defense are unconstitutional.

Senate Bills 83, 84, 85, and 86 allow the seizure of an individual’s firearms on baseless accusations, without a hearing or other opportunity for the evidence to be heard in court. They permit the government to seize firearms based on weak and nebulous standards of evidence.

A person subject to a suspension of a Constitutional right should be entitled to high evidentiary standards, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to face his or her accusers. Civil liberties advocates from across the political spectrum have expressed concerns about these “red flag” bills and how the procedure might lead to abuses because of insufficient due process protections in the bills.

Again, please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these gun control schemes.

[mi650]

From my reading, it looks like the license to purchase a firearm other than a pistol would not have to be turned in. As in, this would not require registration of long guns, just the background check to get a LTP? Am I reading that correctly? How do they expect to enforce it?

Also, it looks like this would allow you to loan a firearm to a minor for hunting purposes, but not another adult? No provision to even "loan" my wife a hunting rifle? This is bullocks.

Guaranteed that will change.

[Scandiacus]

NRA-ILA emailed a bulletin indicating possible Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee hearings tomorrow, February 23rd:

Any idea if they wound up meeting, or did the weather delay them?

[10x25mm]

Any idea if they wound up meeting, or did the weather delay them?

The Michigan Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee did not meet on February 23rd, and has not scheduled their next meeting as of now.

This could be due to weather, but the lack of a forward schedule might indicate a political hitch (or just general incompetence by the newly empowered Democratic legislators). The bills are still on their referrals list.

[Scandiacus]

These bills and others were discussed in committee today. I couldn't get off work to be there, unfortunately. Does anyone know how it went down?

[PhotoTom]

These bills and others were discussed in committee today. I couldn't get off work to be there, unfortunately. Does anyone know how it went down?

If you supported the bills, you were allowed as much time as you wanted. If you opposed the bills, you were lucky to get a chance to say anything. To be continued...next week.