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<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,708

    HB 4149 & 4150 of 2023 - Expand "gun-free zones" & "weapon-free zones" to include all buildings owned or leased by this state

    HB 4149 of 2023
    Weapons: concealed; weapon-free zones; include all buildings owned or leased by this state.
    Last Action: 3/1/2023 bill electronically reproduced 03/01/2023

    HB 4150 of 2023
    Weapons: other; gun-free zones; expand to include all buildings owned or leased by this state. TIE BAR WITH: HB 4149'23
    Last Action: 3/1/2023 bill electronically reproduced 03/01/2023
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    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 Scandiacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Jackson County
    Posts
    483
    This needs to be stopped. This would ban concealed carry in highway rest areas, buildings and restrooms in state parks and recreation areas, SoS offices, etc.

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    7,477
    Update from the NRA-ILA, today:

    Michigan: Committees Hearing Long Gun Registration, Red Flag Gun Seizure & Storage Mandates


    Today, starting at 3:00PM EST, the House Judiciary Committee will hear four gun control bill packages, three of which correspond with the bills in the Senate. On Thursday, starting at 12:00PM EST, the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear three gun control bill packages they were unable to hear last week. These criminalize private transfers, require firearms be made unavailable for self-defense, allow Second Amendment rights to be suspended without due process, and expand areas where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these gun control schemes.

    Senate Bills 76, 77, and 78 and House Bills 4138, 4142, and 4143 further criminalize private transfers of firearms by expanding Michigan’s handgun permit-to-purchase system to all firearms. This adds rifle and shotgun transfers to the state registry. It also removes the pistol permit-to-purchase exemption for transfers conducted by licensed firearm dealers, who conduct instant federal background checks, meaning prospective handgun purchasers must apply for, and receive, a permit prior to being able to go to a gun store to take possession of a handgun.

    Senate Bills 79, 80, 81, and 82 and House Bills 4144, 4139, 4141, and 4140 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 and House Bills 4145, 4146, 4148, and 4147 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.

    House Bills 4149 and 4150 ban firearms from all buildings owned or leased by the state. These increase “gun-free zones” where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against violent criminals who ignore such arbitrary boundaries..

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

  4. #4
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Scandiacus View Post
    This needs to be stopped. This would ban concealed carry in highway rest areas, buildings and restrooms in state parks and recreation areas, SoS offices, etc.
    By strict reading it would also include DNR Ranges.


    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. #5
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,708
    HB 4149 of 2023
    Weapons: concealed; weapon-free zones; include all buildings owned or leased by this state. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
    Last Action: 3/1/2023 Analysis File Added

    HB 4150 of 2023
    Weapons: other; gun-free zones; expand to include all buildings owned or leased by this state. Amends sec. 234d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.234d). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4149'23
    Last Action: 3/1/2023 Analysis File Added

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...9-ABDCFA35.pdf
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    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.

  6. #6
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    54
    Rep. Brixie asked that I reach out to you about your concerns with House Bill 4150. I hope I can reassure you that the bill is less restrictive than it might seem from an initial read-through. While the language in 4150 does prohibit possession of a firearm on the premises of “An establishment licensed under the Liquor Control Code,” the bill also directly provides an exception for CPL holders.

    “The provisions described above do not apply to any of the following: A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon…”



    As introduced, these bills would not prevent you or your wife from concealed carrying in the liquor-licensed locations you mentioned.



    To explain the reasoning behind this legislation: Michigan statute 1927 PA 372, known as the handgun licensure act, already prohibits a person who holds a concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by Michigan or the person’s state of residence from carrying a pistol concealed on the premises of places like schools, sports arenas, and bars/taverns.



    This legislation is intended to clarify a loophole that previously allowed CPL holders, who were already not permitted to carry in sensitive areas, to open-carry in these types of areas, including schools.



    In regards to your second question, the DNR has already reached out and indicated that an exception should be made for state-owned shooting areas, and this discrepancy will be addressed further with amendments in committee.



    We appreciate you reaching out with your concerns, and if you do have further questions about the legislation, please feel free to reach back out.



    Best regards,

    Except they eliminate that exemption in line 17 on page 2. I wish these reps would stop acting like we are unable to read.

  7. #7
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    54
    I also asked why they feel there is a loophole that allows us to carry in schools sports arenas and bars. That law already exists. It's MCL 28.425o.

    I am sick of politicians blowing smoke up my ass.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by quick86 View Post
    I also asked why they feel there is a loophole that allows us to carry in schools sports arenas and bars. That law already exists. It's MCL 28.425o.

    I am sick of politicians blowing smoke up my ass.
    Not your ass because you know the law, the general public's because they are ignorant. Loophole is a market tested word for something bad, regardless of the specific law about it. By calling it a loophole, that automatically puts them on the side of "common sense" and us on the side of degenerate. The intent of the law is of no consequence to them, only what they think it should be or have been.

  9. #9
    MGO Member TheWabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Western Wayne co.
    Posts
    1,551
    More laws they will only use to persecute Honest gun owners as they try to cover up their missteps on the MSU shooter.

  10. #10
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    54
    The newest reply:

    Thanks for following up with us. The legislative analysis that we were provided does have a potential discrepancy that we are currently reaching out to our legal team to clarify. Currently HB 4149 specifies that the CPL restriction applies to bars and taverns, where HB 4150 describes “An establishment licensed under the Liquor Control Code.” We are actively working to determine what the legal impact of these conflicting provisions would be, and we will keep your concerns in mind.



    With regards to you comment about the loophole, I have the following information below:



    Section 234d of the Penal Code makes it illegal to possess a firearm on the premises of depository institutions such as banks and credit unions, churches, courts, theatres, sports arenas, day care centers, hospitals and establishments licensed under the Michigan Liquor Control Act. (Additionally, Section 237a makes it illegal to possess a firearm in a “weapon free school zone.”) These restrictions do not apply to certain persons, including persons who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon by the State of Michigan or any other state.



    Section 5o of the Firearms Act provides that a person with a valid CPL shall not carry a concealed pistol on certain premises such as schools or school property, day care centers, sports arenas, bars or taverns where sale and consumption of liquor by the glass is the primary source of income, churches or other places of worship unless authorized by the presiding official, entertainment facilities with seating capacity of 2,500 or more, hospitals, college dormitories and classrooms and casinos.



    Read together, these statutes allow an individual who possesses a valid CPL to openly carry a firearm on premises where firearms are otherwise prohibited. This means that an individual in possession of a valid CPL may openly carry a firearm in a school, bank or any other premises listed in Section 234d of the Penal Code except for courts, which are not encompassed by the loophole.

Page 1 of 3 123 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