Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
proud to be a.......
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: SB 442 and its companion bill SB 561 have passed Senate Judiciary Committee with a recommendation for immediate effect on a 4-1 vote despite lengthy anti-gun testimony.

In a nutshell: Bill 442 would allow concealed carry in pistol free zones and ban open carry.

Right now in Michigan, concealed pistol license holders can openly carry weapons in areas that are off-limits to concealed weapons, like schools, day care centers, sports arenas and bars.

Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, introduced legislation that's essentially a trade. It takes away open carry in those areas but allows CPL holders to get an endorsement that allows them to carry there.

Summary of the bill:

The bill would amend the handgun licensure law to do the following:

-- Specify that the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol on certain premises (commonly called no-carry zones) would not apply to a person who applied for and was granted an exemption from that prohibition.

-- Require an application for a concealed pistol license (CPL) to allow an applicant to designate whether he or she requested an endorsement exempting the licensee from the no-carry zone prohibition.

-- Require a county clerk to issue an exemption endorsement within 10 days after receiving an application for exemption.

-- Provide that there would be no additional fee for requesting an exemption endorsement at the time of an initial or renewal CPL application, but an applicant could be required to pay up to $20 for an exemption endorsement requested at any other time.

-- Allow an applicant for an exemption endorsement to appeal to the circuit court if a clerk failed to issue the exemption.

-- Specify that the law's no-carry zone provisions, and exemptions from it, would not prevent a private property owner from prohibiting a person from carrying a pistol, including openly carrying it, on property included in a no-carry zone and enforcing that prohibition under the State's general trespass law.

-- Prohibit a person who was licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or who was exempt from licensure, from intentionally displaying or openly carrying a pistol in a no-carry zone, except under certain circumstances.

MGO and MOC oppose the bill.

MOC argument……http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/10/Case-Against-SB442-A-Dangerous-Sloppy-Mess

Full summary here……http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2015-SFA-0442-G.htm

Full bill here……http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rf...g.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-SB-0442
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Excellent summary of info Cedar. I spent some time this morning reading up also and looking at the media coverage. Kept reading looking for a requirement for additional training or something for the exemption but as you say, appears to be Shall Issue if requested only. Not sure I agree with the MOC argument as I am not a fan of individuals practicing open carry at schools. Nothing is perfect but this seems like a good start. Curious what the lawyers on here say about it.
 

·
proud to be a.......
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Excellent summary of info Cedar.
I am not a fan of individuals practicing open carry at schools.
Thanks! I don't practice open carry anywhere, except my own property or maybe hunting but, I don't want to take away someone else's right to do so. MGO's statement......


Michigan Gun Owners Opposes
Senate Bill 0442


The Board of Directors of Michigan Gun Owners (a 501c3 Not for Profit)
opposes passage of SB0442 introduced by State Senator Mike Green (R-Dist.31).

Key Provisions:

SB442 takes something currently legal (Open Carry w/ a CPL in all CPFZ's listed in MCL 28.425o) and makes illegal and punishable all the way up to a 4 year felony.

Concealed Carry is only allowed when you ask for and obtain the exemption (by a $20 fee now, or free if you wait till your renewal).

We need to be progressing toward the elimination of CPFZ's and gaining Constitutional Carry, not regressing on our rights as listed in Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,591 Posts
It will be interesting to see if this gets another veto.

I am a little concerned that about the accidental exposure aspects. I know that should not be an issue, but it seems like a legal wrangling potential.
 

·
proud to be a.......
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It will be interesting to see if this gets another veto.

I am a little concerned that about the accidental exposure (or even imprinting) aspects. I know that should not be an issue, but it seems like a legal wrangling potential.
Exactly! Me too. It's still in it's early stages but, will go to the Senate for a vote. It will get hacked up and probably changed going back and forth through the House and Senate. If it makes it to Snyder's desk we will see what he does?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Pe
Exactly! Me too. It's still in it's early stages but, will go to the Senate for a vote. It will get hacked up and probably changed going back and forth through the House and Senate. If it makes it to Snyder's desk we will see what he does?
The way I see this is more or less solving the whole open carry in schools fiasco. The way I see it playing out if it were passed is that the vast majority of schools would just make a no carry rule (although I am not sure if a school is "private property" technically and possibly could not forbid CC)

Personally. I think that it is more or less the best way to handle the school issue- if you don't like what your local school board decided, vote them out or move to a different area.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top