What's the latest news on HB 5225?

stainless1911 · May 18, 2012

Because the Federal GFSZ prohibits carry within 1,000 feet of the school, which includes of course, the school and the grounds. It provides exemption for those who own property, and people licensed by the state.

The state you live in can still allow, or prohibit your RKBA at the school.

In Michigan, it bars you from CC, with a parking lot exemption, and allows OC with a CPL.

Since it has yet to be determined, but could be argued that a purchase permit would qualify as an exemption for the Fed GFSZ, you may or may not be in violation under the federal statute for knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school while otherwise being legally OC.

Small_Arms_Collector · May 18, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Because the Federal GFSZ prohibits carry within 1,000 feet of the school, which includes of course, the school and the grounds. It provides exemption for those who own property, and people licensed by the state.

The state you live in can still allow, or prohibit your RKBA at the school.

In Michigan, it bars you from CC, with a parking lot exemption, and allows OC with a CPL.

Since it has yet to be determined, but could be argued that a purchase permit would qualify as an exemption for the Fed GFSZ, you may or may not be in violation under the federal statute for knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school while otherwise being legally OC.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Glock9mmOldStyle · May 18, 2012

+1

stainless1911 said:
Welcome back.

^^^^ +1

@Sprinklerguy28

Yep what he said.

DrTodd · May 18, 2012

TheQ said:
I posed that question on a few different forums. No one knew or found any cases where someone was charged with violating the Federal Gun Free School zone as a standalone crime. It's always an add-on.

Nonetheless, we'd technically be advocating people possibly commit crimes by saying you can OC without a CPL. Try to walk through any urban area and not be within 1000' of a school.

However, people have been successfully prosecuted as a stand-alone conviction; ie charged with more than the gfsza but that alone was what they were convicted of violating. However, according to what I have read, the feds are rarely involved with these kinds of cases and usually allow local authorities to prosecute under state law. The feds usually pick up the cases after the state authorities are finished.

I am using my phone right now, but I will update this post later this evening with a report that details a per state count. I think Michigan had something like 4 prosecutions over a 3 year time period; most of these were high-school-aged students who carried at their school. Some states, though, had numbers in the low 20's.

Also, there have been no cases that I could find where a LTP was used to assert an exemption under this law so any belief that it absolutely would provide an exemption, although logical, is pure conjecture. Logical, but not proven.

detroit_fan · May 18, 2012

TheQ said:
I posed that question on a few different forums. No one knew or found any cases where someone was charged with violating the Federal Gun Free School zone as a standalone crime. It's always an add-on.

Nonetheless, we'd technically be advocating people possibly commit crimes by saying you can OC without a CPL. Try to walk through any urban area and not be within 1000' of a school.

I understand that. It's just that we(MI citizens) have been trying to get rid of PP and registration for so long, it sucks a group like MOC who has the ear of some legislatures can't advocate for this to them. If they see a pro-2A group not supporting it, they may believe it is not something MI citizens want. Who knows the next time we may have a window to get rid of our draconian PP and registration system.

I know there are a few bills together on this, is one of them for registration removal and one for PP removal? If so, would MOC support registration elimination is PP was kept?

DrTodd · May 18, 2012

detroit_fan said:
I understand that. It's just that we(MI citizens) have been trying to get rid of PP and registration for so long, it sucks a group like MOC who has the ear of some legislatures can't advocate for this to them. If they see a pro-2A group not supporting it, they may believe it is not something MI citizens want. Who knows the next time we may have a window to get rid of our draconian PP and registration system.

I know there are a few bills together on this, is one of them for registration removal and one for PP removal? If so, would MOC support registration elimination is PP was kept?

Perhaps, but stating that a group is "neutral" may be better than saying "supports" IF the group explains why. But, I also agree that we could have said "supports" with the same explanation. It is, imho, a judgement call that could be argued either way.

stainless1911 · May 18, 2012

I dont want to open the can of worms with the LTP/GFSZ, unless an exemption can be made for the GFSZ. I agree with DrTodd, the LTP is a grey area as far as an exemption goes, but the way it is now, it does give you something to argue with should one wind up in court.

Yooper · May 18, 2012

Am I really reading that some are advocating to keep a gun control law on the books?!?!?! Get rid of the PTP/Registration scheme.

stainless1911 · May 18, 2012

Lesser of the evils at this time. I would rather have a chance at a defense using the LTP than have to navigate around the schools around here.

Theres a school right at the corner of Daley and Roods Lk Roads where you have to turn to go to the pit for example.

Yooper · May 18, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Lesser of the evils at this time. I would rather have a chance at a defense using the LTP than have to navigate around the schools around here.

Theres a school right at the corner of Daley and Roods Lk Roads where you have to turn to go to the pit for example.

Why not get a CPL? If one is to give their name to the government, I'd rather it be once, and let them guess as to how many handguns I have, rather than know exactly how many I have, when I got them, etc.
Besides, just because one has a CPL doesn't mean they even own a gun. They might have it for a taser, or simply to borrow a friends gun on occasion.

stainless1911 · May 18, 2012

Not everyone can get a CPL.

After what I went through recently, I can see more clearly, and the CPL system is a worse scheme than the LTP you complain about. A CPL is an agreement between you and the .gov where you sign off on your so called rights so that they will not prosecute you as harshly for exercising them in a handful more places, and in a vehicle (private property).

PDinDetroit · May 18, 2012

sprinklerguy28 said:
Getting rid of purchase permits(permits to purchase, carry, or transport) creates more issues for those wishing to open carry. It has good and bad consequences based on our current firearm laws.

Not if it is done correctly!

PDinDetroit · May 18, 2012

Michigan Pistol Registration Law Changes

Paul Opsommer, State Representative, 93rd District, Michigan House of Representatives

Honorable Sir,

I have been reviewing your bill, HB 5225, and wanted to take a few minutes to write to you about this.

First of all, I want to Thank You for Standing Up For and Protecting Our Rights. Michigan and it's Citizens have been lucky to have you "on our side". I hope you will find the information contained within this email useful to your efforts. The following link should provide a little background information on myself.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/pauldalrymple

I am involved in Firearm Rights Efforts and Groups here in the State of Michigan and have been for about 3 years now. I have considered changes to Michigan's Pistol Purchase Permit System as the Law originated in Racial Oppression in the 1920's-1930's (Dr Ossian Sweets) and the Fact that Michigan is truly out of step with the rest of the Country as States Requiring Pistol Registration are definitely in the Minority. From the anecdotal evidence that I have reviewed over time, there are Localities that treat the Pistol Purchase Permit as a "May Issue" System and instead of Fighting with the Locality in Court, Persons simply obtain their Concealed Pistol License (CPL) so as not to be "bothered" by such Localities and their "antics". Just for the Record, The Pistol Purchase Permit Legal Language contained within MCL 28.422 is actually a License to Purchase, Carry, Transport, or Possess Pistol even though the State of Michigan does not necessarily implement it as such.

Here is what I would like to see occur:

Repeal Mandatory Licensing under MCL 28.422 and associated MCL's.
MI Residents are automatically licensed and are lawfully able to own, carry, transport, or possess a pistol, removing the Federal Gun-Free School Zone Issue (GFSZ Act - 18 USC 922(q)(2)) for MI Residents (Standard NICS Checks would be performed just like for Rifles/Shotguns from FFL Dealers). NOTE: MCL 750.237a would still prohibit Possession of Firearms/Pistols on School Grounds unless the person meets the exclusionary criteria such as having a CPL.
Provide for an Optional License to Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol to be provided by the Municipality or County where the Person lives, removing the Federal GFSZ Act Issue for MI Residents and would provide a License for Out of State Carry (Still amounts to a Background Check for People - Individual Pistols Not Licensed Nor Registered). NOTE: MCL 750.237a would still prohibit Possession of Firearms/Pistols on School Grounds unless the person meets the exclusionary criteria such as having a CPL.
A non-resident of this State is considered to be individually licensed and verified by the State of Michigan if they are licensed or exempt from licensing by their State of Residence, removing the Federal GFSZ Issue for Out of State Persons. NOTE: MCL 750.237a would still prohibit Possession of Firearms/Pistols on School Grounds unless the person meets the exclusionary criteria such as having a CPL.
A person under 18 can be in possession of a pistol at a range, for target practice, or for instruction if with a person over 18 with parent/guardian permission. There are times a Parent allows their minor children to go shooting with another Adult, which is currently Illegal in Michigan.
Remove Legal Language not Repealed by other bills, such as for Safety Inspections.

To achieve these goals, I have created the following set of changes to Michigan Laws in partial bill form:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Y1doi0G-5HVlhxN1VGN05YY3c

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Y1doi0G-5HSUd2bHg1NGNNcDg

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2Y1doi0G-5HZ0xLcUZnTkxyQUk

Please review and use this information as you see fit. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this information.

Sincerely,

PDinDetroit

TheQ · May 19, 2012

Michigsn Open Carry, Inc. is staying neutral. We are neither using our resources (Facebook, email lists, websites) to advocate for nor oppose this bill. We are simply staying silent.

Unlike some other firearms groups in the past regarding SB 59 who use the resources of their organization to actively oppose the bill.

The Michigan Open Carry, Inc. board of Directors had a consensus that neutral or stance we should take -- and stay silent. Better (for the bill) to be neutral and silent than say "We support, *but*…"

In doing what we are doing we neither help nor harm the bill.

Any person wishing to discuss it further may email board@miopencarry.org.

Also, I did not make the committee meeting on Thursday because work (I do have a day job) has been held this week. Since we were going to be neutral, there was no need to push for time off when things were in such disarray at my day office.

detroit_fan · May 19, 2012

TheQ said:
Michigsn Open Carry, Inc. is staying neutral. We are neither using our resources (Facebook, email lists, websites) to advocate for nor oppose this bill. We are simply staying silent.

Unlike some other firearms groups in the past regarding SB 59 who use the resources of their organization to actively oppose the bill.

The Michigan Open Carry, Inc. board of Directors had a consensus that neutral or stance we should take -- and stay silent. Better (for the bill) to be neutral and silent than say "We support, *but*…"

In doing what we are doing we neither help nor harm the bill.

Any person wishing to discuss it further may email board@miopencarry.org.

Also, I did not make the committee meeting on Thursday because work (I do have a day job) has been held this week. Since we were going to be neutral, there was no need to push for time off when things were in such disarray at my day office.

MOC is hurting the bill though, by not supporting it. all 2A groups in MI should be supporting it, it's what we've been bitching about for decades. i like MOC, but i will have a hard time supporting them in the future if they are not interested in eliminating our absurd registration and PP. this is why groups like Buckeye Firearms and Georgia Carry are so successful at the state level and we have nothing in MI that compares, every group just wants to look out for a select few instead of doing whats best for the entire population.

TheQ · May 19, 2012

PFZ is our current priority and we tend to keep our powder dry for that issue.

As for this bill, we had some concerns already laid out in this thread. If you feel our lack of lobbying for this bill has hurt it and that will prevent you from "supporting" us in the future. I'm sorry.

Perhaps you'd consider joining our organization and becoming involved with our leadership if you'd like more input into what we do...?

stainless1911 · May 19, 2012

I agree with MOCs position on this.

PDinDetroit · May 19, 2012

TheQ said:
Michigsn Open Carry, Inc. is staying neutral. We are neither using our resources (Facebook, email lists, websites) to advocate for nor oppose this bill. We are simply staying silent.

Unlike some other firearms groups in the past regarding SB 59 who use the resources of their organization to actively oppose the bill.

The Michigan Open Carry, Inc. board of Directors had a consensus that neutral or stance we should take -- and stay silent. Better (for the bill) to be neutral and silent than say "We support, *but*…"

In doing what we are doing we neither help nor harm the bill.

Any person wishing to discuss it further may email board@miopencarry.org.

Also, I did not make the committee meeting on Thursday because work (I do have a day job) has been held this week. Since we were going to be neutral, there was no need to push for time off when things were in such disarray at my day office.

No need to discuss it PRIVATELY when MOC has made a Public Statement on Such. The following is my position on this bill.

Without Protection for OC'ers without a CPL in the Federal GFSZ's, this bill does too much harm. There are other states where OC'ers without a CPL keep "special maps" so they do not run afoul of the law (18 USC 922(q)(2)). Without some sort of "Optional License" that includes the Federally Required Background Check, this bill would force them to get a CPL which is the epitome of "Asking Permission to Exercise a Right" (something most of us oppose). Instead of a small notarization fee if any, this will now cost the person the time and money to obtain a CPL which can be upwards from $200 and upwards in weeks to months as well. I know PLENTY OF PEOPLE who delay in getting their CPL due to the Cost and Time Commitments.

I know others have tried to find instances where people were charged and found guilty of ONLY violating 18 USC 922(q)(2) and have generally failed to find such. This is currently being "touted" as being a "Non-Issue" then "since it is not currently happening". This is a terribly flawed and false premise argument, somewhere in the neighborhood of "since no OC'er has had their firearm taken from them and killed with it, then there is no concern about the need to use a retention holster".

18 USC 922(q)(2) is a LAW on the Books that can be Enforced and a Violation of such can result in a 5 Year FELONY and LOSS OF FIREARM RIGHTS FOR LIFE. Just because this has not been INDIVIDUALLY ENFORCED TO DATE DOES NOT PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE OF SUCH AT ANY TIME.

While getting rid of the Pistol Purchase Permit/License To Purchase is a good thing and highly desirable, a vote for this Bill in it's current form is telling those OC'ers without a CPL to either:

A) Follow the LAW - Develop a "Special Map System" so they know where they Can and Cannot Carry due to the Federal Gun Free School Zones.

B) Ignore 18 USC 922(q)(2) as you will "never ever" get charged with violating this LAW ONLY since it has not happened YET.

I invite you to reconsider the "neutral stance" on this bill (unless you are ready, willing, and able to make some "Special Maps" up).

stainless1911 · May 20, 2012

Id like to see a special map, if nothing else, but to be used in presentations to lawmakers in showing opposition to this foolishness.

PDinDetroit · May 20, 2012

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ral-Gun-Free-School-Zones-Mapped-in-Anchorage

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...al-Gun-Free-School-Zones-Mapped-in-Burlington

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ederal-Gun-Free-School-Zones-Mapped-in-Dallas

What's the latest news on HB 5225?

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member