Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions

  1. #1
    Regular Member Master Control's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
    Posts
    144

    House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions

    House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
    Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5282.pdf
    Last edited by Master Control; 06-09-2012 at 02:36 AM.
    "Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books...Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: 'I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't. I can. And my children will."
    ,,, So Mote Be


    Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.-- JC

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Yance and I have been working on something similar, the Rep said that she would likely propose a bill this September, after their summer break.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Exclamation Bs alert! Warning! Danger!

    Quote Originally Posted by Master Control View Post
    House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
    Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.



    This reeks of back door slight of hand. It sounds good until YOU THINK about it. It re-opens LEO's going after you for not going or coming from most places currently protected by the lawful purpose clause.

    Example > Cop - Is that a pistol case in the back? Yes it is. Where are you coming from? Well I was at XYZ place not on the list in HB 5262, Your under arrest, don't move! But I was not breaking any laws... Shut up maggot...oh we got you good pal... but I was just visiting my cousin...Is it your home? Well no. Right, fool you broke the law now your going to pay...I pitty you fool!

    This is a throw back to before shall issue when it was only legal to transport to and from the range & home period! Someone is trying to pi$$ down our backs & tell us it's raining.

    I urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them to fight this NOW!
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 06-07-2012 at 02:16 AM.
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    That only works on cops who care about your rights. The rest will just let you fight it out in either civil or criminal court, or both.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    From my understanding of this is it eliminates the current definitions of "lawful purpose" in .231a, which at this point can put a LEO in the position to say "well you werent coming from or going to" and "open carry isnt on the list." The newer version simply says that you can transport a firearm for any lawful purpose, it doesnt give a list of examples as to what is lawful purpose which can be confused.

    Unless I missed something I would think this would be a better alternative for the non-cpl holders than the current .231a
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Yance View Post
    From my understanding of this is it eliminates the current definitions of "lawful purpose" in .231a, which at this point can put a LEO in the position to say "well you werent coming from or going to" and "open carry isnt on the list." The newer version simply says that you can transport a firearm for any lawful purpose, it doesnt give a list of examples as to what is lawful purpose which can be confused.

    Unless I missed something I would think this would be a better alternative for the non-cpl holders than the current .231a
    Could you please cite or link? My concern having had to deal with this type of bs in the past, it makes me very uneasy when they start playing with the lawful purpose clause. As it stands now it covers exactly that any lawful purpose. Why the sudden need to tweak it?

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Master Control View Post
    House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
    Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.

    There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

    So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

    So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.
    Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner! Give that man a prize! Clearly a smart person here.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5282.htm

    It mentions nothing to the effect of "where its legal to shoot" It simply strikes the "lawful purpose includes" portion of the current MCL 750.231a from the law.

    I was told by the MSP that open carry "is not one of the listed purposed to transport a firearm" and they listed off the "only reasons you can transport a firearm" this only eliminates that misunderstanding. Lawful purpose is anything that isnt against the law, so instead of making a list they are striking the list and just leaving it at lawful purpose. LEO cant argue what a lawful purpose is if they dont have those examples.

    and the link is to the version as passed by the house, so I'm not sure where everyone is getting this information from (other than the OP).
    Last edited by Yance; 06-07-2012 at 01:36 PM.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Bear View Post
    There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

    So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.
    I don't agree. You presuppose every use of a gun involves firing it. Mere possession for self-defense is a "use" that doesn't involve discharge.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Master control is adding opinions with the statute and that is what is confusing people. If he would just post the link to the actual law it would be less confusing.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Well, It sounds like a good thing. But the problem still remains: THERE IS STILL A LAW THAT INFRINGES ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Again for those of you that missed it, read the actual law here...

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5282.htm

    Disregard what was posted in the OP.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    "Includes" isn't exclusive.

    So it doesn't seem to me like anything urgent, but getting rid of that list couldn't hurt.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    The problem is that with that list LE will tell people that they cannot transport except only for those reasons. I was told this by the MSP, the trooper said transporting for open carry was a "gray area." So if this is taken out it will remove any confusion as to why or when someone can transport a firearm. Leaving it at "lawful purpose" pretty much allows someone to transport a firearm for any purpose that isnt specifically a crime.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator Shadow Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.
    +1000
    'If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self defense. There should be no camouflage.....it must never be secret.' MK Gandhi II-146 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)-- Gandhi supports open carry!

    'There is nothing more demoralizing than the fake non-violence of the weak and impotent.' MK Gandhi II-153 (Gandhi on Non-Violence)

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.
    +1000 Amen brother!


    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I think the legislature is trying to get some BS passed so that they can say, "yeah, we passed some gun laws for you gun owners", without really doing anything substantial.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •