Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception

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

    House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception

    House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception
    Passed 96 to 11 in the House on May 17, 2012, to eliminate the concealed pistol license training requirement for veterans and active duty military. The bill would also revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired federal law enforcement officers who carried a firearm during their employment. This provision prohibits regular citizens who have received a permit after meeting the background check and training requirements, from carrying a pistol in schools, day care facilities, sports stadiums or arenas, bars, bar/restaurants, places of worship, college dorms and classrooms, hospitals, casinos, large entertainment facilities and courts.

    House Bill 4591 (H-1) as amended May 15, 2012

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-4591.pdf
    Last edited by Master Control; 06-09-2012 at 02:28 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
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Thumbs down Bs alert! Warning! Danger!

    Quote Originally Posted by Master Control View Post
    House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception
    [b]Passed 96 to 11 in the House on May 17, 2012,[b] to eliminate the concealed pistol license training requirement for veterans and active duty military. The bill would also revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired federal law enforcement officers who carried a firearm during their employment. This provision prohibits regular citizens who have received a permit after meeting the background check and training requirements, from carrying a pistol in schools, day care facilities, sports stadiums or arenas, bars, bar/restaurants, places of worship, college dorms and classrooms, hospitals, casinos, large entertainment facilities and courts.

    Wow so much for our pro 2A PALS in Lansing! With friends like them who needs enemies. If you are not livid over this you need to really think about your pro 2A credibility. They are trying to close "the loopholes" as they call them, which allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's openly if I'm reading this correctly?
    “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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Like I said to my rep, if not for my family being here, I would just leave.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-07-2012 at 08:52 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    Wow so much for our pro 2A PALS in Lansing! With friends like them who needs enemies. If you are not livid over this you need to really think about your pro 2A credibility. They are trying to close "the loopholes" as they call them, which allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's openly if I'm reading this correctly?
    I don't see that in the text of the bill at all. Maybe you can point it out to me...?

    I don't like special exemptions for special people...this bill isn't a nice one on that account.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Being a veteran this sure sounds nice if I had my CPL, I can understand why certain groups get caught up in supporting things that benefit them. However, I cant support it since this doesnt allow civi's who get extra training to carry, not all military carry guns, theres probably some vets that havent touched a gun since getting out of basic. Simply being a vet or a retired police officer shouldnt be a qualifying factor. Lets have a standardized NRA class for the extra training for everyone so that everyone is sure to be on the same page with the laws and exempts all those who seek the additional training.
    Last edited by Yance; 06-07-2012 at 09:34 AM.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    My worry about the military exemption is reciprocity.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I don't see that in the text of the bill at all. Maybe you can point it out to me...?

    I don't like special exemptions for special people...this bill isn't a nice one on that account.
    You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
    The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


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

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
    The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Look at the actual bill (btw, I haven't as of yet). I think, but could be wrong, that the person who wrote the synopsis just wrote it much as they used to write it on the back of our licenses... forgetting the all important word "concealed". I'll take a look at the bill later to see if it has changed that provision... my guess is no (hope I'm right)
    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.

  9. #9
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. However, this bill does make the prohibited CC zones apply to those who are exempt because they are out-of-state licensees licensed by their home state (see Sec. 5k. (1) of this bill). As I have argued here before, currently, people licensed in their home state to carry a concealed pistol are exempt from the NO CC Zones;this bill expands the coverage of the zones to those people.

    Once again, the Republicans have shown their true colors by not only exempting some more "Only Ones", they have also expanded the no CC zones application to those visitors licensed to conceal by their home state. THIS IS A TERRIBLE BILL!!

    This along, with the revision of the definition of pistols, shows me that the most rabid ANTIs are members of the Republican Party.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 06-07-2012 at 06:27 PM.
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. ....
    Thank you for taking the time to do that. I too could see where G9mmOS was coming from by the reading of the synopsis because it didnt specifiy 'concealed'.
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  11. #11
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
    The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Yikes man! All I asked was if you could point our the part of the bill that spike if what you were saying. I had read the bill and didn't see it. I was hoping that I had missed something and you could point it out...?

    Sorry I asked you to read the bill you were opining on I won't do it again.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Yance View Post
    Being a veteran this sure sounds nice if I had my CPL, I can understand why certain groups get caught up in supporting things that benefit them. However, I cant support it since this doesnt allow civi's who get extra training to carry, not all military carry guns, theres probably some vets that havent touched a gun since getting out of basic. Simply being a vet or a retired police officer shouldnt be a qualifying factor. Lets have a standardized NRA class for the extra training for everyone so that everyone is sure to be on the same page with the laws and exempts all those who seek the additional training.
    Why not just eliminate the PFZs for all CPL holders? I don't see the need for extra training. Using/carrying a firearm in a PFZ for self defense is no different then lets say a grocery store. If I'm missing something on PFZs let me know, I'm always open to feedback and suggestions.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Yikes man! All I asked was if you could point our the part of the bill that spike if what you were saying. I had read the bill and didn't see it. I was hoping that I had missed something and you could point it out...?

    Sorry I asked you to read the bill you were opining on I won't do it again.
    Thanks for explaining your stance... it must be classified...

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 06-07-2012 at 11:25 PM.

  14. #14
    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
    I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. However, this bill does make the prohibited CC zones apply to those who are exempt because they are out-of-state licensees licensed by their home state (see Sec. 5k. (1) of this bill). As I have argued here before, currently, people licensed in their home state to carry a concealed pistol are exempt from the NO CC Zones;this bill expands the coverage of the zones to those people.

    Once again, the Republicans have shown their true colors by not only exempting some more "Only Ones", they have also expanded the no CC zones application to those visitors licensed to conceal by their home state. THIS IS A TERRIBLE BILL!!

    This along, with the revision of the definition of pistols, shows me that the most rabid ANTIs are members of the Republican Party.
    Thanks Doc for the post. I had skimmed the bill, late last night & missed the concealed caveat. I agree if our current batch of A$$hats in Lansing are the best we can hope for...we are in for a bumpy ride ahead.

    Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 06-08-2012 at 10:52 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Master Control's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
    Posts
    144

    House Bill 4591 (H-1) as amended May 15, 2012

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-4591.pdf

    House Bill 4591 (H-1) as amended May 15, 2012
    "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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Master Control View Post
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-4591.pdf

    House Bill 4591 (H-1) as amended May 15, 2012
    So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by mecayuse View Post


    So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.
    Nope, no changes regarding OC in those areas. Perhaps the PD needs to actually read the PROPOSED law (bill) before spouting off. Probably hoping that no one is paying attention.
    Just download the link and compare the law as it is now with this bill...the changes are so noted in the bill.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 06-13-2012 at 01:24 AM.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by mecayuse View Post


    So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.
    Next time you see that officer, tell him he needs to go back and read that law, IN DETAIL. In fact, you might even print it out and hand it to him.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  19. #19
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by mecayuse View Post


    So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Nope, no changes regarding OC in those areas. Perhaps the PD needs to actually read the PROPOSED law (bill) before spouting off. Probably hoping that no one is paying attention.
    Just download the link and compare the law as it is now with this bill...the changes are so noted in the bill.
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Gay Al View Post
    Next time you see that officer, tell him he needs to go back and read that law, IN DETAIL. In fact, you might even print it out and hand it to him.
    The police officer may well be correct! If the School posted "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs, you may be charged with tresspassing for carrying their. Schools are not listed as a local unit of .gov in MCL 123.1102, and until it is, or a court rules it is a local unit of .gov in regards to firearms, tread lightly. Unless you want to be the test case. Notice you say the Police Officer said "henceforth", meaning now? He didn't say once the new revisions of the law were in effect? So in light of what the officer told you, and since that the new revisions of the law does not appear to make OC w/CPL illegal in GFZs, in conjunction with the new signs I would consider he was talking about tresspassing!

    What does everyone else think? Could this be the case?
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by eastmeyers View Post
    The police officer may well be correct! If the School posted "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs, you may be charged with tresspassing for carrying their. Schools are not listed as a local unit of .gov in MCL 123.1102, and until it is, or a court rules it is a local unit of .gov in regards to firearms, tread lightly. Unless you want to be the test case. Notice you say the Police Officer said "henceforth", meaning now? He didn't say once the new revisions of the law were in effect? So in light of what the officer told you, and since that the new revisions of the law does not appear to make OC w/CPL illegal in GFZs, in conjunction with the new signs I would consider he was talking about tresspassing!

    What does everyone else think? Could this be the case?
    1. Trespass is a different issue.
    2. I have done a little reading during my week off and I went back and read the Ferndale decision. In that decision, the MI Supreme Court stated:

    "In other words, although stated in the negative, rather than the affirmative, the statutory language of § 1102 demonstrates that, in effect, state law completely occupies the field of regulation that the Ferndale ordinance seeks to enter, to the exclusion of the ordinance, although subject to limited exceptions. See Llewellyn, supra at 322, 257 N.W.2d 902. 12 With the enactment of § 1102, the Legislature made a clear policy choice to remove from local units of government the authority to dictate where firearms may be taken."

    I believe that this statement gives exclusive power to the state to regulate and control firearms in Michigan. This is somewhat more broad than saying that only specific entities are prohibited from controlling the use and possession of firearms, somewhat recent events notwithstanding.

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by eastmeyers View Post
    The police officer may well be correct! If the School posted "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs, you may be charged with tresspassing for carrying their. Schools are not listed as a local unit of .gov in MCL 123.1102, and until it is, or a court rules it is a local unit of .gov in regards to firearms, tread lightly. Unless you want to be the test case. Notice you say the Police Officer said "henceforth", meaning now? He didn't say once the new revisions of the law were in effect? So in light of what the officer told you, and since that the new revisions of the law does not appear to make OC w/CPL illegal in GFZs, in conjunction with the new signs I would consider he was talking about tresspassing!

    What does everyone else think? Could this be the case?
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a public school is not private property. Assuming for the moment, we're talking about public schools, then the school cannot post any "No firearms" signs. Even if they do, I don't think they'll have the force of law behind them. Doesn't mean someone will think they do, but there it is.
    Last edited by Big Gay Al; 06-18-2012 at 07:54 AM.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  22. #22
    Regular Member michaelm_ski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Clare , MICHIGAN
    Posts
    99

    House Bill 4591

    I am a Veteran and I am unsure how I feel about this bill I think they meant well but any time you give a break to any one group of people you are going to have others feeling cheated and complaining . I say if you want the rights you have to fight for them and don't just throw your hands up and complain , pursue to make the changes so EVERYONE has the same right . Carry on Men and Women of Michigan

  23. #23
    Regular Member Slave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    143
    Uh, am I missing something? That link DID remove the exemption for CPL holders. Wow. Republicans removing gun rights?? *GASP!* Is this 1 month from my join date saying that republican's are not the magic gun rights sheppards that I git flamed for calling out?

  24. #24
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Slave View Post
    Uh, am I missing something? That link DID remove the exemption for CPL holders. Wow. Republicans removing gun rights?? *GASP!* Is this 1 month from my join date saying that republican's are not the magic gun rights sheppards that I git flamed for calling out?
    What exemption? That link takes you the law regarding concealed carry. Not open carry. The exemption is in a different part, 28.something or other I believe. IF you read the bill, the bold parts are what was added, the crossed out parts are what was removed and/or changed.
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Golden Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Gay Al View Post
    What exemption? That link takes you the law regarding concealed carry. Not open carry. The exemption is in a different part, 28.something or other I believe. IF you read the bill, the bold parts are what was added, the crossed out parts are what was removed and/or changed.
    Agreed not much removed...


    "which" to "THAT" and "as authorized"
    The news media plays politics more than the politicians do.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •