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

eastmeyers said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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?

Slave said:

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?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed not much removed...


"[Strike]which[/Strike]" to "THAT" and "[Strike]as authorized[/Strike]"

Page 8, line 3 still says "shall not carry a concealed pistol..." then lists the premises. Where are people getting that OC with a CPL in those areas is illegal...am I missing something?? Is the synopsis what is getting people upset? To anyone that understands this as affecting OC, please cite from from where you are getting this.

Big Gay Al said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ok, my bad. 28.whatever does define Concealed carry, not Open carry. However, that IS the part that HB 4591 is modifying.

The Section that covers Open Carry and the exemption for CPL holders is 234 ad nauseum. This section is not affected by this bill. Therefore, the exemption for CPL holders remains in place.

thanks for clearing that up with me, but ELO's still seem to think that's what it does.

It pisses me off, that they are talking about making more exempt classes, and ignoring any bill removing PFZ's.

We are a red state now, this was supposed ot be good for gun owners, but like I thought, it's just more crap, different tools in office.

Slave said:

thanks for clearing that up with me, but ELO's still seem to think that's what it does.

It pisses me off, that they are talking about making more exempt classes, and ignoring any bill removing PFZ's.

We are a red state now, this was supposed ot be good for gun owners, but like I thought, it's just more crap, different tools in office.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are SOME LEOs who might think it does. Ask them to point out where it says so.

Personally, I'd love for some LEO to arrest me based on that misconception. I could use the money I'd get from the settlement.

As far as being a red state, that's only internally. Externally, we've gone for the Democrat presidential candidate pretty much all the time, at least since Clinton, and probably before that. Add to that, or 2 blue senators, we're still blue.

DrTodd said:

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.

Click to expand...

Correct Dr. Todd; however, zigziggityzoo or whatever his name is will tell you that you are wrong for reading the law for how it is written.

Slave said:

thanks for clearing that up with me, but ELO's still seem to think that's what it does.

It pisses me off, that they are talking about making more exempt classes, and ignoring any bill removing PFZ's.

We are a red state now, this was supposed ot be good for gun owners, but like I thought, it's just more crap, different tools in office.

Click to expand...

I agree, I would have predicted more from this group. But, I stated during the last election that I would be surprised if much happened to expand carry of a firearm in Michigan; I didn't even imagine they would institute laws which further curtailed carry. I also think it is interesting that the most Republican areas of this state have continually put impediments in the way of issuing CPLs. For example, Kent County has thwarted the right by, until fairly recently, demanding that persons applying for a CPL include a mental-health certification with the application, Grand Rapids plays games with purchase permits, prohibits firearms in areas in which they are precluded from doing so (GRPD), and Ottawa County gun board still demands every first time applicant attend a gun-board meeting... Ottawa County also had to be brought into court to force them to issue a permit according to the law (Heindlmeier v Ottawa County Gun Board)

To me, they are the worst kind of representatives, just giving lip service to supporting limited government, yet instituting more legislation to support their corporate benefactors. I think charges of "elitism" are totally appropriate when they have done nothing but extend special privileges to certain groups of people.

Slave said:

thanks for clearing that up with me, but ELO's still seem to think that's what it does.

Click to expand...

They always did until the AG said that 28.425o only prohibited CONCEALED carry in those zones. I believe they actually know no change has been made in this regard...they just want to trip up unknowing carriers.

Jared said:

Correct Dr. Todd; however, zigziggityzoo or whatever his name is will tell you that you are wrong for reading the law for how it is written.

Click to expand...

Zig used to post in this forum. Since the wording is the same as it was when he was here, I think he'd agree. I respected his opinion while he was here but, if he disagrees now, oh well.

DrTodd said:

I agree, I would have predicted more from this group. But, I stated during the last election that I would be surprised if much happened to expand carry of a firearm in Michigan; I didn't even imagine they would institute laws which further curtailed carry. I also think it is interesting that the most Republican areas of this state have continually put impediments in the way of issuing CPLs. For example, Kent County has thwarted the right by, until fairly recently, demanding that persons applying for a CPL include a mental-health certification with the application, Grand Rapids plays games with purchase permits, prohibits firearms in areas in which they are precluded from doing so (GRPD), and Ottawa County gun board still demands every first time applicant attend a gun-board meeting... Ottawa County also had to be brought into court to force them to issue a permit according to the law (Heindlmeier v Ottawa County Gun Board)

To me, they are the worst kind of representatives, just giving lip service to supporting limited government, yet instituting more legislation to support their corporate benefactors. I think charges of "elitism" are totally appropriate when they have done nothing but extend special privileges to certain groups of people.

Click to expand...

Now to me, that's funny. I live in Ingham County. We have a Dem Sheriff, and Dem county prosecutor. I've never had to go before the county gun board, even on my first try. I got a card in the mail saying my license was ready to be picked up at the county clerk's office. Funny, you'd think it would be the opposite.

Big Gay Al said:

Now to me, that's funny. I live in Ingham County. We have a Dem Sheriff, and Dem county prosecutor. I've never had to go before the county gun board, even on my first try. I got a card in the mail saying my license was ready to be picked up at the county clerk's office. Funny, you'd think it would be the opposite.

Click to expand...

So in other words instead of just mailing you the license like most counties do they required you to take a day off of work, and go get it?

Small_Arms_Collector said:

So in other words instead of just mailing you the license like most counties do they required you to take a day off of work, and go get it?

Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else. I work nights.
Actually, I doubt many would have to take off the day. You go to the county clerk's office, they give you license. Takes about 4-5 minutes to go into the old courthouse and get it. If worked days, I guess it would depend on where I worked at. I might get it during lunch, or maybe just take off work early and go get it. But it shouldn't take the whole day.

Then again, I work nights, so it doesn't interfere with my work schedule at all. At least I didn't have to go before the gun board. Most don't, so far as I know.