house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

[Michigander]

Below is the gun free school zones act.

Much like we're about to have to start kit building pistols with 16" barrels and a detachable stock if we want to carry long arms under our CPL's, we'll now have to start entirely making our own guns that didn't go through interstate commerce if we want to carry pistols with no permission. In a sense, that would be a step ahead, being able to carry home built un-serial numbered pistols, and without regard to the GFSZA. In another sense, most people won't.

What dan says makes sense, and is as always a well thought out viewpoint. I do still believe however that there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and taking down the registration system without a blanket MCL that proclaims state wide licenses for all Michigan citizens for the purpose of the GFSZA, well that's the wrong way for the reasons I've stated.

I suppose that the issue is that not one of our law makers seems interested in helping our cause along. And thus, if there is a group consensus about this being the best we can hope for, I'll keep out of it. If there isn't a general consensus, I'm going to be calling the NRA and lansing to let them know how bad of an idea I think this is.




TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 922
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

[stainless1911]

Kudos on this man for being on top of his emails.

Thank you Mr. Carpenter -
We are aware of this issue and are working with the NRA and MSP on a solution. In most states (around 45 that do not have permits or registration), it has meant that people wishing to open carry in a school zone would need to get a concealed license, and they would be protected to at least the same degree they are now with the “invisible license” (permit) that is obtained now. While many open carry proponents also have a CPL, both to help avoid any problems associated with brandishing or transportation, we understand that not all people wish to obtain a CPL. The MSP are as of now not convinced that a voluntary permit system would work, for while they would like to keep registration, they also would be able to save millions of dollars by getting rid of the tests, permit system, and registration. They have expressed that if they are forced to get rid of registration, they would like to be able to do so in its entirety, so a solution that meets everyone’s needs is proving to be a challenge. We are continuing to work with the NRA and MSP on this issue.

[stainless1911]

I see your quandary. Respectfully sir, the representatives are in place to represent the will, needs and the rights of the people, not the MSP.

I sincerely hope that I do not put you off by making that statement.

[stainless1911]

No offense taken, we understand, and work for you. We do not have direct control over the MSP or their positions however, and ultimately they take their orders from the Governor, who can issue executive orders, promulgate rules, veto legislation etc. We have to work within the inherent checks and balances of the system, and ultimately the final form of any piece of law is altered and shaped by a variety of stakeholders.

[xmanhockey7]

Too bad there's not an optional permit for those who could otherwise qualify for the PP to get so they can be exempt from the GFSZA.

[Jared]

Repeal of the registration and purchase permits are a "violates my principals" type of an issue. the GFSZ puts innocents into prison.

Which is worse?

For you, it's worse because you are ineligible for a CPL due to criminal history.

Now, does anything in your past history warrant restrictions on your RKBA? I say no.

Keep in mind that the GFSZ is a federal law that state and local LEO's can not detain you for or charge you with.

State and local cops who are off duty would be in the same boat as everyone else, if they don't get a CPL they will be violating the GFSZ act. I don't see why the state would make an issue of it.

In a post McDonald world, it does not seem that a 1000 foot buffer zone would pass constitutional muster.

No one wants to touch the GFSZ issue, it's always charged against someone as an add on charge.

If you were to map out school zones, you would see that it makes most major roads in any area off-limits.

It's impossible to drive around Phoenix, Cleveland, almost anywhere in Wayne County Michigan, Hawaii, San Francisco. I've seen a map of school zones in Cheyenne Wyoming, you would have to literally drive on in the breakdown lane in the eastbound lane of Interstate 80 in one spot to avoid hitting a school zone.

They threatened the school zone law in Virginia back in 2004 when retroactive preemption took effect and open carry was legal statewide. After VCDL pointed out that the off duty cops would be felons as well, Alexandria officials backed down.

[stainless1911]

Too bad there's not an optional permit for those who could otherwise qualify for the PP to get so they can be exempt from the GFSZA.

Apparently, the MSP thinks it's too much trouble.

[stainless1911]

For you, it's worse because you are ineligible for a CPL due to criminal history.

Now, does anything in your past history warrant restrictions on your RKBA? I say no.

Keep in mind that the GFSZ is a federal law that state and local LEO's can not detain you for or charge you with.

State and local cops who are off duty would be in the same boat as everyone else, if they don't get a CPL they will be violating the GFSZ act. I don't see why the state would make an issue of it.

In a post McDonald world, it does not seem that a 1000 foot buffer zone would pass constitutional muster.

No one wants to touch the GFSZ issue, it's always charged against someone as an add on charge.

If you were to map out school zones, you would see that it makes most major roads in any area off-limits.

It's impossible to drive around Phoenix, Cleveland, almost anywhere in Wayne County Michigan, Hawaii, San Francisco. I've seen a map of school zones in Cheyenne Wyoming, you would have to literally drive on in the breakdown lane in the eastbound lane of Interstate 80 in one spot to avoid hitting a school zone.

They threatened the school zone law in Virginia back in 2004 when retroactive preemption took effect and open carry was legal statewide. After VCDL pointed out that the off duty cops would be felons as well, Alexandria officials backed down.

Thanks Jared. I have little doubt that it would go through court and fail, however, such a case would be highly stressful, long, and very very expensive.

This does bother me more now, lacking my CPL, but also I seem to have become a person of interest judging by the way I was rammed through the courts recently, and some of the contacts I have had since. It makes me wonder if they wouldn't try to use me as a test case.

[Bronson]

a blanket MCL that proclaims state wide licenses for all Michigan citizens for the purpose of the GFSZA

I've read this from other people before and I don't understand how an MCL would suffice since the GFSZA requires that each person's legal ability to be licensed to possess the gun must be individually verified.

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Bronson

[Bronson]

we'll now have to start entirely making our own guns that didn't go through interstate commerce if we want to carry pistols with no permission.

Nice try...it won't work. Look up "cumulative effect" of the commerce clause. Basically, if people start to make their own pistols it can be declared that since they are making their own and NOT buying them then it affects interstate commerce and can be regulated.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawc...tialEffect.asp

Also, since the raw materials used in making the firearm more than likely moved in interstate commerce they would claim they can regulate it.

(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;

Bronson

[Michigander]

I've read this from other people before and I don't understand how an MCL would suffice since the GFSZA requires that each person's legal ability to be licensed to possess the gun must be individually verified.

We have state ID's. It's almost impossible to get away from in this day and age. If needed, it should be very easy to go as far as to have the system mark people as "licensed" or not to carry firearms.

Also, I need to research it more, but I doubt that the substantial effect issue would come into play, because very few people possess the machine tools or skill to build guns. Some do, and some build guns, but it's never been many.

In any case, good points which I need to further research, so thank you for pointing that stuff out.

I do believe that the GFSZA is Constitutionally very weak. It failed once before, and it's ripe to fail again. All other case laws and such aside, my opinion is that a home built gun would be the way to go if someone is going to try to challenge the GFSZA by putting their own ass on the line. Having the ability to claim exemption from the commerce clause would be a lot better in court than say, trying to claim mere Constitutional invalidity for carrying an imported gun.

[DanM]

As i pointed out in the letter to Mr. Opsommer, There is no excuse for opening up millions of people to federal prosecution in order to repeal a couple of pieces of paper, that affect a distinct and vast minority, that have thus far, done little to no harm to anyone.

Registration isn't a "a couple of pieces of paper". It is an infringement on the same millions you mention are infringed upon by the GFSZA. I understand it would be optimal to get rid of GFSZA first, then registration. But that's not the timing with which we are presented an opportunity today. Current state and federal legislative activity have presented the cart in front of the horse. "We" (gun owners) are not getting the cart and horse in those positions. We have a chance to kill an evil. It is error to let the evil live because it helps you avoid another evil. No, you kill the evil as the opportunity presents itself to do so.

I understand registration repeal means more care will have to be taken with GFSZA . . . until GFSZA is killed or neutered with regard to lawful carry. That will wake up gun owners who have been lazy about GFSZA because registration made it possible for them to be lazy about losing their rights.

Which is better, which will create a bunch more gun-rights advocates, and which will get something done quicker:
1) Millions lazy about GFSZA, and continuing in their slumber while their rights are infringed, because *another infringement* (registration) happens to keep them that way.
2) Millions potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something about GFSZA, due to the fact that they are not shielded from that infringement with another infringement.

I'll take a million potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something over a million lazy ones, as the former will at least translate to a substantial bump in gun-rights activism and the latter will snore away while gun rights further erode.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Registration isn't a "a couple of pieces of paper". It is an infringement on the same millions you mention are infringed upon by the GFSZA. I understand it would be optimal to get rid of GFSZA first, then registration. But that's not the timing with which we are presented an opportunity today. Current state and federal legislative activity have presented the cart in front of the horse. "We" (gun owners) are not getting the cart and horse in those positions. We have a chance to kill an evil. It is error to let the evil live because it helps you avoid another evil. No, you kill the evil as the opportunity presents itself to do so.

I understand registration repeal means more care will have to be taken with GFSZA . . . until GFSZA is killed or neutered with regard to lawful carry. That will wake up gun owners who have been lazy about GFSZA because registration made it possible for them to be lazy about losing their rights.

Which is better, which will create a bunch more gun-rights advocates, and which will get something done quicker:
1) Millions lazy about GFSZA, and continuing in their slumber while their rights are infringed, because *another infringement* (registration) happens to keep them that way.
2) Millions potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something about GFSZA, due to the fact that they are not shielded from that infringement with another infringement.

I'll take a million potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something over a million lazy ones, as the former will at least translate to a substantial bump in gun-rights activism and the latter will snore away while gun rights further erode.

When you put it that way the choice of lesser evils becomes obvious to most. Let's hope it does light a fire under the feet of the nearly 7 million michigan residents this could be used against. My life experience tells me that chances are it will not. In my opinion this is just what this legislature is hoping for. Fat, dumb, lazy voters who are easily distracted by shiny bobbles while they strip them of their rights. This will be done quietly in the background, while the little people marvel at the table crumbs they have just been given.

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

[Bronson]

I gotta go with DanM on this one. The last time PP repeal came around I didn't support it because it didn't get rid of registration. So had that passed we would have lost the protection of the PP in regards to the GFSZA without really gaining anything at the State level. This time, with the repeal of registration included I feel the pluses at least equal the minuses.

Bronson

[Bowesmobile]

Okay, I live in a state with no registration laws. I live 2 hours from the Capitol of the United States. I do not have a problem with the GFSZ. I drive past schools every day. All of us OC'ers here in this state do. The federal government does not have the man power or the time to enforce the regulation of this law. Nor do they have the right. If you are driving on a public roadway and you pass in front of a school how can they see into your private car to tell you have a gun? So then what is their RAS for pulling you over. Plus it HAS to be a federal agent to make the arrest. Local PD can not. You guys are getting really worked up over nothing. The registration and lists are a big deal and need to be eliminated. But relax about the GFSZ. It's really not that big of a problem. Keep working at restoring your rights according to the 2and amendment! Keep moving forward by removing regulation and government involvement. I hope to move back to Michigan one day and have the freedoms I do here in Virginia without having it be a privilege. It should not be a privilege, its our rights!

[Jared]

Okay, I live in a state with no registration laws. I live 2 hours from the Capitol of the United States. I do not have a problem with the GFSZ. I drive past schools every day. All of us OC'ers here in this state do. The federal government does not have the man power or the time to enforce the regulation of this law. Nor do they have the right. If you are driving on a public roadway and you pass in front of a school how can they see into your private car to tell you have a gun? So then what is their RAS for pulling you over. Plus it HAS to be a federal agent to make the arrest. Local PD can not. You guys are getting really worked up over nothing. The registration and lists are a big deal and need to be eliminated. But relax about the GFSZ. It's really not that big of a problem. Keep working at restoring your rights according to the 2and amendment! Keep moving forward by removing regulation and government involvement. I hope to move back to Michigan one day and have the freedoms I do here in Virginia without having it be a privilege. It should not be a privilege, its our rights!

You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.

[Big Gay Al]

You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.

Actually, the current Permit to Purchase is also considered a "license to carry." But, it's not a license to carry concealed. That's the major difference.

Myself, I'm on the fence about this. I have my CPL, so I'm not concerned about myself. But I have to care about fellow OCers who, for one reason or another don't have a CPL. As much as I would dearly love to see registration go away, I don't want to see my fellow Michiganders put at risk of federal prosecution.

And I'd be more than willing to bet that getting rid of the GFSZ act, will be difficult at best, nearly impossible at worst. But, maybe we need to go after the GFSZA in a different manner. Try to get it modified first. Perhaps some additional clause where it's only a crime if you're caught in the commission of another crime within that zone. I know, that's probably a long shot as well, but I would think it should be doable, at least more likely than repealing it out right.

[hamaneggs]

I would be willing to pay 5 or 10 bucks(or free) for a piece of paper(like a hunting license) to cover the Feds!Or an endorsement on MI ID(drivers license),licensing me to own firearms! Done!

[Michigander]

Years back, while I was living in Arizona, and this was before they passed constitutional carry, I OC'd near thousands of students on playgrounds and getting out of school as I walked across half of the Phoenix Valley area. There was no way to avoid the school zones, and by that I mean I had to walk right next to them, no other options. And what's more, I KNEW no one cared. And that most definitely included every cop in the county, including the dozens that saw me and didn't look twice.

An outside perspective looking in can be distorted, because if you're in a gold star state, it is greener on your side of the pasture. I know my perspective on Michigan was distorted when I was actually living in the AZ Free Republic. Damn I miss that place...

In terms of enforcing laws, I had been under the impression that police in Michigan can enforce state and federal law anywhere they happen to be in any part of the state. If I am mistaken about this, someone please cite the state or federal law that denies them that jurisdiction.

[TheQ]

Sounds like a void discussion for Jared to join. He had previously comment on state police enforcing federal laws.

[Jared]

Again, state and local police CAN NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

That's why when local cops get on task forces with federal agencies they have to be "deputized" if you will. Because if they weren't then they couldn't enforce federal law... Just as Feds generally can't enforce state law without states giving permission to them.

[Bailenforcer]

I share your concerns, the state could have done it the right way and preserved our rights from the Feral Beast (Federal Government) and rewrote the act, as opposed to serving us and our rights to the Feral Beast. What now a no fly list debacle as they do for air travelers were many thousands are being prevented to fly because some fluke got their name on the no fly or in this case no gun buy list? Does anyone realize is it takes many times the money to fight a case in a Federal court as it does in your local or state courts?

No there will be no onslaught of cases and malicious prosecution jsut yet, but like in Nazi Germany the Feral Beast is grabbing power and soon it will be a major problem.

If anything the states should go in the opposite direction, and take back power from the beast.

They'll be re subjecting hundreds of thousands of Michigan's non CPL holding pistol owners to the federal gun free school zones act. As in wanna walk with your pistol on public property near a school? Better use the PRK poor man's CCW method and carry unloaded and in a locked case. And believe me, we will have people getting charged. The oath violating trash that infests so many of Michigan's PD's will be beside themselves with joy if this goes through.

Some people will inevitably say "but that's not for regular people just carrying!" Until you've had the misfortune I've had, of being a non CPL holder in a near hour long felony stop while the cops try to figure out how they can charge you, including going over the GFSZA with the prosecutor, maybe you won't get it. As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.

It's as though they're trying to clean house of every benefit we can find in the laws, and in turn give us nothing.

[Bowesmobile]

You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.

That makes me very sad. I miss my home, but I love my rights. I have found a more profound meaning in the constitution here in VA than anywhere else I have lived. I dont want to lose what I have. People need to stop this whole permit for perks ideology. The founding fathers said it was our right to own posses and use firearms for our protection and safety against any and all threats, foremost the government. Without the need for lists of guns owned and licenses to say you can carry. Take steps to secure the right to constitution carry. Sometimes it takes a little patience.

[TheQ]

Again, state and local police CAN NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

That's why when local cops get on task forces with federal agencies they have to be "deputized" if you will. Because if they weren't then they couldn't enforce federal law... Just as Feds generally can't enforce state law without states giving permission to them.

There you have it, from a Fed LEO.

[Shadow Bear]

Your argument assumes that the feds would only charge you with a GFSZA violation. Usually, the largest number of charges possible are levied in the hope that one would stick.

However, I can answer affirmatively that there was a sole charge of violating the GFSZA, and yes, the person was convicted. see: United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)

That was the only charge that would stick; Danks was not innocently strolling past a school when he was arrested. He was an active shooter at the time he was in the GFSZ. I couldn't find any info as to WHY he was shooting at a car; just that it was the act that got him 'noticed'.

So, what we have here is a tempest in a teapot.