• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
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.

Ok, this has already been discussed at length, but can you show me 1 instance of what you predict that has happened in ALL the other states with no PP? I have not been able to find 1 person who was charged with a GFSZA violation as a stand alone crime. Why aren't people in Virginia, Kentucky, NC, and all the other states being charged? Your situation is very unfortunate, but having to ask the states permission to buy a weapon is a very bad thing and completely unacceptable imo.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Yes it's been discussed at length, and it appears that it needs to be discussed more.

We've had people charged where no violation of any law existed, and it was so blatant that the cops and the court couldn't even come up with a law to charge under, and yet they went ahead with court dates!

And now the argument is that for the sake of freedom, we should criminalize actions that are currently legal, based on some strange trust with the government that they won't prosecute non CPL holders based on statistics? Seriously?

Realistically, as it is now, if you want to not ask the states permission and risk prosecution, get an out of state carry permit, and don't register your guns. I's legal, with the exception of it being defined as illegal by Frank Kelly's opinion, now quite out out of date since it was written around the old may issue laws. If you're going to risk court anyway, that's a very solid option.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
so the answer is no? you can't find one instance of that happening even though your first post said "And believe me, we will have people getting charged."

not trying to be a jerk, but why should i believe you when you can't provide any evidence? can you see into the future? i'm not going to change your mind on this bill, and your not going to change mine, but i just don't understand how you can predict what's going to happen even though it never has. if MI citizens are in imminent danger from this change then why doesn't it happen in ANY of the other states?

this package of bills eliminates PP and registration, and i hope it passes. if you feel compelled to still ask for gov't permission to buy a firearm and then let the gov't know exactly what you purchased i'm sure they would still very happily take your information :) i would like our laws to be similar to the rest of the country, no permission slip and registration.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Ok, this has already been discussed at length, but can you show me 1 instance of what you predict that has happened in ALL the other states with no PP? I have not been able to find 1 person who was charged with a GFSZA violation as a stand alone crime. Why aren't people in Virginia, Kentucky, NC, and all the other states being charged? Your situation is very unfortunate, but having to ask the states permission to buy a weapon is a very bad thing and completely unacceptable imo.

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)
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
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)

Thanks for the case reference, so far i had not found 1. i still believe it is a better option to repeal PP, registration and GFSZA rather than keep PP and registration because of fear of a possible GFSZA violation. as i said, i'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just stating mine.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Thanks for the case reference, so far i had not found 1. i still believe it is a better option to repeal PP, registration and GFSZA rather than keep PP and registration because of fear of a possible GFSZA violation. as i said, i'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just stating mine.

Perhaps, unless you are the one being charged with a violation of the GFSZA. I do agree the chances are remote...but not impossible. BTW, if you purchase a firearm from a dealer, there already is de facto registration. I've seen cases where the Feds end up on someone's doorstep within hours of starting a trace through a dealer.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating pistol registration. But arguing that it is a major leap forward in the advancement of gun rights if this passes is a crock. The only people I can see that get a win is an out-of-state resident (who didn't meet any exception) would be able to bring a pistol on their trip to Michigan. I have some indication from MSP that they did not enforce the licensing provision for these people if the pistol was in their place of sojourn; Heller ended that possibility.

So, be excited that a supposedly PRO 2A group of individuals MAY pass some legislation that eliminates registration. YIPPEE!! (Sarcasm intended)

I'm sure they will all use this as political propaganda that they did so much for the 2A in Michigan. Too bad that probably 80%+ of Michigan's gun owners will believe them.
 
Last edited:

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
I tried reading the bill to find out the answer to this question but I don't speak Legal all that well. They are no longer going to register handguns if this passes as is, but what about guns already registered? I did see a section about destroying records but I could not clearly understand what records were being referred to as it referenced other sections.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
so the answer is no? you can't find one instance of that happening even though your first post said "And believe me, we will have people getting charged."

not trying to be a jerk, but why should i believe you when you can't provide any evidence? can you see into the future? i'm not going to change your mind on this bill, and your not going to change mine, but i just don't understand how you can predict what's going to happen even though it never has. if MI citizens are in imminent danger from this change then why doesn't it happen in ANY of the other states?

this package of bills eliminates PP and registration, and i hope it passes. if you feel compelled to still ask for gov't permission to buy a firearm and then let the gov't know exactly what you purchased i'm sure they would still very happily take your information :) i would like our laws to be similar to the rest of the country, no permission slip and registration.


They will go after me.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Those who thought gun handling getting in and out of cars was excessive are in for a rude awakening when non CPL holders, to include everyone below 21, will have to start carrying a case and lock, and upon getting to a borderline of 1,000 feet from a school (which of course they will have no choice but to guestimate), will have to draw and unload their gun, then put it in a locked case to transport it across the "school zone". I suppose it may be difficult for someone to understand how bad this is unless they've experienced it.

Even if you choose to violate a gun law, it causes an added unhealthy stress. If you choose to be an activist that breaks gun laws, you're essentially painting a target on your back that says arrest me. Poke around the PRK and Wisconsin forums for a look at how much this type of thing sucks.

It's really not complicated, and I'm sure the legislators understand it. Progress in this regard would be eliminating the vehicle carry bans, "licensing" everyone for the purpose of the GFSZA so long as they are 18+ with no felonies. But instead they just want to look cool to the majority of the voters while they partially neuter activists.
 
Last edited:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
good question. i believe the new bill calls for the destruction of records, so probably not.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/htm/2011-HEBH-5225.htm

SEC. 2C. (1) THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE,

THE SHERIFF OF EACH COUNTY, AND THE COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF OF POLICE

OF EACH CITY, VILLAGE, AND TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL DESTROY

ALL RECORDS HELD BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT

OR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT THAT WERE RECEIVED, COMPILED, OR RETAINED

UNDER SECTION 2, 2A, OR 11, OR UNDER FORMER SECTION 9, INCLUDING

ALL COPIES OF THOSE RECORDS. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2),

THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE RECORDS SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 6 MONTHS

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS



SECTION.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/pdf/2012-HEBH-5499.pdf

Note the SBS/SBR ban and transport restrictions they don't think need to be cleaned up.

For the SBS/SBR restrictions, they merely opted to clarify that C&R's will no longer need to be registered as pistols. What pricks.


1 Sec. 224b. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for
2 sale, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled
3 rifle.
4 (2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony
5 punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of
6 not more than $2,500.00, or both.
7 (3) This section does not apply to the sale, offering for
8 sale, or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled
9 shotgun which THAT the secretary of the treasury of the United
10 States of America, or his or her delegate, under 26 USC, sections
11 5801 through 5872, or 18 USC, sections 921 through 928 931, has
12 found to be a curio, relic, antique, museum piece, or collector's
13 item not likely to be used as a weapon. , but only if the person
14 selling, offering for sale or possessing the firearm has also fully
15 complied with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and
16 28.422a

Edit to add- the line through the text used in the link to cross out certain portions of the text from the bill, it didn't transfer with the copy and paste, nor do I know how to do that effect. But it can be seen in the link.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.

Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!
 
Last edited:

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
no vote til fall

I just spoke to a member of staff for Senator
John Pappageorge MI 13th district. He said that he didn't see the bill on the agenda for the senate, so it will likely not be addressed until the fall session because summer recess starts in the next couple days. He didn't know 100% what the senator's vote would be, but he was fairly confident that based on Senator Pappageorge's gun voting record that he would likely vote FOR the bill.
 
Top