SB 59 passes the Senate with cost to Open Carriers :(

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1813589&postcount=923

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0059.htm

So ridiculous. Makes me wonder if we are going to get the calls for phantom brandishing if this crap passes. We MUST get the house to oppose this bill.

I have a hard time comprehending this legal stuff sometimes. what exactly does this mean-

"shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h)"

does it mean that if 59 passes we could ONLY cc in the current PFZ's? does it affect OC in any areas other than current PFZ's

TheQ said:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1813589&postcount=923

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0059.htm

Click to expand...

I just read through it, and I didn't see that, where is it?

If it is in there, we need to focus on getting the house to strip it out in committee.

detroit_fan said:

I have a hard time comprehending this legal stuff sometimes. what exactly does this mean-

"shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h)"

does it mean that if 59 passes we could ONLY cc in the current PFZ's?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it means.

does it affect OC in any areas other than current PFZ's

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't affect OC elsewhere.

Small_Arms_Collector said:

I just read through it, and I didn't see that, where is it?

If it is in there, we need to focus on getting the house to strip it out in committee.

Click to expand...

If the house strips it, it goes back to the senate to pass again.

but all that is moot, since the Governor has said he'll only sign it if the OC prohibition is there.

I too had trouble with the legalese, but did notice the part about not being able to OC in pistol-free zones.

By the way, what was the benefit, if any, to be found in the bill?

Regardless, this bill should be opposed. Absolutely no rights should be lost in comprimise!

If the Governor won't sign the bill without the open carry ban, then so be it!

PS this link: http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...&postcount=923 was not working, but it could just have been a network problem on my end.

OC4me said:

By the way, what was the benefit, if any, to be found in the bill?

Click to expand...

The benefit is that one would be allowed to conceal in this state without Pistol Free Zones (Except courthouses and casinos, of course).

With the tradeoff being that you can't OPENLY carry in these same PFZs.

So you're basically allowing 330,000 people to carry concealed where they couldn't before in exchange for the hundred-odd people who were carrying there before.

zigziggityzoo said:

The benefit is that one would be allowed to conceal in this state without Pistol Free Zones (Except courthouses and casinos, of course).

With the tradeoff being that you can't OPENLY carry in these same PFZs.

So you're basically allowing 330,000 people to carry concealed where they couldn't before in exchange for the hundred-odd people who were carrying there before.

Click to expand...

it would also eliminate the county gun boards wouldn't it?

zigziggityzoo said:

If the house strips it, it goes back to the senate to pass again.

but all that is moot, since the Governor has said he'll only sign it if the OC prohibition is there.

Click to expand...

so there is confirmation snyder would sign it with the OC provision?

also, how did this get added, who introduced this amendment?

do you think this is retaliation for the MOC(and others) going after Randy?

detroit_fan said:

do you think this is retaliation for the MOC(and others) going after Randy?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. It's due to Snyder

detroit_fan said:

so there is confirmation snyder would sign it with the OC provision?

Click to expand...

Yes, as much as a politician can be believed.

TheQ said:

I don't believe so. It's due to Snyder

Click to expand...

ok, i wouldn't be surprised to find out it is an attempt at payback though

TheQ said:

Yes, as much as a politician can be believed.

Click to expand...

isn't that the truth!

So we'd basically be reversing roles.

Currently a CCer, if he wants to carry in a CC PFZ, must switch to OC.

If this passes then when an OCer w/CPL enters into a PFZ, he would have to switch to CC.

Is that the nuts & bolts of it?

Bronson

Bronson said:

So we'd basically be reversing roles.

Currently a CCer, if he wants to carry in a CC PFZ, must switch to OC.

If this passes then when an OCer w/CPL enters into a PFZ, he would have to switch to CC.

Is that the nuts & bolts of it?

Bronson

Click to expand...

yes, but one important aspect of it would be that there would be no "loophole", the law would clearly state that carrying concealed in a pfz would be legal(with addt'l training). we all accept OC w/cpl as legal now, but it is not as "black and white" as it would be with 59 passed.

also, i think this would eliminate county gun boards

zigziggityzoo said:

So you're basically allowing 330,000 people to carry concealed where they couldn't before in exchange for the hundred-odd people who were carrying there before.

Click to expand...

Yup. And as one of the more active supporters of open carry and MOC, I believe it is totally worth it. Eliminate pistol free zones for CC and we'll deal with the anti OC provision down the road.

Think about it, we are trading a grey area loophole(not grey you say, ask Judge Aquilina) that some OCers who have CPL's don't even use for the the ability of all CPL holders to CC in 99% of the state.

Yes one will be able to CC in PFZ but that's only if:

(k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption



from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is



eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual



requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or



more of the following apply:



(i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial



or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who



provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual





has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the



training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all



of the following conditions:



(A) It includes both classroom and range time.



(B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94



rounds.



(C) It focuses on the training principles described in section



5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in



subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).



(D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national



or state firearms training organization.



(E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms



instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms



training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide



training under section 5b(7)(c).



(F) The training is completed not more than 5 years



immediately preceding the date of application for an original or



renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.



(ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by



this state or by a national or state firearms training



organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training



under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the



individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if



the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor



issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training



organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

^Yup. I've taken additional handgun training that meets the qualifications for the exemption. Hopefully a lot of us have. We always say a CPL class is just the start and additional training should be something most people should get. Now those who actually care enough to follow through with the additional training get a HUGE benefit from it.

Most regulars here no doubt remember how against the grain I was with not liking this law when it allowed the same OCing as we have now in CEZ's.

To take that away, and then add some silly class that probably doesn't involve much of anything practical in order to get that back, but without the benefit of being able to OC, seems ridiculous to me. It is in fact a step in the wrong direction, because it is nothing short of further making a right into a privilege.

This reminds me of the AZ bar law, where they went ahead and mandated CC and no OC, and only for those who are licensed. That one was pushed for by the NRA. What's going on behind the scenes here I'd really love to know.

I am available to go to Lansing tomorrow, since I have that day off. If anyone who is more in the know about this than I am would like to join me in talking to some politicians tomorrow or any other friday, count me in.

scot623 said:

Yup. And as one of the more active supporters of open carry and MOC, I believe it is totally worth it. Eliminate pistol free zones for CC and we'll deal with the anti OC provision down the road.

Think about it, we are trading a grey area loophole(not grey you say, ask Judge Aquilina) that some OCers who have CPL's don't even use for the the ability of all CPL holders to CC in 99% of the state.

Click to expand...

i am torn on this bill now, but i agree with what you said. i currently don't OC in PFZ's because I can not afford thousands of dollars to fight a BS charge. being able to CC in PFZ's would be very valuable to me.