Will now be able to carry in pfz ?

From what i have heard reported on tv if this law is signed and once it goes into effect any of the places you would be able to carry cc now is they have the right to post a no weapons allowed sign to prevent you from entering with a weapon including schools. if so nothing was gained

The bill - part of a broader effort to modernize the concealed pistol license law - would let CPL (concealed pistol license) holders with additional training carry their guns in existing "gun-free" zones, though those places could decide on their own to post signs prohibiting the guns under existing trespass laws.

As a result, private and public property owners in those zones - bar owners, churches, schools, hospitals, day care centers - and public universities could essentially opt to prohibit guns if they want to.

essentially, all SB 59 does with regard to signs is state that nothing in this section "prohibits" a property from posting no gun signs. basically it says nothing with regard to no guns signs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Mosnar87 said:

essentially, all SB 59 does with regard to signs is state that nothing in this section "prohibits" a property from posting no gun signs. basically it says nothing with regard to no guns signs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

The bill - part of a broader effort to modernize the concealed pistol license law - would let CPL (concealed pistol license) holders with additional training carry their guns in existing "gun-free" zones, though those places could decide on their own to post signs prohibiting the guns under existing trespass laws.

As a result, private and public property owners in those zones - bar owners, churches, schools, hospitals, day care centers - and public universities could essentially opt to prohibit guns if they want to.

Ahh... The media's interpretation... Read the actual text of SB-59 H-4. my conclusions are drawn from the wording in the law, I believe the reporters are reading the summary.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

bossbart said:

those places could decide on their own to post signs prohibiting the guns under existing trespass laws.

Click to expand...

There is no new sign language in the law. Where are you getting this? (Any business could always have posted signs, but they don't hold the force of law and nothing in SB59 changes that).

As a result, private and public property owners in those zones - bar owners, churches, schools, hospitals, day care centers - and public universities could essentially opt to prohibit guns if they want to.

Click to expand...

Not public schools. Not public property, either. Preemption covers public property, and nothing in SB59-H4 changes what preemption covers.

Read the bill.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBH-0059.pdf

BoiledFrogs said:

I bet a few will try.

Click to expand...

+1

I think that it will obviously be tried by some schools, and the "offending party" will be trespassed. Wait who exactly will be carrying in schools? Teachers? no, they are employees so will not be able to, You really think that a school won't try to trespass someone? really?

griffin said:

There is no new sign language in the law. Where are you getting this? (Any business could always have posted signs, but they don't hold the force of law and nothing in SB59 changes that).

Not public schools. Not public property, either. Preemption covers public property, and nothing in SB59-H4 changes what preemption covers.

Read the bill.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBH-0059.pdf

Click to expand...

From mcrgo, a link to mlive.com

bossbart said:

From mcrgo, a link to mlive.com

Click to expand...

mcrgo under state and national news, mlive.com

bossbart said:

mcrgo under state and national news, mlive.com

Click to expand...

Post the link here. Or I can save you the trouble by telling you they are wrong if they actually state what you stated.

Here's what I read on one of the mlive links at MCRGO:

Private-property owners can still ban the weapons under trespass laws, but not schools and other public venues, said Ryan Mitchell, an aide to Green who worked closely on the legislation.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/sweeping_changes_in_michigans.html

And there was nothing about signage. So everything I said you were wrong on, you were wrong on.