OC Codify HB 5091 & HB 5092

bigt8261 · Oct 17, 2013

The Legislative Team of Michigan Open Carry Inc would like to introduce HB 5091 & HB 5092

This is the first bill our organization has taken the grass roots lead on.

Together these bills will effectively codify open carry for the first time in Michigan. Open Carry is generally accepted as lawful in Michigan, however some law enforcement officers (LEOs) don't like the practice and charge or threaten to charge an individual open carrying with brandishing or disturbing the peace. These two bills would provide some statutory clarification on the matter.

HB 5091, introduced and sponsored by State Representative Joel Johnson (R - Clare) updates the Brandishing Statute (MCL 750.234e) to specifically state the following is NOT brandishing:
"(E) A person who is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm and is in lawful possession of an openly carried firearm that is holstered or carried on a sling."

HB 5092, introduced and sponsored by State Representative Brandon DIllon (D - Grand Rapids) specifically defines brandishing in statute as:
“Brandish” means to point, wave about, or display in a threatening manner.

We look forward to working with legislatures on both sides of the aisle to bring the clarification these bills represent into law. Please stay tuned for more!

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=3aa7ed2ec8

FreeInAZ · Oct 17, 2013

The only tweak needed in my humble opinion would be to HB 5902. The use of the word "display" has given over zealous police & prosecutors just enough wiggle room to bring bogus charges in the past. It is too subjective in my opinion. Maybe use to unholster or handle unholstered in a threatening manner instead? Sadly, some LEO's & DA's have become masters of wordsmithing, so the law needs to be so clear it cannot be abused by them.

Just my 2¢ - YMMV

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

I would like to see some sort of self defense clause added to brandishing. As the laws are now, if you draw, you either fire, or you will be looked at for a felonious assault charge. That just isn't right.

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

FreeInAz, we thought about that too. This definition is about as best as we can get. One can only do so much hand holding. However, when taken in conjunction with our new exception to brandishing, not only would the statute effectively state that OC is NOT brandishing, IMO it would also bolster any related activities like taking your firearm out of your trunk. Currently, prosecutors can already go after you, but with these changes, they will have a much harder time. I also believe our exception would help to cut the legs out from under disorderly conduct charges. One may even be able to make a 123.1102 case out of it.

22Luke36, we thought of that too. To us, the threshold for drawing is the same threshold for use of deadly force. As long as you meet that threshold, you are good to go just as it works now. The bills will not change that relation.

Thanks guys for your feedback.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

bigt8261 said:
22Luke36, we thought of that too. To us, the threshold for drawing is the same threshold for use of deadly force. As long as you meet that threshold, you are good to go just as it works now. The bills will not change that relation.
.

That, my friends, is why we have gun control in America today, enjoy your prize..

Venator · Oct 18, 2013

The issue with stand your ground versus drawing your firearm and NOT shooting is a problem. SYG protects you if you shoot. But there have been cases where someone just drew their firearm and deterred the attack without discharging their weapon and have been charged with a crime. We need some language that protects the LAWFUL brandishing (without shooting) in theses cases. Is their such language in the existing statutes.

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

In my opinion, justifiable brandishing would fall under justifiable use of deadly force. However, I am not a lawyer.

I understand the concern here, but this is not something I believe we can address in these bills. Also, I'm not entirely convinced this is something we need to address, although I'm open to being educated. If this is indeed a problem, we will add it to our legislative agenda and work on it in the future.

Either way, I do not see these bills making such a scenario worse.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

Brandishing is a misdemeanor, the alternative is a felony!!! It IS a big deal!!! Compromise comes as a box of nails.

As it is now, you're better off frankly, shooting the guy, that is insanity within the law. I don't want to shoot anybody, if at all possible, I want to let the guy go.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Oct 18, 2013

Defensive display should allowed if one can stop a assault with the just a display of a firearm and not the actual shooting of it.

Its a Win Win the antis don't like it because it just provides another reason and use for carry.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

bigt8261 said:
In my opinion, justifiable brandishing would fall under justifiable use of deadly force. However, I am not a lawyer.

I understand the concern here, but this is not something I believe we can address in these bills. Also, I'm not entirely convinced this is something we need to address, although I'm open to being educated. If this is indeed a problem, we will add it to our legislative agenda and work on it in the future.

Either way, I do not see these bills making such a scenario worse.

We could always wait until the next time that Lansing is held entirely by the Right again, that way we can get some gun laws passed. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

I see what you are saying about "defensive display" but that is not a topic we are addressing at this time.

If you have any specific examples, please point to them. We would need to know how the problem arises in order to combat it.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

That is the problem friend. Waiting until a LAC gets a felony, then using it to point out a problem. I just dont know what to say to you at this point.:uhoh:

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

Again I understand what you are saying, but please hear me out.

We are not the ones that decide which legislation get's passed, only which legislation our organization pushes. If we want to maintain credibility and effectiveness, then we must pick and choose which legislation we push and when. Therefore we are only pushing legislation we believe we have a chance of getting passed.

Now keep in mind, there are a lot of things that go into the likelihood of a bill getting passed. One of them is the perceived need for a bill. When it comes to combating brandishing, we have a plethora of people that we can bring in to testify, and cases to reference. On the other hand, if we are unable to show how the current law has caused problems, especially over a significant length of time, then it is less likely our bill will gain traction.

I want to help, I really do. All I'm asking is that you help me.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

Well, I don't know what organization you are with, putting a link in your signature line might help.

I don't mind helping you, but while playing politics is necessary, don't become one of them. I've seen that happen before to once, good people.

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

Forgive me, while I do read through OCDO, I do not frequently post. I am Tom Lambert, Assistant Legislative Director of Michigan Open Carry. I helped come up with these bills and get them to where they are now. Notice my credits in the bottom of the link in the OP. You may also know me as the guy that attends Grand Rapids city commission meetings.

22Luke36 · Oct 18, 2013

We have met, keep up the good work.

autosurgeon · Oct 18, 2013

Bigt is part of the MOC leadership team. He is on the legislative team.

Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates

Bikenut · Oct 18, 2013

Ok.... I'm running off my memory and don't recall exactly how it worked... or even which law was involved.

Wasn't there a bit of a wording change in the law that defined what legal reasons for transporting a firearm were because the list could be taken that anything not on the list wasn't legal?

Couldn't the same kind of thing happen with these bills? Is there wording to prevent that in those bills? I know that with legalese the devil isn't in the details but is in the exact black letter wording that is used.

Something like... "includes but is not limited to" ... stuck in the proper place might ward off future unintended consequences?????

Raggs · Oct 18, 2013

I think having a legal definition of what is and what is not brandishing to be a positive thing. I would like to see somehow worded that legal OC is not and cannot be considered disturbing the peace. As has been pointed out the less wiggle room the better. I do like the addition of sling to the law however I can see this being used by some to mean a pistol on a sling would be okie dokie.

bigt8261 · Oct 18, 2013

Bikenut I think you are referring to HB 5282. Took me a bit of research to remember. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qt...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2012-HB-5282

Think of it this way. What 5282 got rid of was a list of what was considered ok. What 5091 does is add to the list of what can't be considered bad. I hope the difference there makes sense.

Like saying (A) you can wash your car on Monday, as opposed to saying (B) washing your car on Sunday is not illegal.

(A) leaves little room to wash your car outside of Moday
(B) leaves every day available, but ensures that Sunday is ok.

OC Codify HB 5091 & HB 5092

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member