Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Some recent proposed legislation on handgun laws that are being looked at in the Capital. I have included a few high-lights. Some proposed changes are; special privilege to judges, Eliminate handgun safety inspections or let you have it inspected with local police or Sheriff, allow all of-duty LEOs to carry in gun-free zones, Abolish all gun-free zones, allow some vets to forgo the required firearm training, and ALLOW STAFF OF SCHOOLS TO CARRY FIREARMS WITH CEO’S permission. Contact your rep in support of any changesyou agree with. For moreinfo on proposed recent firearm laws changes see:
[align=center]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(juinj055gueddl45sq0yjqyq))/mileg.aspx?page=home[/align]
[align=center]([/b]GIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT TO JUDGES AND RETIRED JUDGES)[/b][/align]
[align=center]GUN-FREE ZONES: JUDGES' EXEMPTION S.B. 505 (S-1): FIRST ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 505 (Substitute S-1 as reported) (as passed by the Senate)
Sponsor: Senator Roger Kahn, M.D.
Committee: Judiciary
Date Completed: 12-20-07
RATIONALE
The handgun licensure law contains a list of places where a person who is licensed under the law, or who is exempt from the requirement for licensure, is prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol. Called "no-carry zones", these include sports arenas, taverns, hospitals, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship. The prohibition does not apply, however, to certain licensees, such as corrections officers and retired police officers, who are more likely than the average citizen to interact with or be threatened by potentially dangerous individuals. It has been pointed out that judges, too, routinely deal with violent people, as well as those who are mentally unstable or are in highly stressful domestic situations. Evidently, some Michigan judges and their family members have received threats from people who have been in the judges' courtrooms. To protect their safety, it has been suggested that State court judges also should be exempt from the prohibition against carrying concealed pistols in no-carry zones.
CONTENT The bill would amend the handgun licensure law to exclude a State court judge or retired judge who was licensed under the law from provisions that prohibit an individual who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure, from carrying a concealed pistol on certain premises. The bill would take effect 90 days after it was enacted.
Specifically, the law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure, from carrying a concealed pistol on the premises (excluding the parking areas) of any of the following:
-- A school or school property, except in the case of a student's parent or legal guardian who is in a vehicle on school property and is dropping off or picking up the student.
-- A public or private child care center or day care center, child caring institution, or child placing agency.
-- A sports arena or stadium.
-- A licensed bar or tavern whose primary source of income is the sale of liquor by the glass for on-premises consumption.
-- Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless its presiding official or officials permit the carrying of a concealed pistol on the property or facility.
-- An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more that the person knows or should know has such a seating capacity or that has a sign stating that capacity.
-- A hospital.
-- A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
A person who violates the prohibition is responsible for a State civil infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $500, and a mandatory six-month suspension of the person's license to carry a concealed pistol. A second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000, and mandatory revocation of the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol. A third or subsequent violation is a felony
punishable by up to four years' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $5,000, and mandatory license revocation.
Under the bill, the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol in a no-carry zone would not apply to a State court judge or State court retired judge who was licensed under the law. The concealed weapon licensing board could require a retired judge to obtain and carry a letter from the Judicial Tenure Commission stating that he or she was in good standing, in order to qualify for this exemption. A State court judge would be a district, circuit, probate, or Court of Appeals judge, or a justice of the Supreme Court, serving either by election or by appointment. A State court retired judge would be such a judge or justice who was retired.
Currently, the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol in a no-carry zone does not apply to any of the following:
-- A licensee under the handgun licensure law who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer.
-- An individual licensed under the law who is employed or contracted by an entity in a no-carry zone to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.
-- An individual licensed as a private investigator or private detective.
-- Any of the following who is licensed under the handgun licensure law, while on duty and in the course of his or her employment: a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department; a Department of State Police motor carrier officer or Capitol security officer; a member of a sheriff's posse; a police or sheriff's department auxiliary officer or reserve officer; or a Department of Corrections parole or probation officer.
MCL 28.421 & 28.425o
ARGUMENTS (Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)
Supporting Argument Judges are in a unique position because they literally pass judgment on the individuals in their courtrooms, and make decisions that directly affect people's lives. In addition to sentencing convicted criminals, judges are responsible for committing mentally unstable individuals, issuing personal protection orders, terminating parental rights, and granting custody and parenting time: all matters that can be emotionally charged and highly stressful to the individuals involved, and might trigger a dangerous reaction in a normally noncombative person. When people focus their resentment and anger on the judge, he or she may at risk, especially if the person sentenced, committed, or subject to a court order is unstable or has history of violent behavior. According to testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, judges in Michigan have in fact received personal threats as well as threats to their families. In addition, judges are vulnerable not just in their courtrooms, but also in such places as restaurants, movie theaters, and sports arenas.
While not all of these venues are no-carry zones, judges who are licensed to carry concealed weapons should have the ability to protect themselves wherever they are, and should not have to worry about breaking the law by being armed in a no-carry zone. A judge who is talking a walk in his or her neighborhood, for example, should not have to go unprotected because his or her route crosses school property. Also, a judge should be able to stop for a drink at a tavern or attend a football game at a stadium without removing his or her weapon. In both of these no-carry zones, a judge could easily encounter or be followed by someone he or she previously sentenced or committed.
By adding State court judges to the list of handgun licensees who are exempt from the no-carry zone prohibition, the bill would enhance the ability of judges to protect themselves and their families.
Response: The exemption should be extended to Federal court judges, who also are vulnerable to threats by criminals or mentally unstable individuals who might be prone to violence. Perhaps court referees, magistrates, and prosecutors should be exempted, as well.
Opposing Argument Rather than expanding the list of people who are exempt from the no-carry zone prohibition, legislation should eliminate the zones altogether. Without the zones, people who have a license to carry would not be any more likely to draw their weapons in bars, churches, and schools than they are now. Furthermore, many people besides judges, corrections officers, retired police officers, and private detectives are vulnerable to predators. Senior citizens, for example, are an easy target and deserve the ability to protect themselves anywhere.
Response: The exemptions apply to individuals whose occupations may routinely bring them into contact with people who might be armed or who have a history of violence. The statute does not place a higher value on some people's lives than on others', but recognizes that some licensees may be in particular danger or targeted for revenge because of their line of work. At the same time, the no-carry zones include premises where vulnerable populations, such as schoolchildren and patients, are located, as well as crowded venues, such as sports arenas, where many people could be injured in an attack or a predator could be easily concealed.
Legislative Analyst: Suzanne Lowe
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government. There have been no felony convictions for carrying a concealed pistol on no-carry premises for a third or subsequent violation since the current penalties were enacted in 2000. There are no data on misdemeanor convictions. To the extent that the bill would reduce convictions, local governments would incur decreased costs of misdemeanor probation and incarceration in local facilities, which vary by county. The State would incur decreased costs of felony probation at an annual average cost of $2,000, as well as the cost of incarceration in a State facility at an average annual cost of $31,000.[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center](BILL TO ELIMINATE HANDGUN SAFETY INSPECTIONS)[/b][/align]
ELIMINATE PISTOL SAFETY INSPECTIONS[size=]
AND DESTROY EXISTING RECORDS[size=]
House Bill 4490[size=]
Sponsor: Rep. Paul Opsommer[size=]
House Bill 4491[size=]
Sponsor: Rep. Joel Sheltrown[size=]
Committee: Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources[size=]
Complete to 10-15-07
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 4490 AND 4491 AS INTRODUCED 3-20-07
These bills would (1) eliminate the current requirement in the Michigan handgun licensure law that pistol owners obtain safety inspection certificates; (2) require that all existing records of inspection certificates maintained by local and state law enforcement officials be destroyed; and (3) eliminate the misdemeanor crime of failing to have one's pistol inspected.
House Bill 4490 would repeal Section 9 of the handgun licensure act (MCL 28.429), which requires people who purchase or otherwise come into possession of a pistol in Michigan to obtain a safety inspection certificate from their local police department (or local sheriff, if they reside in a part of the state without an organized police department). That section also requires local law enforcement officials and the State Police to maintain records of safety inspection certificates. The bill would require state and local law enforcement officials to destroy all of their existing records of pistol safety inspections within one year.
House Bill 4491 would repeal Section 228 of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.228) under which a person who fails to have his or her pistol inspected as required is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, or a fine of up to $100, or both. The bill would also eliminate other references to Section 9 and safety inspections contained in the Penal Code. House Bill 4491 is tie-barred to House Bill 4490, meaning it could not take effect unless both bills were enacted.
FISCAL IMPACT]
House Bill 4490 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local governments. Some administrative costs may be associated with the destruction of safety inspection records by the State Police and local law enforcement agencies.]
House Bill 449 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local governments.
[align=center]HOUSE BILL No. 4758
May 15, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Acciavatti, Hoogendyk, Stakoe, Horn, Stahl, Opsommer, Green, Meltzer and Meekhof and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
(d) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
corrections officer of a county sheriff's department.
(e) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department
of state police.
(f) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
member of a sheriff's posse.
(g) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is an
auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's
(Abolish all concealed carry restricted zones)[/align]
[align=center]HOUSE BILL No. 4759
May 15, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Acciavatti, Hoogendyk, Horn, Stahl, Opsommer, Meltzer and Meekhof and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled
"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances;
to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make
appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the
appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act,"
by amending section 5c (MCL 28.425c), as amended by 2002 PA 719;
and to repeal acts and parts of acts.[/align]
[align=center]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise
provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by
the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee
to do all of the following:
(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her personanywhere in this state.
(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or notconcealed, anywhere in this state.
Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, isrepealed.[/align]
[align=center](Allow certain Vets to forgo the required firearm training for a CPL)
[/align]
[align=center]House Bill 5108[/b][/align]
[align=center]CONCEALED WEAPONS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS:
WAIVE FOR SOME VETERANS AND PEACE OFFICERS
House Bill 5108
Sponsor: Rep. Joel Sheltrown
Committee: Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Complete to 10-15-07
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 5108 AS INTRODUCED 8-21-07
Michigan law requires most applicants for a concealed weapon permit to complete a certified pistol training and safety program providing at least eight hours of instruction, including at least three hours on a firing range and an explanation of Michigan gun laws. Under current Section 5l of Michigan's handgun licensure law (MCL 28.425l), these educational requirements are waived for applicants who are retired police or law enforcement officers. House Bill 5108 would amend Section 5j (MCL 28.425j) to also waive firearm training requirements for both (1) honorably-discharged veterans with military training in pistol use (including some training in the last six months), and (2) current or former peace officers (police officers, tribal police officers, sergeants-at-arms, arson investigators, and others) required to carry a firearm in the course of duty.
Honorably-discharged veterans with recent pistol training. Veterans who could show all of the following would no longer have to complete the firearm safety training course otherwise required for a concealed weapon permit:
Documentation of honorable discharge from the armed forces of Michigan, another state, or the United States.
Proof of successful completion of training and qualification in the use of a pistol in the armed forces (in the form of a notarized statement signed by the individual saying that he or she had received this training and qualification in the armed forces).
Certification of completion of at least three hours of review of their armed forces pistol training (including at least one hour on a firing range) in the past six months.
Peace officers. Current and former peace officers would also be exempted from having to complete a firearms training course before applying for a concealed weapon permit. Section 1d of Michigan's handgun licensure law (MCL 28.421(d)) defines "peace officer" as:
"except as otherwise provided in this act, an individual who is employed as a law enforcement officer, as that term is defined under section 2 of the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203, MCL 28.602, by this state or another state, a political subdivision of this state or another state, or the United States, and who is required to carry a firearm in the course of his or her duties as a law enforcement officer.
"Law enforcement officer" is defined under Section 2 of the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act as:
(i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Police officer or law enforcement officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.
(ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force, subject to the limitations set forth in section 9(3).
(iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the Legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the Legislature as provided by the Legislative Sergeant at Arms Police Powers Act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.
(iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district, subject to the limitations of section 9(7).
(v) A county prosecuting attorney's investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.
(vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.
(vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.
MCL 28.425j
FISCAL IMPACT:
This bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and local units of government.
HOUSE BILL No. 5162
[/align]
[align=center]September 5, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Agema, Calley, Meekhof, Stahl, Pearce, Hoogendyk, Garfield, Knollenberg, Pavlov, Casperson, Pastor, Wenke, Amos, Hildenbrand, Stakoe, Green and Elsenheimer and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled
"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances;
to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make
appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the
appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act,"
by amending section 5o (MCL 28.425o), as amended by 2002 PA 719.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:[/align]
[align=center] Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4) (3), an individuallicensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who isexempt from licensure under section 12a(f), shall not carry aconcealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property except that a as follows:
[/align]
[align=center](i) A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol in that school or onthat school property if the chief executive officer of the schoolas authorized that individual to carry a concealed pistol in thatschool or on that school property. The chief executive officer maycondition his or her approval upon the requirement that theteacher, administrator, or other employee successfully completetraining considered appropriate by the chief executive officer. Thetraining may be in addition to the training required under section5j.
[/align]
Some recent proposed legislation on handgun laws that are being looked at in the Capital. I have included a few high-lights. Some proposed changes are; special privilege to judges, Eliminate handgun safety inspections or let you have it inspected with local police or Sheriff, allow all of-duty LEOs to carry in gun-free zones, Abolish all gun-free zones, allow some vets to forgo the required firearm training, and ALLOW STAFF OF SCHOOLS TO CARRY FIREARMS WITH CEO’S permission. Contact your rep in support of any changesyou agree with. For moreinfo on proposed recent firearm laws changes see:
[align=center]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(juinj055gueddl45sq0yjqyq))/mileg.aspx?page=home[/align]
[align=center]([/b]GIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT TO JUDGES AND RETIRED JUDGES)[/b][/align]
[align=center]GUN-FREE ZONES: JUDGES' EXEMPTION S.B. 505 (S-1): FIRST ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 505 (Substitute S-1 as reported) (as passed by the Senate)
Sponsor: Senator Roger Kahn, M.D.
Committee: Judiciary
Date Completed: 12-20-07
RATIONALE
The handgun licensure law contains a list of places where a person who is licensed under the law, or who is exempt from the requirement for licensure, is prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol. Called "no-carry zones", these include sports arenas, taverns, hospitals, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship. The prohibition does not apply, however, to certain licensees, such as corrections officers and retired police officers, who are more likely than the average citizen to interact with or be threatened by potentially dangerous individuals. It has been pointed out that judges, too, routinely deal with violent people, as well as those who are mentally unstable or are in highly stressful domestic situations. Evidently, some Michigan judges and their family members have received threats from people who have been in the judges' courtrooms. To protect their safety, it has been suggested that State court judges also should be exempt from the prohibition against carrying concealed pistols in no-carry zones.
CONTENT The bill would amend the handgun licensure law to exclude a State court judge or retired judge who was licensed under the law from provisions that prohibit an individual who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure, from carrying a concealed pistol on certain premises. The bill would take effect 90 days after it was enacted.
Specifically, the law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure, from carrying a concealed pistol on the premises (excluding the parking areas) of any of the following:
-- A school or school property, except in the case of a student's parent or legal guardian who is in a vehicle on school property and is dropping off or picking up the student.
-- A public or private child care center or day care center, child caring institution, or child placing agency.
-- A sports arena or stadium.
-- A licensed bar or tavern whose primary source of income is the sale of liquor by the glass for on-premises consumption.
-- Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless its presiding official or officials permit the carrying of a concealed pistol on the property or facility.
-- An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more that the person knows or should know has such a seating capacity or that has a sign stating that capacity.
-- A hospital.
-- A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
A person who violates the prohibition is responsible for a State civil infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $500, and a mandatory six-month suspension of the person's license to carry a concealed pistol. A second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000, and mandatory revocation of the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol. A third or subsequent violation is a felony
punishable by up to four years' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $5,000, and mandatory license revocation.
Under the bill, the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol in a no-carry zone would not apply to a State court judge or State court retired judge who was licensed under the law. The concealed weapon licensing board could require a retired judge to obtain and carry a letter from the Judicial Tenure Commission stating that he or she was in good standing, in order to qualify for this exemption. A State court judge would be a district, circuit, probate, or Court of Appeals judge, or a justice of the Supreme Court, serving either by election or by appointment. A State court retired judge would be such a judge or justice who was retired.
Currently, the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol in a no-carry zone does not apply to any of the following:
-- A licensee under the handgun licensure law who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer.
-- An individual licensed under the law who is employed or contracted by an entity in a no-carry zone to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.
-- An individual licensed as a private investigator or private detective.
-- Any of the following who is licensed under the handgun licensure law, while on duty and in the course of his or her employment: a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department; a Department of State Police motor carrier officer or Capitol security officer; a member of a sheriff's posse; a police or sheriff's department auxiliary officer or reserve officer; or a Department of Corrections parole or probation officer.
MCL 28.421 & 28.425o
ARGUMENTS (Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)
Supporting Argument Judges are in a unique position because they literally pass judgment on the individuals in their courtrooms, and make decisions that directly affect people's lives. In addition to sentencing convicted criminals, judges are responsible for committing mentally unstable individuals, issuing personal protection orders, terminating parental rights, and granting custody and parenting time: all matters that can be emotionally charged and highly stressful to the individuals involved, and might trigger a dangerous reaction in a normally noncombative person. When people focus their resentment and anger on the judge, he or she may at risk, especially if the person sentenced, committed, or subject to a court order is unstable or has history of violent behavior. According to testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, judges in Michigan have in fact received personal threats as well as threats to their families. In addition, judges are vulnerable not just in their courtrooms, but also in such places as restaurants, movie theaters, and sports arenas.
While not all of these venues are no-carry zones, judges who are licensed to carry concealed weapons should have the ability to protect themselves wherever they are, and should not have to worry about breaking the law by being armed in a no-carry zone. A judge who is talking a walk in his or her neighborhood, for example, should not have to go unprotected because his or her route crosses school property. Also, a judge should be able to stop for a drink at a tavern or attend a football game at a stadium without removing his or her weapon. In both of these no-carry zones, a judge could easily encounter or be followed by someone he or she previously sentenced or committed.
By adding State court judges to the list of handgun licensees who are exempt from the no-carry zone prohibition, the bill would enhance the ability of judges to protect themselves and their families.
Response: The exemption should be extended to Federal court judges, who also are vulnerable to threats by criminals or mentally unstable individuals who might be prone to violence. Perhaps court referees, magistrates, and prosecutors should be exempted, as well.
Opposing Argument Rather than expanding the list of people who are exempt from the no-carry zone prohibition, legislation should eliminate the zones altogether. Without the zones, people who have a license to carry would not be any more likely to draw their weapons in bars, churches, and schools than they are now. Furthermore, many people besides judges, corrections officers, retired police officers, and private detectives are vulnerable to predators. Senior citizens, for example, are an easy target and deserve the ability to protect themselves anywhere.
Response: The exemptions apply to individuals whose occupations may routinely bring them into contact with people who might be armed or who have a history of violence. The statute does not place a higher value on some people's lives than on others', but recognizes that some licensees may be in particular danger or targeted for revenge because of their line of work. At the same time, the no-carry zones include premises where vulnerable populations, such as schoolchildren and patients, are located, as well as crowded venues, such as sports arenas, where many people could be injured in an attack or a predator could be easily concealed.
Legislative Analyst: Suzanne Lowe
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government. There have been no felony convictions for carrying a concealed pistol on no-carry premises for a third or subsequent violation since the current penalties were enacted in 2000. There are no data on misdemeanor convictions. To the extent that the bill would reduce convictions, local governments would incur decreased costs of misdemeanor probation and incarceration in local facilities, which vary by county. The State would incur decreased costs of felony probation at an annual average cost of $2,000, as well as the cost of incarceration in a State facility at an average annual cost of $31,000.[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center](BILL TO ELIMINATE HANDGUN SAFETY INSPECTIONS)[/b][/align]
ELIMINATE PISTOL SAFETY INSPECTIONS[size=]
AND DESTROY EXISTING RECORDS[size=]
House Bill 4490[size=]
Sponsor: Rep. Paul Opsommer[size=]
House Bill 4491[size=]
Sponsor: Rep. Joel Sheltrown[size=]
Committee: Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources[size=]
Complete to 10-15-07
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 4490 AND 4491 AS INTRODUCED 3-20-07
These bills would (1) eliminate the current requirement in the Michigan handgun licensure law that pistol owners obtain safety inspection certificates; (2) require that all existing records of inspection certificates maintained by local and state law enforcement officials be destroyed; and (3) eliminate the misdemeanor crime of failing to have one's pistol inspected.
House Bill 4490 would repeal Section 9 of the handgun licensure act (MCL 28.429), which requires people who purchase or otherwise come into possession of a pistol in Michigan to obtain a safety inspection certificate from their local police department (or local sheriff, if they reside in a part of the state without an organized police department). That section also requires local law enforcement officials and the State Police to maintain records of safety inspection certificates. The bill would require state and local law enforcement officials to destroy all of their existing records of pistol safety inspections within one year.
House Bill 4491 would repeal Section 228 of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.228) under which a person who fails to have his or her pistol inspected as required is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, or a fine of up to $100, or both. The bill would also eliminate other references to Section 9 and safety inspections contained in the Penal Code. House Bill 4491 is tie-barred to House Bill 4490, meaning it could not take effect unless both bills were enacted.
FISCAL IMPACT]
House Bill 4490 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local governments. Some administrative costs may be associated with the destruction of safety inspection records by the State Police and local law enforcement agencies.]
House Bill 449 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local governments.
[align=center]HOUSE BILL No. 4758
May 15, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Acciavatti, Hoogendyk, Stakoe, Horn, Stahl, Opsommer, Green, Meltzer and Meekhof and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
(d) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
corrections officer of a county sheriff's department.
(e) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department
of state police.
(f) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a
member of a sheriff's posse.
(g) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is an
auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's
(Abolish all concealed carry restricted zones)[/align]
[align=center]HOUSE BILL No. 4759
May 15, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Acciavatti, Hoogendyk, Horn, Stahl, Opsommer, Meltzer and Meekhof and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled
"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances;
to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make
appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the
appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act,"
by amending section 5c (MCL 28.425c), as amended by 2002 PA 719;
and to repeal acts and parts of acts.[/align]
[align=center]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise
provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by
the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee
to do all of the following:
(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her personanywhere in this state.
(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or notconcealed, anywhere in this state.
Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, isrepealed.[/align]
[align=center](Allow certain Vets to forgo the required firearm training for a CPL)
[/align]
[align=center]House Bill 5108[/b][/align]
[align=center]CONCEALED WEAPONS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS:
WAIVE FOR SOME VETERANS AND PEACE OFFICERS
House Bill 5108
Sponsor: Rep. Joel Sheltrown
Committee: Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Complete to 10-15-07
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 5108 AS INTRODUCED 8-21-07
Michigan law requires most applicants for a concealed weapon permit to complete a certified pistol training and safety program providing at least eight hours of instruction, including at least three hours on a firing range and an explanation of Michigan gun laws. Under current Section 5l of Michigan's handgun licensure law (MCL 28.425l), these educational requirements are waived for applicants who are retired police or law enforcement officers. House Bill 5108 would amend Section 5j (MCL 28.425j) to also waive firearm training requirements for both (1) honorably-discharged veterans with military training in pistol use (including some training in the last six months), and (2) current or former peace officers (police officers, tribal police officers, sergeants-at-arms, arson investigators, and others) required to carry a firearm in the course of duty.
Honorably-discharged veterans with recent pistol training. Veterans who could show all of the following would no longer have to complete the firearm safety training course otherwise required for a concealed weapon permit:
Documentation of honorable discharge from the armed forces of Michigan, another state, or the United States.
Proof of successful completion of training and qualification in the use of a pistol in the armed forces (in the form of a notarized statement signed by the individual saying that he or she had received this training and qualification in the armed forces).
Certification of completion of at least three hours of review of their armed forces pistol training (including at least one hour on a firing range) in the past six months.
Peace officers. Current and former peace officers would also be exempted from having to complete a firearms training course before applying for a concealed weapon permit. Section 1d of Michigan's handgun licensure law (MCL 28.421(d)) defines "peace officer" as:
"except as otherwise provided in this act, an individual who is employed as a law enforcement officer, as that term is defined under section 2 of the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203, MCL 28.602, by this state or another state, a political subdivision of this state or another state, or the United States, and who is required to carry a firearm in the course of his or her duties as a law enforcement officer.
"Law enforcement officer" is defined under Section 2 of the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act as:
(i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Police officer or law enforcement officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.
(ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force, subject to the limitations set forth in section 9(3).
(iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the Legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the Legislature as provided by the Legislative Sergeant at Arms Police Powers Act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.
(iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district, subject to the limitations of section 9(7).
(v) A county prosecuting attorney's investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.
(vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.
(vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.
MCL 28.425j
FISCAL IMPACT:
This bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and local units of government.
HOUSE BILL No. 5162
[/align]
[align=center]September 5, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Agema, Calley, Meekhof, Stahl, Pearce, Hoogendyk, Garfield, Knollenberg, Pavlov, Casperson, Pastor, Wenke, Amos, Hildenbrand, Stakoe, Green and Elsenheimer and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled
"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances;
to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make
appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the
appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act,"
by amending section 5o (MCL 28.425o), as amended by 2002 PA 719.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:[/align]
[align=center] Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4) (3), an individuallicensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who isexempt from licensure under section 12a(f), shall not carry aconcealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property except that a as follows:
[/align]
[align=center](i) A teacher, administrator, or other employee of a school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol in that school or onthat school property if the chief executive officer of the schoolas authorized that individual to carry a concealed pistol in thatschool or on that school property. The chief executive officer maycondition his or her approval upon the requirement that theteacher, administrator, or other employee successfully completetraining considered appropriate by the chief executive officer. Thetraining may be in addition to the training required under section5j.
[/align]