Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: HB 5972 & HB 5973

  1. #1
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    HB 5972 & HB 5973, are "supposed" to get rid of the Permit to Purchase. While I guess they do, it still (for non CPL) requires the registration form to be filled out quadruply, 1 for the seller, 1 for the buyer, and 2 for L.E. Is this really a step forward? Why won't our legislators propose a law that gets rid of the hold handgun purchase / registration scheme? Is there anything in there I missed?

    HB5972 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-HIB-5972.htm

    HB5973 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-HIB-5973.htm
    Rand Paul 2016

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Did you notice this?

    (3) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTIONS (8) AND (9), AN APPLICATION TO RENEW A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL MAY BE SUBMITTED NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT LICENSE. IF THE CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD APPROVES THE RENEWAL, THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE RENEWAL LICENSE IS THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT LICENSE OR THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE RENEWAL, WHICHEVER IS LATER, AND THE DATE OF EXPIRATION IS THE APPLICANT'S DATE OF BIRTH WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN 4 YEARS NOR MORE THAN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.
    Evil catch-22. It's possible that the renewal could be approved after one's birthday, and it would then be impossible to issue a license that both A)Expires on one's birthday and B) Expires not less than 4 years nor more than 4 years from date of issuance.

    Maybe that's a typo, but maybe not.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    I did see that, and I was scratching my head over that one, but assumed I wasn't reading it right, but if you noticed it too.....
    Rand Paul 2016

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    Why won't our legislators propose a law that gets rid of the hold handgun purchase / registration scheme?
    Because the state.gov's priority is retaining sovereign authority over its subjects. Any corrolation between state.gov legislation and personal liberty is merely coincidental. To wit, if it were not in the interest of the state to subjugate the citizens, there would be no legitimate reason for the state.gov to place limits on the individual right to self-defense.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran RabbiVJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ATL via DTW
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    the way im reading these bills is that all they are doing in 5972 is changing the wording from licencing to register, they get rid of the PTP, but you still have to register the pistol, so they are halfassing it and that the registration scheme is still there...and 5973 all its doing is dropping the length of your cpl from 5 years to 4 years same going from 4-5 now to 3-4...but from what it looks like is that they are getting rid of the pistol safety questionare...imho these laws are kinda stupid and not worth supporting...thats just my .02. and if ive misintrepreted em, please by all means correct me.
    -NRA Member, GSSF Member, GeorgiaCarry Member, Glock Certified Armorer, Glock 30SF, STI Elektra, M&P9c, NAA Black Widow .22 WMR
    -“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”—Mahatma Ghandhi

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    So 5972 gets rid of the license to purchase....double edged sword. Would this not make non CPL holding OCersbe subject to the 1000 ft. school zone rule.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    So the true/false test, background check, and license to purchase go away, we STILL have to register our guns and non CPL holding OCers are effectively hobbled.

    And weren't MI residents not required to go through the NICS check because the feds declared the background check that was required with the License To Purchase met the requirements? So if those go away MI gun stores will have to start using, and most likely charging, for the NICS checks for non-CPL holders.

    That's just awesome.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran RabbiVJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ATL via DTW
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    So 5972 gets rid of the license to purchase....double edged sword. Would this not make non CPL holding OCersbe subject to the 1000 ft. school zone rule.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
    So the true/false test, background check, and license to purchase go away, we STILL have to register our guns and non CPL holding OCers are effectively hobbled.

    That's just awesome.

    Bronson


    well if the pistol is registered to you, wouldnt that be considered a licence in a sense?, cause isnt that was a PTP is? just a permit?
    -NRA Member, GSSF Member, GeorgiaCarry Member, Glock Certified Armorer, Glock 30SF, STI Elektra, M&P9c, NAA Black Widow .22 WMR
    -“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”—Mahatma Ghandhi

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    RabbiVJ wrote:
    well if the pistol is registered to you, wouldnt that be considered a licence in a sense?, cause isnt that was a PTP is? just a permit?
    Nope. No test to make sure you're "competent", no background check by the MI authorities to determine if you're eligible so it doesn't meet the requirements of the Fed. law for exception to the 1000 ft. rule.

    Registration isn't licensure, it is just a record of ownership.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran RabbiVJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ATL via DTW
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    RabbiVJ wrote:
    well if the pistol is registered to you, wouldnt that be considered a licence in a sense?, cause isnt that was a PTP is? just a permit?
    Nope. No test to make sure you're "competent", no background check by the MI authorities to determine if you're eligible so it doesn't meet the requirements of the Fed. law for exception to the 1000 ft. rule.

    Registration isn't licensure, it is just a record of ownership.

    Bronson
    so essentially to get out of the 1000 foot rule, is to basically get yer cpl...meh. that blows.
    -NRA Member, GSSF Member, GeorgiaCarry Member, Glock Certified Armorer, Glock 30SF, STI Elektra, M&P9c, NAA Black Widow .22 WMR
    -“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”—Mahatma Ghandhi

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    So, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this is the end-run around unlicensed carry that we've been wondering about. This wouldn't make it illegal per sebutif you combinethe current OC pistol free zones forbidding non-CPL carry on the property of anyplace licensed to sell alcoholwith the possibilty of having to avoid the 1000 ft. school zones, not to mention the painin the rear ofnon-CPL transport....it really takes the teeth out of unlicensed OC, at least in urban areas.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  11. #11
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Yep this is typical sneaky politics
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    Yep this is typical sneaky politics
    The powers that be are well aware that any new laws that had a hint of "gun control" would be rejected by the populace... and have a strong negative backlash against those involved in that new law...

    And so.... instead of being upfront... it will be snuck through quietly... while the backers pat themselves on the back for being so clever they once again screwed "we the people" and got away with it...

    Forewarned is forearmed... time to jump on these bills with both feet.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  13. #13
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I agree... these are terrible. The license to Purchase is "bearable" because it gives exception to the FED School Zone. It's the registration with which I have a HUGE problem.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    I agree... these are terrible. The license to Purchase is "bearable" because it gives exception to the FED School Zone. It's the registration with which I have a HUGE problem.
    Agreed. Of course my preference would be for no licensing or registration butif I had to choose between the two I'd take a license over the registration. Something like the Illinois FOID card. I'm thinking something like a driver's license that would get renewed every few years and would have a one time test and background check at initial and renewals...and itwould need tobe free.

    Like you said I could swallow this a lot easier since it would still provide the exception to the Fed. school zone but the registration needs to go.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    I have contacted my representative, have you?

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    I have contacted my representative, have you?
    Yep.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    I have contacted my representative, have you?
    Feel free to use the below as a template for contacting your own reps. Change it as you see fit.

    Dear Representative xxxxxx:

    It has come to my attention that HIB 5972 and HIB 5973 have been referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources. If each of these Bills are read carefully the flaws in each become apparent.

    HIB 5972, with it's elimination of the word "license" opens up people who legally carry guns in plain sight without having a carry permit (CPL) in violation of Federal Statute TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922

    § 922. Unlawful acts

    (2)
    (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    As you can see Sir... removing the word "license" means that anyone who does not have a "license" would not be able to possess or carry a gun within a school zone. If I remember correctly a school zone is anything within 1000 feet of a school or school property.

    Currently it is legal for a person to openly carry a pistol in plain sight in Michigan without a special license as long as that pistol is "licensed" to them. That part of "licensed to them" is what Federal law recognizes as an exemption in (ii) above. Hence, only those who have a CPL (concealed pistols license) would qualify as exempt from Federal law under the new bill.

    Sir... this is unacceptable. In Michigan folks 18 years of age can possess a pistol but cannot get a CPL until age 21. And there are people who cannot afford to pay the fees to get a CPL. The only recourse for them if they wish to carry a pistol for defense of self .... a right of the people as stated in Michigan's Constitution...

    STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
    CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963


    § 6 Bearing of arms.

    Sec. 6.

    Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


    History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
    Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 5.

    © 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan



    is to carry said pistol in a holster in plain sight. But this bill would impose an added restriction on their ability to do so by requiring them to know where each school is and how far that school zone extends... and to avoid same during their daily lives and travels.

    I believe this bill is nothing more than an attempt to quietly impose restrictions upon the citizens of Michigan's Right to bear arms for their defense by requiring everyone to have a CPL... and a back door attempt to stop the practice of legally openly carrying pistols.

    Also... HIB 5973 is more of the same as HIB 5972 and, if both are passed not only will people who can't afford the expense of a CPL or who aren't eligible for a CPL due to age be left without the right to "keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state"

    ... but those with a CPL would discover that instead of said CPL being in effect for 5 years it will now only be in effect for 4 years.

    Sir... I implore you to look into this and, if you find my assertions to be true, please exert every effort to stop HIB 5972 and HIB 5973 from their intended purpose of further restricting the right of the people to "keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state".

    Sincerely..

    XXXXXXX
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Very well done Bikenut. The only thing that I would add is to the reasons why not to have a CPL, Many do not wish to ask the governments permission to use, and have to pay for their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

  19. #19
    Regular Member StingMP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    From NRA-ILA email:

    MICHIGAN: Committee will Consider Repeal of "Permit to Purchase" Next Week Next week, the Michigan House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee will consider two bills, House Bill 5972 and House Bill 5973, that would eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome requirement of obtaining a permit-to-purchase a handgun. Please contact the committee members and respectfully ask them to support HB5972 and HB5973.
    "Reason can never be popular. Passions and feelings can become popular, but reason will always remain the sole property of a few eminent individuals."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    StingMP9 wrote:
    From NRA-ILA email:

    MICHIGAN: Committee will Consider Repeal of "Permit to Purchase" Next Week Next week, the Michigan House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee will consider two bills, House Bill 5972 and House Bill 5973, that would eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome requirement of obtaining a permit-to-purchase a handgun. Please contact the committee members and respectfully ask them to support HB5972 and HB5973.
    Yeah, I received the same thing from MCRGO.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Also check this thread out, it deals wit the same issue and has some contact info.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/45620.html


    Also committe members and sponsors contact:

    State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103), Chairman
    (517) 373-3817
    joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Jim Slezak (D-50), Majority Vice Chairman
    (517) 373-3906
    jimslezak@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Jim Stamas (R-98), Minority Vice Chairman
    (517) 373-1791
    jimstamas@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Kate Ebli (D-56)
    (517) 373-2617
    kateebli@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Mike Huckleberry (D-70)
    (517) 373-0834
    mikehuckleberry@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Richard LeBlanc (D-18)
    (517) 373-2576
    richardleblanc@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Steven Lindberg
    (517) 373-0498
    stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Woodrow Stanley (D-34)
    (517) 373-8808
    woodrowstanley@house.mi.gov

    State Representative James Bolger (R-63)
    (517) 373-1787
    jamesbolger@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Geoff Hansen (R-100)
    (517) 373-7317
    geoffhansen@house.mi.gov

    State Representative Kenneth Horn (R-94)
    (517) 373-0837
    kennethhorn@house.mi.gov
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Yeah, the NRA just doesnt get it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member StingMP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    I read (tried to read) the language of the two links in the OP and I still don't get it.
    "Reason can never be popular. Passions and feelings can become popular, but reason will always remain the sole property of a few eminent individuals."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  24. #24
    Regular Member American Boy With a Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    656

    Post imported post

    Anyone else get this?

    Thank you for your e-mail regarding House Bill 5972 and House Bill 5973. This legislation would eliminate pistol purchasing permits in Michigan. It is an expansion of the new law I sponsored last year which eliminated the "safety inspection." The new bills would not change the age to purchase in Michigan.

    Public testimony was taken on the bills this past Tuesday. The Michigan State Police do not support the bills as introduced. Several committee members have expressed support for preserving the purchase permit for private sales and eliminating it only for sales by an FFL dealer where an instant federal background check is already available.

    I anticipate voting on the bills and this possible amendment in committee later this month. I support the bills as introduced.

    Sincerely,

    Joel Sheltrown, Chair
    House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation
    and Natural Resources Committee
    "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." -- Samuel Adams, 1776

    An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Dear Mr. Carpenter: Thank you for writing regarding HB 5972 and HB 5973. As an unabashed supporter of our Second Amendment Rights, it is likely I will support both bills, provided they are adopted as currently proposed.

    While I support the effort to remove pistol free zones, these are two separate issues. Were an amendment offered to remove gun free zones, it would likely prevent these worthy bills from being enacted. Unfortunately, support for the removal of gun free zones does not currently exist in the state legislature. While I will continue to seek to protect our Second Amendment Rights, I cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. These bills accomplish much to defend our Constitutional rights. It would be a shame to see this legislation fail because support for a related, but separate, issue is lacking.

    Regards,
    Richard LeBlanc
    State Representative
    18th District (Westland)


    ETA at least I got a response.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •