• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 5972 & HB 5973

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/htm/2010-HIB-5972.htm

HB5973 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/htm/2010-HIB-5973.htm
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
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.
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
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.
 

RabbiVJ

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
212
Location
ATL via DTW
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 :cuss: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.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----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
 

RabbiVJ

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
212
Location
ATL via DTW
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/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----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?
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 

RabbiVJ

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
212
Location
ATL via DTW
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.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

autosurgeon wrote:
Yep this is typical sneaky politics:cuss:
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

StingMP9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
99
Location
Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, US
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.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 
Top