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