Repeal Permit to Purchase to be heard tomorrow 6/08/2010

stainless1911 wrote:

It just hit me, I diddnt see anything about an expiration date on the licence I have on the gun I currently own. Perhaps this would apply to guns purchased after the law passes, IF it passes, but the licence to purchase the pistols we already own should be valid, and therefore allow carry within the 1000 feet fed limit regardless.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

grandfathered in?

Click to expand...

Bikenut, that post really needs its own thread if it doesn't have one already.

Click to expand...

If anyone recalls I asked a while back if there was anything to the rumors I've heard from police and local .gov officials that laws were in the works to get rid of OC?

Well.... heeeeeerrrrreee they are...

HIB 5972 and HIM 5973....

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/htm/2010-HIB-5972.htm

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

I really didn't expect to see a new bill addressing OC directly as in creating a new anti OC law because that would bring about a huge "gun control" backlash. But sneaking it through with these two bills is about what I expected.

.gov now works on the.... offer them a carrot we don't care about and while the stupid masses are chasing that carrot and not looking pork 'em in the... well... you know the rest.

Both of these bills are poison!!!! Read them..... and contact your Reps....

We do not have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" anymore.... all we have are sneaky clever little elitist wannabe tyrants intent on screwing over us peasants.

Click to expand...

How soon can we find out the decision?

Click to expand...

These bills were in the works before OC was popular in Michigan. They are proposed to help firearm owners and because many legislators are ignorant of many firearm laws it would adversely affect OCing without a CPL near schools. I'm sure they were not aware of that. I think Michigander spoke with Sheltrown and Kim about this problem. I suspect that before/if it becomes law this problem will be worked out.

I will also be contacting Joel about these bills.

Click to expand...

I spoke with Joel, and emailed Kim, but I never heard back from her. That it's still in the works tends to make me believe they ignored me.

Click to expand...

Michigander wrote:

I spoke with Joel, and emailed Kim, but I never heard back from her. That it's still in the works tends to make me believe they ignored me.

Click to expand...

My pessimistic side says they will continue to ignore us. Those who OC and especially those who OC without a CPL are a miniscule number of gun owners in MI...read that as politically insignificant. Whereas the majority of pistol owners in MIwould see the abolition of the License to Purchase as a positive thing...read that as politically beneficial.

Legislators will do whatever has the best chance of keeping them in office.

Bronson

Click to expand...

Bronson wrote:

My pessimistic side says they will continue to ignore us. Those who OC and especially those who OC without a CPL are a miniscule number of gun owners in MI...read that as politically insignificant. Whereas the majority of pistol owners in MIwould see the abolition of the License to Purchase as a positive thing...read that as politically beneficial.

Legislators will do whatever has the best chance of keeping them in office.

Bronson

Click to expand...

Recieved this from Opsommer:

from Rep. Opsommer's Office (District 93) <Dist093@house.mi.gov>
to Brian Jeffs <bjeffs@miopencarry.org>

dateTue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM
subjectRe: HB-5972 and it’s impact on the federal gun free school zones.


mailed-byhouse.mi.gov

Thank you Jeff. Can we share this with the other gun group's lawyer's to get their take as well? Thank you for your vigilance.

Respectfully in Service,

Paul Opsommer's Office
State Representative, 93rd District
http://www.gophouse.com/news.asp?District=93


I have cced this all on to Steven Dulan for his opinion. We shall see what he thinks, if he gets back to me.

Click to expand...

does REGISTRATION(which this bill does not change,including NICS) constitute LICENSING in the federal law?

Click to expand...

Title 18: part 1: chapter 44: section 922aragraph q: sub-paragraphB: heading (ii)states:

(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;

Click to expand...

Im still wondering if the licenses that we all obtained when we purchased our current firearms would still qualify for the federal 1000' rule. I did not ever see any expiration date on any forms or any law. If true, then because of this loophole, we could very well be grandfathered in on this one, as long as we are carrying guns which were licensed under the old law.

Click to expand...

stainless1911 wrote:

Im still wondering if the licenses that we all obtained when we purchased our current firearms would still qualify for the federal 1000' rule. I did not ever see any expiration date on any forms or any law. If true, then because of this loophole, we could very well be grandfathered in on this one, as long as we are carrying guns which were licensed under the old law.

Click to expand...

And what about everyone who comes along after the new law is in effect?

And would the next gun you buy not be "licensed" but "registered" and therefor you cannot open carry that particular gun in a school zone?

Click to expand...

stainless1911 wrote:

Im still wondering if the licenses that we all obtained when we purchased our current firearms would still qualify for the federal 1000' rule. I did not ever see any expiration date on any forms or any law. If true, then because of this loophole, we could very well be grandfathered in on this one, as long as we are carrying guns which were licensed under the old law.

Click to expand...

And what about everyone who comes along after the new law is in effect?

And would the next gun you buy not be "licensed" but "registered" and therefor you cannot open carry that particular gun in a school zone?

By the way.... I've not yet seen anyone complain about the word "register".... while I know our guns are really "registered" to us by a paper trail this is the first time that I know of where the strongly connected to gun control/confiscation/seizure word "register" has been used so openly.... and no one is worried about it????? But then... that is fodder for a thread of it's own.

Click to expand...

I have sent this to the principle representatives involved. I will post their responses.

Dear Representatives:

HB-5972 and it’s impact on the federal gun free school zones.

HB-5972, if enacted would infringe on the firearm rights of every person that does not have a CPL. Currently a non-CPL holder can possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school because Michigan has a LICENCE to purchase and does a background check which meets the federal requirements for an exemption under TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > §922 (See below). If a state has a licensing requirement for a handgun, a person that possesses said license can open carry within the 1000’ gun free zone. Michigan’s current law meets this federal exemption, and Michigan non-CPL holders can exercise their State and Federal constitutional rights by being allowed to open carry a handgun within 1000’ of a school.

HB5972 effectively eliminates this federal exemption. If this bill is passed as written you would be infringing on thousands of citizen’s 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment rights by creating a large gun free zone, especially in large cities with several school districts. Look at a Lansing map and draw a 1000 foot circle around every school in the area and you will quickly see the onerous gun free zones this bill would create. Wisconsin has no state licensing requirements and law enforcement is currently using this 1000' zone to restrict it's citizens open carry rights in urban areas.

I’m asking all of you to consider the impact of this bill as written on the citizens of Michigan. The bill needs to be reworked by looking at the federal implications it will create. Or amend Michigan’s “gun free school zone” statute to allow possession/exemption of a firearm within 1000’ of a school if the firearm is legally registered.

I would be happy to discuss this bill with any of you and hope that you will rethink this onerous bill as written.

Thank you.
Brian Jeffs, MS, CPG
Director of Research
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.


A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 5972 AS INTRODUCED 3-18-10

The bill would amend the law that governs the purchase and possession of a pistol[1] by a member of the general public who does not have a concealed pistol license (or is not otherwise exempt). Section 2 of Public Act 372 of 1927, MCL 28.422, currently prohibits anyone from purchasing, carrying, possessing, or transporting a pistol in Michigan without obtaining a license for it beforehand from the local police or sheriff department. This license is sometimes called a "license to purchase" or a "purchase license." (Form RI-060) The bill would amend Section 2 to do the following things:[/b]

[/b]Eliminate the current requirement that anyone who purchases, carries, possesses, or transports a pistol in Michigan must obtain a license for it beforehand from the local police or sheriff department.[/b] (Under the Michigan Penal Code, failure to do so is currently a misdemeanor.)

Eliminate current eligibility criteria in state law for acquiring a pistol, such as the requirement that the person be at least 18 and a lawful resident of Michigan, have correctly answered at least 70 percent of the questions on a basic pistol safety questionnaire, not have been previously adjudged insane or lacking in legal capacity, not be subject to a restraining order for domestic violence or stalking. (The eligibility criteria that the bill would eliminate are described more fully below.)

Eliminate the authority of a police or sheriff department to deny a pistol license to an otherwise qualified applicant if probable cause existed to believe the person posed a risk to himself or herself or to others or would commit a crime with the pistol.

Replace the current pistol licensure system with a registration requirement. (After a person acquired a new pistol, he or she would have to submit a registration form in person or by mail. Failure to mail in or deliver this registration form would be a civil infraction, not a crime.)

Allow anyone to bring a pistol into Michigan for 30 days without registering it.

Allow someone who had a license to carry a pistol from another state and who was in Michigan for no more than 180 days without intending to establish permanent residency, to bring pistols into Michigan, or purchase new ones in Michigan, without registering them.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > §922 in part:

(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[/b]—

(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; [/b]

Click to expand...

I had an email exchange will Joel Sheltrown today. He responded to an Email I sent last week. Then I responded to him on how I thought the bill was a gun control bill in disguise and he immediately responded back within five minutes:

"While I agree with you that the federal law would likely be found unconstitutional, I strongly disagree that this is a gun control bill in disguise. The number of people who open carry is minimal versus the number that purchase handguns. Voter numbers. Even then, the ability to openly carry in the school zone can be remedied with a CPL (pursuant to the limit's in the state's CCW law). The elimination of the purchase permit and the elimination of handgun registration are the two top goals of Michigan's Second amendment advocates." Joel Sheltrown Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies... oh... and again... voter numbers.

In his first Email reply to me he said, "I anticipate voting on the bills and this possible amendment in committee later this month. I support the bills as introduced."

Click to expand...