Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: MI Pistol Law Changes: Eliminate/Repeal Registration and License To Purchase

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    MI Pistol Law Changes: Eliminate/Repeal Registration and License To Purchase

    I have been working on Michigan Legislation Changes to achieve the following goals:

    1. Repeal/Eliminate Pistol Registration.
    2. Repeal/Eliminate Pistol License To Purchase (LTP).
    3. Provide Optional Licensing to Cover Federal GFSZ Act Requirements of Licensing, Verification, and Background Checks. This is based upon working from Montana Law (MT-45-8-360).

    I believe that these changes are in order for the following reasons:

    A. Pistol Registration came about partially due to the Dr. Ossian Sweets Case, which injected racial issues into law (help to deny pistols to Black People). The Pistol LTP and CPL RI-60 forms still include Race as part of the form that is required to be filled out.

    B. This "pistol registration" was "smoothed over" as part of "Safety Inspection" to help the original law pass. The safety inspection part of the law was repealed in 2009.

    C. Michigan is one of a handful of States (California, New York, D.C., Michigan) that requires Pistol Registration. I believe this Pistol Registration Database solves few crimes.

    D. The Pistol License To Purchase Legal Language provides a "May Issue" type license as a Local Police Department can deny a Pistol License To Purchase to a person based upon subjective criteria. There are people who have been denied a Pistol License To Purchase who were able to obtain a Concealed Pistol License due to "Shall Issue", which negates the need for the Pistol License To Purchase.

    E. Due to recent US Supreme Court rulings in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Right to Self-Defense have been held to be Fundamental Rights, one that is most often secured by the use of a Pistol. A person exercises Rights without a License, as to do otherwise is requiring Exercise of Rights as a Privileged Activity by asking for Permission.

    I have attached the applicable MCL/ACT Changes in an Adobe PDF Format. Please find the attached Document that contains the changes I have undertaken to achieve stated Goals. The Deletions are marked with STRIKE-THROUGH, the Additions/Changes are marked with BOLD Text and Highlighted in YELLOW.

    I have asked the sponsor of HB 4009/4010 (Richard LeBlanc) to sponsor this bill as well.

    UPDATES:

    Version 20110105 Rev A: Initial Version.

    Version 20110119 Rev A: I have changed 750.223 (2) to include pistol and refined the language to be just firearm. H/T to RayMich (MGO) for finding an issue with this (Post #20).
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 01-19-2011 at 11:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Send any and all suggestions to Steven Dulan at info@stevenwdulan.com He is compiling a list of changes need in regards to gun laws for MCRGO. MCRGO was asked by some legislators to compile a wish list.

    So any laws you feel need to be cleaned up, repealed, etc. let him know.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Send any and all suggestions to Steven Dulan at info@stevenwdulan.com He is compiling a list of changes need in regards to gun laws for MCRGO. MCRGO was asked by some legislators to compile a wish list.

    So any laws you feel need to be cleaned up, repealed, etc. let him know.
    Done.

    FYI - I got the initial email "bounced-back" from that email addy listed above, so I contacted his office and obtained his direct email addy (which appears to have gone through just fine).
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 01-19-2011 at 01:44 PM.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    Done.

    FYI - I got the initial email "bounced-back" from that email addy listed above, so I contacted his office and obtained his direct email addy (which appears to have gone through just fine).
    You can use this one as well. steve@stevenwdulan.com
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    You can use this one as well. steve@stevenwdulan.com
    Sent to that one as well.

    Thanks Ven!

  6. #6
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Just getting back to the forums guys. Haven't been following too close.

    With regards to the elimination of pistol registration (which I agree is useless);
    Has mention been made for this to be a combined effort to change the federal 1000' school zone rule?
    As we all know, without registration the 1000' rule applies. Maybe have it included as part of the cpl exceptions.

    Just keyboarding out loud...

  7. #7
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    Just getting back to the forums guys. Haven't been following too close.

    With regards to the elimination of pistol registration (which I agree is useless);
    Has mention been made for this to be a combined effort to change the federal 1000' school zone rule?
    As we all know, without registration the 1000' rule applies. Maybe have it included as part of the cpl exceptions.

    Just keyboarding out loud...
    Good Question!

    Take a look at the proposed changes. It allows for an optional license for Pistol Carry, Transport, and Possession to cover the requirements for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZ Act). See my item #3 above.

    The work to repeal the GFSZ Act will have to be a separate effort on the Federal Level. Can't eat an Elephant all in one bite...

    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 01-19-2011 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Correct grammar.

  8. #8
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Agreed, sounds reasonable.

    BTW: Yes, I can eat an elephant in one bite (marshmallow that is)...just have to swallow a few times to get past the ears and trunk...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Yes, the only way I can support the repeal of an LTP, is with the federal school zone being addressed and covered.

  10. #10
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Yes, the only way I can support the repeal of an LTP, is with the federal school zone being addressed and covered.
    These changes you can support then!

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Absolutely

  12. #12
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Reply Received - MI House Representative Richard LeBlanc (HB 4009/4010 Sponsor)

    Dear Mr. PDinDetroit: Thank you for your recent message regarding the regulation of firearms in the State of Michigan. I appreciated hearing from you.

    Thank you for your support of my House Bills 4009 and 4010. I agree that "pistol free zones" do not enhance public safety. That is why I introduced these bills in the previous legislative session and hope that similar legislation will be taken up this term.

    As a fervent defender of the second amendment I understand your concerns with the regulation of the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, public opinion is not currently in favor of the complete elimination of all regulations on the exercise of the second amendment. It is my hope that bills such as House Bills 4009 and 4010 will begin to bring Michigan law into compliance with the constitutional right we hold dear. While support does not currently exist to remove licensing restrictions and registration requirements in their entirety at this time, I believe that incremental steps over a period of time may better accomplish our goals.

    Again, thank you for your communication.

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

  13. #13
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    My Reply to Representative Richard LeBlanc

    Honorable Richard LeBlanc
    State Representative
    18th District (Westland)

    Dear Mr. LeBlanc,

    Thank you for the response to my assistance request.

    For your information, there is now an online petition for HB 4009/4010 that I was involved in reviews for the draft form (was released yesterday). Please see the following for more information: http://www.petitiononline.com/MIHB4009/petition.html.

    We, in the firearm rights communities, were pleasantly surprised by the speed of introduction for HB 4009/4010. Quite frankly, we were unprepared for such an event and had to act quickly to garner support for such. We were not aware that Public Opinion was on the side of elimination of Pistol Free Zones (or Criminal Empowerment Zones as some call them). I believe that the House Judiciary Committee Members will now have received a few emails like what can be found at the following link: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1447705

    While I can appreciate your take on Public Opinion, the Exercise of Rights ought never be subject to such or else a Person's Rights are subjected to "mob rule" and can be denied based upon subjective criteria (May Issue). If you truly believe in defending the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I Section 6 of the MI Constitution, then the License to Purchase should be addressed at a minimum as it is "asking permission to exercise a Right" which then becomes a Privilege. I believe you will find the recent SCOTUS Decisions in Heller and McDonald held this to be a Fundamental Right. While it could be held that Background Checks would be within the realm of "reasonable restrictions", asking Permission to Exercise a Right would not be a "reasonable restriction".

    I humbly ask you to reconsider sponsoring this legislation. At a minimum, I hope you would lend support to and vote for such legislation changes when introduced.

    Thank you again for your response. Please contact me with any questions about this information.

    Sincerely,

    PDinDetroit

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Without a change in the law to address the Fed. School Zone law I'd rather see registration go before the License To Purchase/Possess.

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

  15. #15
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Without a change in the law to address the Fed. School Zone law I'd rather see registration go before the License To Purchase/Possess.

    Bronson
    I included an Optional License in the changes to cover the Federal GFSZ Requirements, until such time that it is addressed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    I will be creating a "form letter" sometime over the weekend that can be used by OCDO Members (among others) to contact their representatives about this legislation. Stay tuned!
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 01-21-2011 at 07:29 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    I'm in favor of getting rid of the LTP, Registration, and PFZ for OC and CC. Also in favor of an AZ or AK style law where a CC permit is optional for reciprocity reasons. And, we should get rid of the law mandating long guns be in a case and in the back of a vehicle. I lived in CO for years and it was nice being able to throw the gun on the passenger seat and be good to go. The only requirement there, is that there not be a round in the chamber. A loaded magazine/clip in the gun is fine though.
    Rand Paul 2016

Posting Permissions

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