Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: CPL holders to keep and bear tasers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    7

    CPL holders to keep and bear tasers

    Senate Bill 28 (Allow CPL holders to keep and bear tasers )
    Reported in the Senate on April 26, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=125250

    If tasers are legal constitutionally then why specifically CPL holders only be allowed to carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Looks like a baby step. When constitutional carry passes, this would be a part of that. Sometimes you have to make small sacrifices to bring the scaredy cats on board bills like this.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Before I start emailing politicians I want to read the bill. I tried looking it up, and all I can find is this, a tax bill.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(443...e=2011-SB-0028

    Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the bill?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    It's SB29, not 28

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(aty...-0029&query=on

    January 19, 2011, Introduced by Senator HANSEN and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.



    A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled

    "The Michigan penal code,"

    by amending section 224a (MCL 750.224a), as amended by 2006 PA 457.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

    Sec. 224a. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a

    person shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess in this state a

    portable device or weapon from which an electrical current,

    impulse, wave, or beam may be directed, which current, impulse,

    wave, or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure, or

    kill.

    (2) This section does not prohibit any of the following:

    (a) The possession and reasonable use of a device that uses

    electro-muscular disruption technology by any of the following



    individuals, if the individual has been trained in the use,

    effects, and risks of the device, and, in the case of an individual

    described in subparagraphs (i) to (xi), is using the device while

    performing his or her official duties:

    (i) A peace officer.

    (ii) An employee of the department of corrections who is

    authorized in writing by the director of the department of

    corrections to possess and use the device.

    (iii) A local corrections officer authorized in writing by the

    county sheriff to possess and use the device.

    (iv) An individual employed by a local unit of government that

    utilizes a jail or lockup facility who has custody of persons

    detained or incarcerated in the jail or lockup facility and who is

    authorized in writing by the chief of police, director of public

    safety, or sheriff to possess and use the device.

    (v) A probation officer.

    (vi) A court officer.

    (vii) A bail agent authorized under section 167b.

    (viii) An individual who has been issued a concealed pistol

    license issued under section 5b of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b, and

    has in his or her possession specific written authorization from a

    licensed bail agent appointing him or her as that bail agent's

    fugitive recovery representative for the specific defendant being

    sought and bearing an expiration date that is not later than

    December 31 of the year in which the authorization was executed or

    the named defendant is apprehended, whichever occurs first.

    (ix) (viii) A licensed private investigator.




    (x) (ix) An aircraft pilot or aircraft crew member.

    (xi) (x) An individual employed as a private security police

    officer. As used in this subparagraph, "private security police"

    means that term as defined in section 2 of the private security

    business and security alarm act, 1968 PA 330, MCL 338.1052.

    (xii) An individual who holds a valid license to carry a

    concealed pistol under section 5b of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b.

    (b) Possession solely for the purpose of delivering a device

    described in subsection (1) to any governmental agency or to a

    laboratory for testing, with the prior written approval of the

    governmental agency or law enforcement agency and under conditions

    determined to be appropriate by that agency.

    (3) A manufacturer, authorized importer, or authorized dealer

    may demonstrate, offer for sale, hold for sale, sell, give, lend,

    or deliver a device that uses electro-muscular disruption

    technology to a person authorized to possess a device that uses

    electro-muscular disruption technology and may possess a device

    that uses electro-muscular disruption technology for any of those

    purposes.

    (4) A person who violates this section subsection (1) is

    guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4

    years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (5) An authorized dealer or other person who sells a device

    that uses electro-muscular disruption technology to an individual

    described in subsection (2)(a)(xii) shall verify the individual's

    identity and verify that the individual holds a valid concealed

    pistol license issued under section 5b of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b,




    and shall provide to the individual purchasing the device, at the

    time of the sale, training on the use, effects, and risks of the

    device. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a

    misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or

    a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

    (6) Both of the following apply to the use of a device that

    uses electro-muscular disruption technology by an individual

    described in subsection (2)(a)(xii):

    (a) The individual shall not use the device against another

    person unless the device is reasonably used in the protection of

    person or property under circumstances that would justify the

    individual's use of physical force. An individual who violates this

    subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment

    for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or

    both.

    (b) If the individual uses, or threatens to use, the device

    during the commission of a crime to temporarily or permanently

    disable another person, the judge who imposes sentence upon a

    conviction for that crime shall consider the defendant's use or

    threatened use of the device as a reason for enhancing the

    sentence.

    (7) (5) As used in this section:

    (a) "A device that uses electro-muscular disruption

    technology" means a device to which all both of the following

    apply:

    (i) The device is capable of creating an electro-muscular

    disruption and is used or intended to be used as a defensive device




    capable of temporarily incapacitating or immobilizing a person by

    the direction or emission of conducted energy.

    (ii) The device contains an identification and tracking system

    that, when the device is initially used, dispenses coded material

    traceable to the purchaser through records kept by the

    manufacturer, .

    (iii) The and the manufacturer of the device has a policy of

    providing the that identification and tracking information

    described in subparagraph (ii) to a police agency upon written

    request by that agency. However, this subdivision does not apply to

    a launchable device that is used only by law enforcement agencies.

    (b) "Local corrections officer" means that term as defined in

    section 2 of the local corrections officers training act, 2003 PA

    125, MCL 791.532.

    (c) "Peace officer" means any of the following:

    (i) A police officer or public safety officer of this state or

    a political subdivision of this state, including motor carrier

    officers appointed under section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d, and

    security personnel employed by the state under section 6c of 1935

    PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

    (ii) A sheriff or a sheriff's deputy.

    (iii) A police officer or public safety officer of a junior

    college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing

    board of that junior college, college, or university to enforce

    state law and the rules and ordinances of that junior college,

    college, or university.

    (iv) A township constable.




    (v) A marshal of a city, village, or township.

    (vi) A conservation officer of the department of natural

    resources or the department of environmental quality.

    (vii) A reserve peace officer, as that term is defined in

    section 1 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421.

    (viii) (vii) A law enforcement officer of another state or of a

    political subdivision of another state or a junior college,

    college, or university in another state, substantially

    corresponding to a law enforcement officer described in

    subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (vii).

    (ix) (viii) A federal law enforcement officer.

    Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect

    unless Senate Bill No. 30

    of the 96th Legislature is enacted into law.
    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  5. #5
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Well you could use it to protect property which would be really nice. And it would seem to me we could no longer have CPLs and instead have CCW.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Pepper spray and tazers to protect property, this is a trend I like.

  7. #7
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by russo121 View Post
    Senate Bill 28 (Allow CPL holders to keep and bear tasers )
    Reported in the Senate on April 26, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=125250

    If tasers are legal constitutionally then why specifically CPL holders only be allowed to carry?
    If firearms are legal constitutionally than why specifically do you need a CPL to conceal one, or to carry in specific places, or be 21 to have one, or have a buccu list of things that disqualify you from carrying?
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Why am I thinking that after Tasers are OK'd for citizen's use someone will come along and say that.... since Tasers are (supposedly) less than lethal "arms" a Taser satisfies the RKBA .... so there is no need for ordinary folks to have lethal firearms.

    And firearms will be regulated out ("arms" can't be banned but can be "regulated")........ except for police of course. Oh... and criminals who don't give two shats about the law anyway.

    Or am I just being entirely too suspicious?
    Last edited by Bikenut; 04-28-2011 at 10:33 PM.
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    your argument holds merit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Why am I thinking that after Tasers are OK'd for citizen's use someone will come along and say that.... since Tasers are (supposedly) less than lethal "arms" a Taser satisfies the RKBA .... so there is no need for ordinary folks to have lethal firearms.

    And firearms will be regulated out ("arms" can't be banned but can be "regulated")........ except for police of course. Oh... and criminals who don't give two shats about the law anyway.

    Or am I just being entirely too suspicious?
    I personally don't see it happening at least anytime soon. Especially looking at he high courts decision. And +1 to EM comment.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

Posting Permissions

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