• 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.

Transportation Email to .gov

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Trying to get them to do at least something productive with the last half of the term.

I know that the economy has required the full attention of the legislature, but let's not forget that we have the rare opportunity of having a majority in every part of the state government, and I think we should make the best of it while we can. Gun owners have voted in this majority, and would like to see some real progress in the restoration of our gun rights in the state.

I would like to see the following two laws repealed. This action would remove the requirement of a CPL to posses and transport a pistol in a motor vehicle. Many, if not most states do not require a CPL to carry in the personal private vehicles, they are private property, just the same as a persons home, and should be treated as such. The restrictions on those who lack a CPL due to age, residency, political beliefs, or sometimes minor and unrelated infractions make it impossible in some cases, and in others, impractical and legally perilous to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms. While in the vehicle, these laws make it a felonious offense to exercise that right to bear arms.

The two laws that need to be repealed in order to correct these discrepancies within the law are. MCL 750.231a, and MCL 750.227.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
 
Last edited:

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Thanks for you attention to this stainless, it effects a lot of people, myself included. It's probably an issue that's out of the minds of most cpl holders because they don't have to worry about it. Me personally I feel very vulnerable when I get in my car, not because I'm unarmed but because my gun is in my trunk and if I ever needed it I would never be able to reach it in time. This law needs to be repealed as well as 750.234d (h) regarding establishments licensed under the Michigan liquor controll act. It's ridiculous someone needs a cpl to carry in a grocery store, restaurant, or to fill up their gas. Thanks again, hopefully we can see progress on all this some time this year. Keep us up to date.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Thanks for you attention to this stainless, it effects a lot of people, myself included. It's probably an issue that's out of the minds of most cpl holders because they don't have to worry about it. Me personally I feel very vulnerable when I get in my car, not because I'm unarmed but because my gun is in my trunk and if I ever needed it I would never be able to reach it in time. This law needs to be repealed as well as 750.234d (h) regarding establishments licensed under the Michigan liquor controll act. It's ridiculous someone needs a cpl to carry in a grocery store, restaurant, or to fill up their gas. Thanks again, hopefully we can see progress on all this some time this year. Keep us up to date.

^ What the gentleman from Battle Creek above me has said.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I hope they do something with this. There is something out there to eliminate the lawful purposes, but that is an exercise in futility. Any court appointed attorney should be able to argue that much. The problem is, you still need a CPL under that law. There is no reason that everyone shouldn't be able to bear arms in their (private property) vehicle.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Way a head of you Q ;)

Stainless, I noticed that bill over on MGO, I also voiced my opinion of it :lol: I pretty much think its a waste of time, it didnt do anything to help possession while in a vehicle, you still need a CPL to carry it, or have it in the passenger compartment. All it does it make it less wordy, which was a waste of tax payers dollars. IMHO.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
I do think if we allow car carry we would need to make changes to 750.234d and 750.237a (carry on school property). Could probably just add an exemption to section 5.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
That would be a nice option, one I agree with BTW, but I think we will have better luck by extending your right to self defense in your home, to your car as well first, then go after the PFZs.
 
Last edited:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
That would be a nice option, one I agree with BTW, but I think we will have better luck by extending your right to self defense in your home, to your car as well first, then go after the PFZs.

I think if we do car carry we'd have a good chance of changing those with the car carry. So many people would violate 750.234d or not carry in the car because of it. I think adding it to the car carry law would be a great chance to change those. Concealed PFZ would need to be changed/removed separately
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I agree. Trouble is, we have a legislature that won't touch PFZs. If someone violates 234d, its a $100 misdemeanor. Chance of jail is remote. It would keep you from getting a CPL for 3 years, but with car carry, the need for a CPL is dramatically reduced.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Couldnt you swing the Castle Doctrine to fit with car carry, i.e. the potential need to defend yourself while in your vehicle?
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I have gotten some response from Rep. Oppsomer.

Him : Mr. X

Thank you. To be clear, you are talking about loaded weapons within the car, not stowed unloaded in the trunk, correct?


Me :Correct.

IMO There is no reason that people shouldn't have the same ability to access their lawfully owned firearms in their private property vehicle, that they have already in their private property home.

Him : I believe Castle Doctrine would bear you out. I have introduced this legislation, but it has stalled:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b01lxc55jv5nohfqt3hwad55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-5064&query=on

Me : Im not sure castle doctrine itself would argue well against 231a and 227, considering that those make it impossible to access the firearm for a defensive, or any other purpose.

I have read, and support the bill that you linked. However, I feel that at this time, it may be the wrong approach. If this did not include mention of property, and lawsuits, I think it might do better. It seems that the legislature is unwilling to touch gun free zones, and private property rights. Simply repealing 750.231a and 750.227 might be an easier way to restore a persons right to transport without a CPL.

There is a bill that would repeal the "lawful purposes written into 750.231a, however that would be rather redundant. The way 231a is now written, the phrase "lawful purpose includes" is already written into the statute. Any court appointed attorney could argue that point. The law as written, and under the new bill, would still require the person to have a valid CPL in order to be in possession of a lawfully owned firearm for self defense. That bill is called HB 5282, and is readable here : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2012-HIB-5282.htm

Again, I think that the most acceptable approach, would be to repeal 750.231a, and 750.227.

I look forward to hearing from you again.
 
Last edited:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
I have gotten some response from Rep. Oppsomer.

Him : Mr. X

Thank you. To be clear, you are talking about loaded weapons within the car, not stowed unloaded in the trunk, correct?


Me :Correct.

IMO There is no reason that people shouldn't have the same ability to access their lawfully owned firearms in their private property vehicle, that they have already in their private property home.

Him : I believe Castle Doctrine would bear you out. I have introduced this legislation, but it has stalled:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b01lxc55jv5nohfqt3hwad55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-5064&query=on

Me : Im not sure castle doctrine itself would argue well against 231a and 227, considering that those make it impossible to access the firearm for a defensive, or any other purpose.

I have read, and support the bill that you linked. However, I feel that at this time, it may be the wrong approach. If this did not include mention of property, and lawsuits, I think it might do better. It seems that the legislature is unwilling to touch gun free zones, and private property rights. Simply repealing 750.231a and 750.227 might be an easier way to restore a persons right to transport without a CPL.

There is a bill that would repeal the "lawful purposes written into 750.231a, however that would be rather redundant. The way 231a is now written, the phrase "lawful purpose includes" is already written into the statute. Any court appointed attorney could argue that point. The law as written, and under the new bill, would still require the person to have a valid CPL in order to be in possession of a lawfully owned firearm for self defense. That bill is called HB 5282, and is readable here : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2012-HIB-5282.htm

Again, I think that the most acceptable approach, would be to repeal 750.231a, and 750.227.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

Stainless I think you're doing great work with this but I seriously thinking you should be mentioning how 750.234d would prevent someone from having the loaded gun in their vehicle while on a trip to Meijer. Whether it be to exempt people who have the gun in the car or eliminate it all together I think that it would be necessary to do something about it to allow people to have the gun in the car.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Stainless I think you're doing great work with this but I seriously thinking you should be mentioning how 750.234d would prevent someone from having the loaded gun in their vehicle while on a trip to Meijer. Whether it be to exempt people who have the gun in the car or eliminate it all together I think that it would be necessary to do something about it to allow people to have the gun in the car.

MOC has plans to tackle .234d -- soon
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Excellent news. I am one of the strongest opponents to PFZs you will ever meet. That said, I left them out of this request intentionally, because the legislature doesn't seem to want to go near it.

My rep, Eileen Kowall ran second amendment banners large on her re election campaign, but she seems to support gun free zones, and would "feel more comfortable" if everyone who carried a gun had some form of training. I think you can see what Im getting at here.
 
Top