• 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.

Potential legalization of tasers in MI - Amendment of CPL law

Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
Just found these... a couple bills floating through state legislature that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.
 
Last edited:
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Evil Creamsicle said:
Just found these... a couple bills floating through congress that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "state legislature" rather than "congress"...
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Evil Creamsicle said:
I posted that at a time of day that I should not have been awake. Apologies, yes, I did mean state legislature.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
 
Last edited:
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
DrTodd said:
Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Click to expand...

I wonder if passing this with the wording you point out could have some impact on handgun OC legislation in the future... we should keep an eye on this bill to make sure they don't try and add that language.
 
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
B

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
DrTodd said:
Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.
 
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
stainless1911 said:
Why would it? Whats on your mind here?
Click to expand...
Nothing may come of it. I am merely saying it merits paying attention to.

budlight said:
Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.
Click to expand...
True... just speaking based on the 'slippery slope' philosophy. If the wrong language gets used and passed with tasers, it may embolden certain types to try and do something similar with the wording for firearms, under the guise of making the law 'uniform' or some such nonsense. As I said to stainless, nothing may come of it, just making observations.

ElectricianLU58 said:
i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have no reason to want a taser at this time for the same reason. I am only discussing the potential effects of the law.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
xmanhockey7 said:
We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.
 
HKcarrier

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
ElectricianLU58 said:
i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.
Click to expand...


I don't think they are going to legalize the "shooting" type tasers... only the contact type... therefore, range could be a real issue... but yeah, I think it's a valid concern.
 
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
DrTodd said:
Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.
Click to expand...

Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
xmanhockey7 said:
Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of. My point is that if they are allowed in any manner, as would be the case under this legislation, then the argument that the Michigan taser law violates the right to keep and bear arms won't go very far... as there is no longer a blanket prohibition. In the case that was mentioned, Michigan's taser prohibition was found to be unconstitutional vis a vis DC v Heller.
 
S

Super Trucker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
263
Location
Wayne County, MI.
ElectricianLU58 said:
i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since the piss poor company that makes the electrical unit, thinks I am smart only enough to have a 15' safe zone and the person threating my life was 16' I had to use other means of stopping the threat.

Dead battery, thick clothing, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top