house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

[Yance]

Thanks WildChild



For those of you more experienced with Michigans Firearm laws and carrying, provided this bill passes and we are no longer required to obtain a PP for a pistol or register how does that effect obtaining a CPL?

Would 28.425b need to be reviewed and updated to coincide with the current law?

25.425b

(7)(h) The applicant has not been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any of the following in the 8 years immediately preceding the date of application:

(xxx) Section 232a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.232a (improperly obtaining a pistol, making a false statement on an application to purchase a pistol, or using false identification to purchase a pistol).

Given that after any passage of HB 5225 someone will not be able to "improperly obtain" a pistol

If so is that something they are working on, or is it something we will have to bring up?


However I assume this one needs to be stricken from law already

28.425b

(7)(h)(xxvii) Section 228 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.228 (failure to have a pistol inspected).

as well as

(7)(h)(xxix) Section 232 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.232 (failure to register the purchase of a firearm or a firearm component).

Just some things that crossed my mind today.

 

[stainless1911]

I was thinking the same thing. There are parts of law that would become invalid. Like when it mentions bringing your gun in for inspections.

 

[DrTodd]

I'm guessing they would keep it, as there will be people with the conviction on their record. Until such time as there is really no effect regarding the timeline for the conviction affecting issuance of the CPL, why wouldn't it stay?

 

[Leader]

Thanks WildChild



For those of you more experienced with Michigans Firearm laws and carrying, provided this bill passes and we are no longer required to obtain a PP for a pistol or register how does that effect obtaining a CPL?

Would 28.425b need to be reviewed and updated to coincide with the current law?

25.425b

(7)(h) The applicant has not been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any of the following in the 8 years immediately preceding the date of application:

(xxx) Section 232a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.232a (improperly obtaining a pistol, making a false statement on an application to purchase a pistol, or using false identification to purchase a pistol).

Given that after any passage of HB 5225 someone will not be able to "improperly obtain" a pistol

If so is that something they are working on, or is it something we will have to bring up?


However I assume this one needs to be stricken from law already

28.425b

(7)(h)(xxvii) Section 228 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.228 (failure to have a pistol inspected).

as well as

(7)(h)(xxix) Section 232 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.232 (failure to register the purchase of a firearm or a firearm component).

Just some things that crossed my mind today.

The companion bill 5498 address this and other issues.

 

[Yance]

The companion bill 5498 address this and other issues.

I'll have to take another look at them for sure then.

 

[Big Gay Al]

It was about Michigan gun laws.

If you all ever get tired of the fight, feel free to move to Ohio.

We have open carry, no registration, state firearm law preemption, shall-issue concealed handgun licenses after you've been an Ohio resident for 45 days, and several pro-gun bills sailing through the statehouse as we speak (knock on wood).

And the open carriers here just simply stay away from federal school safety zones.

Good luck, folks!

Well, we've had shall issue since 2001. I'm pretty sure you guys didn't even have may issue then. We have open carry, also. And I'd be willing to bet our registration system will be gone soon too.

Oh and best of all, we DON'T have OSU.



Sent from my LG-VM701 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DrTodd]

Well, we've had shall issue since 2001. I'm pretty sure you guys didn't even have may issue then. We have open carry, also. And I'd be willing to bet our registration system will be gone soon too.

Oh and best of all, we DON'T have OSU.



Sent from my LG-VM701 using Tapatalk 2

Ohio: fewer states accept the permit while travelling, no "stand your ground" law; need to retrain for a renewal; a longer list of "prohibited places" which, if violated will bring actual criminal charges, state signage regarding cc has force of law...
Yeah, so much better...

But, at least they have had some luck changing some of the more egregious aspects of the law...

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

It also includes the raw materials the firearm is made from. So unless all of the steel, aluminum, plastic, etc used to make the gun is made in state from raw materials that are mined in state you're SOL.

Bronson

One of the many abuses of the interstate commerce clause.

Another abuse is regulating how something may be used AFTER it has gone through interstate commerce, and is in the hands of the end user.

The commerce clause was intended to ONLY apply to the ACTUAL transfer of goods, and services across state lines, once that crossing happens it is no longer the feds concern. Basically it's intended to keep state X, from imposing tariffs on state Y.

 

[CoonDog]

Yes, the commerce clause was intended to prevent tariffs from being levied by the states upon one another. That was the end of it, really. By disallowing states to impose tariffs upon one another, trade among states could achieve a status of regularity. James Madison discusses precisely this in Federalist Paper #42 in the section describing the "third class of powers". In the language of the time, to "regulate" meant to make regular; it did not mean to control/restrict/supervise as it's interpreted today.