• 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.

The new 750.227

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
It has been mentioned in various threads that Yance and I have been working on something in the shadows. Now, I want to let you know what that is. Earlier this summer, Yance and I rewrote MCL 750.227 and presented it to my Representative Eileen Kowall District 44, in an effort to attempt to remove or modify this unconstitutional law. The reason for the wait, was because in our meeting, Eileen said that the legislature was about to go on summer break. I waited to release this project so that the thread wouldn't get cold.

As soon as SB59 went down, I decided to make my move on this, I had been working on it for quite a while beforehand. It was the right time, I reminded her that gun owners voted in this majority, and we wanted something to show for it. That the opportunity for real change should not be missed.

We approached her on this subject not from an OC standpoint, not so much from a gun rights standpoint, but from a private property issue. Yance was able to very eloquently present it to her as a constitutional issue.

Glock9mm graciously provided us with some numbers from the census which proved most helpful in our presentation. Thanks G9. :) Unfortunately, she asked to take the information with her for review, and it was my only copy. :banghead: It showed the population of the state, vs how many people were prohibited, vs how many people had active CPLs and so on. We used that information to show her how the right had been eliminated altogether by this law. 9 million residents, minus the under 18s, the prohibited persons left around 7 million. To exercise self defense in a private vehicle, you need a CPL. That leaves only 320,000 people left with the "right". I pointed out that since a CPL turns a right into a privelidge, that no one had the right to keep and bear in a vehicle.

We pointed out that there were IIRC 28 states, a majority, that had permit-less vehicle carry.

We came at this from a private property position in saying that your vehicle should be treated as your home as it is in most states.

You can carry, even conceal on your own property without a CPL because it is indeed private. If the police want to search your home, they need RAS and PC to get a warrant because of that private status. They need a warrant likewise to search your vehicle, again, because it is private property. But, if you carry a gun, even openly in or on a vehicle, it is a felony without a CPL. This doesn't make sense we said, you can't have it both ways. You need continuity within the law.

The changes would change the way things work in Michigan for everyone. We pointed out that laws like SB59 would affect only 300k people, while this one would affect everyone in the state. It would allow people the right to self defense in their vehicles. It would re instate the right to carry a concealed knife, the most basic and affordable means of self defense. It would eliminate the OC/CCW on a bicycle or other vehicle debate. It would require disclosure to LEO, something I don't really like, but I felt necessary to include so that the police would consent to its passage. It would also strengthen the vehicle owners ability permission to either allow or deny the presence of weapons in their vehicles.



I would encourage you to contact Eileen, and encourage her to introduce this bill as written, as she indicated she would do. I have also asked Representative Opsommer to lend a hand in passing this into law, and he said he would be delighted to participate.

Yance, I would encourage you to repost this on MOC and MGO in legal if you would. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
The New MCL 750.227


(1). A person shall not carry a firearm, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double edged stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a knife, concealed on or about his or her person, except in his or her dwelling house, vehicle, place of business, or on other land possessed by that person

(2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

2 (a). A person who maintains legal ownership of any private vehicle may allow or disallow the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in or on that vehicle.

(3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.

(4). A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Plan B.

When speaking with Eileen in our meeting, I offered a plan B, in case the new 227 wasn't gaining any traction.

I suggested that the exemptions and definitions to 227 (750.231a) be amended as follows. Strike the part that require the firearm to be in the trunk of the vehicle, and the part that covers vehicles without a trunk.

That would allow a non CPL holder to have the unloaded and cased firearm in the passenger compartment. Otherwise the transportation requirements would go unchanged.

Strike the bolded parts of 231a and you have it.

750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.Sec. 231a.
(1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.

(b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.

(c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.

(d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.

(e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:
(i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
(ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:
(i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
(ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
(iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
(iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
(v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
(vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
(vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
The New MCL 750.227


(1). A person shall not carry a firearm, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double edged stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a knife, concealed on or about his or her person, except in his or her dwelling house, vehicle, place of business, or on other land possessed by that person

(2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

2 (a). A person who maintains legal ownership of any private vehicle may allow or disallow the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in or on that vehicle.

(3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.

(4). A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

Sounds good, but I take issue with two points:

1: The definition of a dagger vs. a knife could be used as a trip-up point for cops. You can have a knife but not a dagger... I know there are different definitions for both, but you know how those interactions usually go. You could just say 'blade' and legalize it all.

2: The penalty seems a bit steep considering the only way you could really violate this law is by carrying a non-knife blade, or violating 'any restrictions upon such [CPL] license'. So now you can get 5 years and a $2500 fine for violating a CPL restriction that is normally a civil infraction.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Sounds good, but I take issue with two points:

1: The definition of a dagger vs. a knife could be used as a trip-up point for cops. You can have a knife but not a dagger... I know there are different definitions for both, but you know how those interactions usually go. You could just say 'blade' and legalize it all.

2: The penalty seems a bit steep considering the only way you could really violate this law is by carrying a non-knife blade, or violating 'any restrictions upon such [CPL] license'. So now you can get 5 years and a $2500 fine for violating a CPL restriction that is normally a civil infraction.

I like your take on the word blade, it was considered, but I was afraid some anti would come in front of the floor wielding a broadsword, battle axe or Samurai sword demanding that bladed weapons be disallowed.

I hate the penalties section, it was left unchanged from the original text of 227. I figured it had the best chance of passage this way.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Email sent.

Hi Eileen, Neil Carpenter here.

A couple months ago, before summer break, I and Adam Yancer met with you in a very noisy Petes Coney to discuss some much needed changes in our law. It had to do with re instating the private property rights of gun owners within their vehicles. The law change that was presented was for amending MCL 750.227, a cumbersome and unconstitutional law that could be altered without the usual controversy associated with firearms law. As was pointed out the majority of states allow the right to self defense in the private vehicle without a permit, and only a tiny fraction of our own residents have a permit.

I know that you are very busy and that time has passed since our meeting, so I wanted to take a second, and remind you about the subject. You had indicated that you would introduce this in September, soon after summer break was over. Please do, this means a lot to me, and would do so much for gun owners this term.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I chose my words carefully for a reason.
If you are replying to my post pointing out that Michigan doesn't have a concealed "weapons" license but has a concealed "pistol" license....

Please elaborate as to why you chose that specific wording since a concealed "weapons" license presently does not exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I worded the proposal in such a way that would allow knives to be carried; I was trying to avoid the word pistol, for psychological reasons.

ETA

I was trying to keep the focus on private property, not so much on gun rights.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
I worded the proposal in such a way that would allow knives to be carried; I was trying to avoid the word pistol, for psychological reasons.

ETA

I was trying to keep the focus on private property, not so much on gun rights.
Psychological reasons?

stainless1911 said:
(2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Stipulating that a license that doesn't exist allows folks to carry weapons doesn't help since, without the license (that doesn't exist) folks won't be able to carry weapons anyway.

I applaud your and Yance's efforts......... I'm merely pointing out that the wording "licensed to carry a concealed weapon" won't work because there isn't such a license available in Michigan.

Edited to add:
Neil... please.. for the sake of clarity... use the "quote" feature????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Bikenut

Guest
You're splitting hairs. I could have called it a CCW and it would still be understood.
-sigh-
I specifically asked you to use the "quote" feature to keep the conversation easy to clearly understand.......

Neil... I am NOT splitting hairs! When writing law it is necessary to be clear and concise with the wording. Assumptions as to what the wording means, is supposed to mean, might be thought to mean... is how we ended up with the laws we have now. The very laws folks complain are so difficult to understand because they are not worded clearly.

Writing a law that says something is Ok to do if you have a concealed weapons license..

.. and you are specific in your wording of concealed weapons license meaning there must be such a specific license and the CPL doesn't apply because that is for concealed pistol license

... but no such "concealed weapons license" exists...

means that without a "concealed weapons license" it is NOT Ok to do it.

Now.... please be so kind as to provide a cite and/or link to Michigan law that provides for a "concealed weapons license".
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
What about the millions of people who rent cars? Since they don't own the car, they can't legally carry in it. (plus the rental company (cars legal owner, could ban carry in it). Secondly what about the people who can't buy their own car(for who knows what reason), therefore aren't the legal owner? Young adults driving cars that the parent owns, someone borrowing a friends truck to move, a nanny using the family vehicle ect ect ect.

I like where you are going with this, but do not water down the bill for the antis, let them introduce their BS restrictions so they can be tied to that person.

You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
(3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.
Does this include my pocket knife or Gerber tool?
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Neil,

While I applause your efforts, I wanted to offer a few comments.

1. I hope you are being as professional as possible (including dress) when lobbying -- it really does make a difference in what you are trying to do.
2. I'm not sure this is the right time in the session (with literally 3 months left -- very little happens in Sept) to get a new bill introduced.

That being said, this sort of bill is a priority for MOC as well. I look forward to working with you early on in next session (January 2013) to push to get this bill introduced.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
What about the millions of people who rent cars? Since they don't own the car, they can't legally carry in it. (plus the rental company (cars legal owner, could ban carry in it). Secondly what about the people who can't buy their own car(for who knows what reason), therefore aren't the legal owner? Young adults driving cars that the parent owns, someone borrowing a friends truck to move, a nanny using the family vehicle ect ect ect.

I like where you are going with this, but do not water down the bill for the antis, let them introduce their BS restrictions so they can be tied to that person.

You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.

I agree with this too. Be willing to water it down as we go along, but start with a strong bill....so you have something concentrated you can have some room to afford watering.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
You can't "allow" someone to CC at your home. Why would be able to do it in your car?


The bill needs strengthening. Good deal that you're trying to get it to the floor though...


As Q pointed out, maybe hold it back until the next sessioN?
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
You can't "allow" someone to CC at your home. Why would be able to do it in your car?


The bill needs strengthening. Good deal that you're trying to get it to the floor though...


As Q pointed out, maybe hold it back until the next sessioN?

The thought behind allowing someone to carry in a vehicle is the same as private property rights. You can tell someone they cannot possess (being the key word) a firearm in your home, or you can grant them permission to. By changing the law to allow a person who can otherwise possess a firearm to carry in a vehicle it removes the concealed aspect of the law. Currently its illegal to possess a firearm in a vehicle because it is considered concealed and concealing a firearm is illegal.

So, change the law to allow a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle it no longer becomes a crime of carrying a concealed weapon, youre simply dealing with possession. At this point any person can say, "yes you may have your gun in my car" or "no you may not have your gun in my car"

That was the thought behind it.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
-sigh-
I specifically asked you to use the "quote" feature to keep the conversation easy to clearly understand.......

Neil... I am NOT splitting hairs! When writing law it is necessary to be clear and concise with the wording. Assumptions as to what the wording means, is supposed to mean, might be thought to mean... is how we ended up with the laws we have now. The very laws folks complain are so difficult to understand because they are not worded clearly.

Writing a law that says something is Ok to do if you have a concealed weapons license..

.. and you are specific in your wording of concealed weapons license meaning there must be such a specific license and the CPL doesn't apply because that is for concealed pistol license

... but no such "concealed weapons license" exists...

means that without a "concealed weapons license" it is NOT Ok to do it.

Now.... please be so kind as to provide a cite and/or link to Michigan law that provides for a "concealed weapons license".

I now see what you are talking about, my apologies.

You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.

Yance properly addressed most of your post. I understand and agree with you here, I wanted to present something that the current legislature would look at, and maybe even pass. I dont have a great deal of confidence in them at this time based on their past actions, or the lack thereof.

Does this include my pocket knife or Gerber tool?


IMO, yes. This would cover the run of the mill knife that anyone might find in a pocket, or at the counter of the hardware store, Bass Pro, and so on.

Neil,

While I applause your efforts, I wanted to offer a few comments.

1. I hope you are being as professional as possible (including dress) when lobbying -- it really does make a difference in what you are trying to do.
2. I'm not sure this is the right time in the session (with literally 3 months left -- very little happens in Sept) to get a new bill introduced.

That being said, this sort of bill is a priority for MOC as well. I look forward to working with you early on in next session (January 2013) to push to get this bill introduced.

I was hoping that the legislature would be eager to give the gun owning voter something substantial at the end of the term, possibly in an effort to save face, and gain votes. I think SB59 got tabled because they were afraid to touch the schools issue, too controversial or whatever. This is the sort of thing that just might work, no screaming parents, or picket signs for this law change.

I would be proud to work with you on getting this, whether it be this term, or in the next. :)
 
Last edited:
Top