• 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

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
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.
So now you've made a criminal of half the men drivers (not to mention some women) because now they don't know that they have to tell a cop they are carrying a knife or box cutter or whatever when they get stopped for speeding.

Other states don't even have to notify of a pistol, and you are adding more notification than what we currently have?

No!

Scot is right. Start with a strong bill, knowing the anti's will want to weaken it or put changes in just to show their constituents they've done something. Make them justify their proposals. Don't start in the middle and get pulled further left.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I have had many converstaions with certain members of the legislature, and when it comes to gun related bills, the police, specifically the MSP have got to give it a nod before it goes anywhere. Thats just the way it works.

We need the police to back the bill if it stands a snails chance of getting anywhere past this forum, disclosure is the key to that.

Im not turning anyone into a criminal that wasn't already in commission of a felony. What passing this might do however, is allow more people to become aware of the law who otherwise wouldn't.
 
Last edited:

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
Im not turning anyone into a criminal that wasn't already in commission of a felony.
How is getting jammed up for carrying a pocket knife like you've done for fifty years not turning people into criminals? They aren't felons for simply not disclosing because they never knew they all of a sudden had to start.

There is no pocket knife disclosure currently. Why add it? It's dumb.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Bikenut
-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.
-snip-
Neil.. please... no apology necessary. Please take what I've said about being precise in the wording to heart!!!!!! And please take the time to look up the definitions of the words you and Yance decide to use when writing law because just because you guys think you know what a word means doesn't necessarily mean that word means what you think it does ............. when you use it the way you did. Nor does the colloquial usage necessarily mean the same as the legal usage. Please research first!! Write later!!.

Please.. remember when wording law it is absolutely necessary to get all the words themselves right.. and it is necessary to string those words together correctly because when a judge looks at them the judge doesn't see what you guys meant to say.... he sees what the words say and what the meaning is due to how they are strung together.

Also..... if you hand a legislator a poorly worded law they just might pass it the way you worded it... and in this case...

Because there is no such thing as a "concealed weapons license" anything you guys said would be legal with such a license means..........

Because there is no such license everything you guys mentioned is.......... illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your law is a fantastic piece of ............ weapons control.

Look Stainless and Yance.. I'm NOT trying to be difficult, derogatory, or negative. I'm trying to impress upon you guys the importance of getting the wording right BEFORE you hand it to a legislator!!!

Aside from that.. I sincerely wish you guys well. I admire folks who get off their arse and try to make a difference.

Edited to add:
Neil... if you respond to my post Please... if not for my sake .. then for the sake of Pete!!!!... use the "quote" feature and -snip- thingy too? When you don't do that it makes anything you say very difficult to understand. So if you want folks to understand what you say... please learn how to say things so you get your point across since.......

It doesn't do a fart in a windstorm's bit of difference if YOU know what you said ........... and everyone else can't figure out what you said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
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.


Gotcha... sounds good. Thanks for the run down...


How is getting jammed up for carrying a pocket knife like you've done for fifty years not turning people into criminals? They aren't felons for simply not disclosing because they never knew they all of a sudden had to start.

There is no pocket knife disclosure currently. Why add it? It's dumb.


Agreed... this will get people jammed up on local ordinances because of no knife pre-emption... lansing says you can't have a blade over 3"... maybe other places say 2.5.... so when you have to declare your weapon, they get to compare it against the local ordinance and possibly create a criminal as you say...
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
How is getting jammed up for carrying a pocket knife like you've done for fifty years not turning people into criminals? They aren't felons for simply not disclosing because they never knew they all of a sudden had to start.

There is no pocket knife disclosure currently. Why add it? It's dumb.

No, it isn't. You are (unwittingly) advocating lawlessness. The possession would already be a felony under the current 227, and there is no provision top allow it at all. See original text cited below.

The new 227 however, would re instate that part of the RKBA, provided that you disclose. Disclosure is the best way to get the police on board with it.

As it is now, you can have a weapon in the vehicle and not tell the LEO, a freedom that I enjoy now that I don't have the CPL hanging around my neck, but, as politics goes, the wisest move would be to add a disclosure clause to the law with the other changes.

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non folding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) 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
Gotcha... sounds good. Thanks for the run down...





Agreed... this will get people jammed up on local ordinances because of no knife pre-emption... lansing says you can't have a blade over 3"... maybe other places say 2.5.... so when you have to declare your weapon, they get to compare it against the local ordinance and possibly create a criminal as you say...

You're right, there is no knife preemption, thats not the issue here. Neither are knives in general.

What the new 227 does do, is offer some protection, where the current law offers nothing but a felony charge.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Look Stainless and Yance.. I'm NOT trying to be difficult, derogatory, or negative. I'm trying to impress upon you guys the importance of getting the wording right BEFORE you hand it to a legislator!!!
.

I will send Eileen an email pointing out our error, explaining the possible ramifications of that error, and ask her to make the correction.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
This should be changed.

(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 or pistol, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

The bolded word Weapon, in its first use uses should be changed to pistol. I would change the second usage to read "...is licensed to carry a concealed weapon or pistol". This would allow those with a concealed weapons license from other states the protection from the law.
 
Last edited:

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
You're right, there is no knife preemption, thats not the issue here. Neither are knives in general.

What the new 227 does do, is offer some protection, where the current law offers nothing but a felony charge.



I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but explain to me what you mean by SOME protection? Seems that you won't have much protection if you have choice A.) declaring your possibly illegal knife or choice B.) not declaring your possibly illegal knife only to be found out during a subsequent search, and then whammied over the non-declaration.... Seems like a possible lose/lose!
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but explain to me what you mean by SOME protection? Seems that you won't have much protection if you have choice A.) declaring your possibly illegal knife or choice B.) not declaring your possibly illegal knife only to be found out during a subsequent search, and then whammied over the non-declaration.... Seems like a possible lose/lose!

If you are carrying a knife, then it is your responsibility to know where you are while in possession of it, and if the possession of that weapon is legal in that area. If it is indeed legal, then this law would allow you the protection under state law, which as of now, there is none.
 

stainless1911

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

I was reviewing the law I had proposed to you, and someone pointed out an error that I had made, I would like to correct that error.

My apologies for sending 3 emails, how unprofessional of me.

The section (2) contains the error. I used the word weapon instead of the word pistol on two occasions. Once, in reference to a concealed weapons license, which Michigan does not have, the other, I just used the wrong word in trying to be consistent.

The corrected text is below.

(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 or pistol, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Again, my apologies. Neil Carpenter.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I was reviewing the law I had proposed to you, and someone pointed out an error that I had made, I would like to correct that error.

My apologies for sending 3 emails, how unprofessional of me.

The section (2) contains the error. I used the word weapon instead of the word pistol on two occasions. Once, in reference to a concealed weapons license, which Michigan does not have, the other, I just used the wrong word in trying to be consistent.

The corrected text is below.

(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 or pistol, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

Again, my apologies. Neil Carpenter.
Thanks Neil.. again.. no apologies necessary... all that is necessary is to get things right... beginning from the beginning...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
I have had many converstaions with certain members of the legislature, and when it comes to gun related bills, the police, specifically the MSP have got to give it a nod before it goes anywhere. Thats just the way it works.

We need the police to back the bill if it stands a snails chance of getting anywhere past this forum, disclosure is the key to that.

About your conversations, and the conclusions you've made about the MSP and their needed support for a gun bill to pass...have you talked to ANYONE in LE? Have you talked to MSP higher ups? Have you heard directly from they that they WILL SUPPORT this bill ONLY if it has the extreme disclosure element you've added?

Edited to add...Did MSP support Shall Issue?
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
1. The MSP needn't support ,or be neutral) a bill to get it introduced.
2. The best you'll get from the MSP on any weapon bill is neutral.
3. I know the MSP's lobbyist
4. A bill can pass out of committee with the MSP opposing it (if it's the right committee).
 

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
No, it isn't. You are (unwittingly) advocating lawlessness. The possession would already be a felony under the current 227, and there is no provision top allow it at all. See original text cited below.

The new 227 however, would re instate that part of the RKBA, provided that you disclose. Disclosure is the best way to get the police on board with it.

As it is now, you can have a weapon in the vehicle and not tell the LEO, a freedom that I enjoy now that I don't have the CPL hanging around my neck, but, as politics goes, the wisest move would be to add a disclosure clause to the law with the other changes.

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non folding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) 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.

Try this version, it's simpler (changes in red, you'll have to find the deleted stuff yourself.):

Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non folding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person, or in, or on a vehicle owned, or operated by that person. This section shall not apply to any person who has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by this state, or any other state.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol, or any other weapon concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, or in, or on a vehicle owned, or operated by that person without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00.
 
Last edited:

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, 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.

I agree. Any new law in Michigan that will allow possession of a loaded weapon in the car without CPL must cover any vehicle that person drives regardless of ownership status of the vehicle as relates to the person who drives such vehicle.
 
Top