• 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.

MI: New legislation would allow concealed carry without a permit

Midwest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
305
Location
Boone County, KY
Michigan: New legislation would allow concealed carry without a permit

The sponsors of House Bills 5301-5304 say that the current requirements is an inconvenience to gun owns and that it cost money. The penalties for unlawful possession will stay the same and would apply to those not now legally allowed to carry concealed.



New legislation would allow concealed carry without a permit
http://wwmt.com/news/local/new-legislation-would-allow-concealed-carry-without-a-permit


"LANSING, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - Legislation just introduced in Michigan would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons without a government issued permit. The bills were introduced Tuesday by four House Republicans."


Additional information

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/concealed_pistols_without_a_li.html

"Michigan Reps. Tom Barrett, R-Potterville; Lee Chatfield, R-Levering; Triston Cole, R-Mancelona; and Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, introduced House Bills 5301-5304 on Tuesday, Feb. 2. "
.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath on this one. Too many hand wringing Chicken Little types in Lansing and Detroit/Ann Arbor for this to pass.

HB 5301

HB 5302

HB 5303

HB 5304

And tbh, I don't see anything in these bills that actually repeals the CPL requirement in totality. Granted, I'm not even close to an expert in legalese, but this doesn't seem to work the way people think it will. The underlined section is the proposed removal.

From 5301

Sec. 227. (1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon OTHER THAN A PISTOL, 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, IN HIS OR HER place of business, or on other land possessed by the person.

(2) A person WHO IS PROHIBITED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM 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.

5303 has the oddest language of all. Again, underlined part is the proposed removal.

From 5303

Sec. 43510. (1) Subject to subsection (2), except as provided in section 43513, and except for an individual hunting on a game bird hunting preserve licensed under part 417, an individual shall

not carry or transport a firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, or a trap while in any area frequented by wild animals unless that individual has in his or her possession a license as

required under this part.

(2) This act or a rule promulgated or order issued by the department or the commission under this act shall not be construed to prohibit an individual from transporting a pistol or carrying a

loaded pistol, whether concealed or not. , if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual has in his or her possession a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435.

(b) The individual is authorized under the circumstances to carry a concealed pistol without obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, as

provided for under any of the following:

(i) Section 12a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.432a.

(ii) Section 227, 227a, 231, or 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227, 750.227a, 750.231, and 750.231a.

The only thing I can come up with is if the law relies on the phrase "any area frequented by wild animals" to mean the totality of nature, both urban and rural, as the operative area to require a license in the first place. 5302 deals only with some procedural identifiers and law reference numbers, while 5304 only removes "750.227a Unlawful possession of pistol" as a class F felony.
 

Steve47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
22
Location
MI
[video=youtube;uZ4wi_fiqco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ4wi_fiqco[/video]
 

Scooter123

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
63
Location
Macomb, Michigan, USA
I Prefer we keep the permitting requirement.

Because the Michigan CPL is recognized in 39 states, more than any other permit. No permit required would mean you couldn't even cross into Ohio without becoming an instant Felon. As for suggestions about continuing Permits for those wishing one, next budget crunch and that would get de-funded.
 

Hevymetal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
261
Location
Clinton Twp
Because the Michigan CPL is recognized in 39 states, more than any other permit. No permit required would mean you couldn't even cross into Ohio without becoming an instant Felon. As for suggestions about continuing Permits for those wishing one, next budget crunch and that would get de-funded.

The way i understand it (I could very well be wrong) is that a CPL would be optional. So for those that wish the reciprocity the Michigan CPL provides, it would still be available to them. Otherwise, no permission slip to carry would be required to carry for residents.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
The way i understand it (I could very well be wrong) is that a CPL would be optional. So for those that wish the reciprocity the Michigan CPL provides, it would still be available to them. Otherwise, no permission slip to carry would be required to carry for residents.

Exactly how it should work.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
As for suggestions about continuing Permits for those wishing one, next budget crunch and that would get de-funded.

Isn't the permit system self funding via fees for permits?

I would think many States actually turn a profit on their permits.

Charles
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,335
Location
northern wis
In any event, it will never get past Gov. Snyder. Even if it passes the legislature, he will veto it.

I believe that has been the common thinking in Maine and WV also and several other states where it was tired failed then finely passed.

If one doesn't try one never succeeds.
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,272
Location
Iowa, USA
I am not sure it matters. In the event that this passes AND gets signed, I will bet that there will be at least 50 unlawful arrests made within the first calendar year because the public servants are either 1) Incompetent, 2) Don't think you should be able to carry without a permit, 3) Have tunnel vision (only seeing the part that says you need a permit, which I have witnessed), 4) Are given bad orders from the higher paid public servants, and 5) Straight up don't care.

A lot of the open carry arrests I have seen seem to fall under category 5. They know its legal, but for one reason or another, they decide to make up the law on the spot and arrest anyway. And until we can defend ourselves against such violations of our personal space without fear of repercussion, it will never change.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Thats where HB 4795 comes in. If THAT gets signed, the LEO's will be a little more careful.

Sec. 4c.2
IF THE COURT DETERMINES AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN IOLATION OF THIS ACT, THEN THE COURT SHALL ASSESS A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 AGAINST THAT ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW.

Sec. 4c.3
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEFEND OR REIMBURSE AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,954
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
I believe that has been the common thinking in Maine and WV also and several other states where it was tired failed then finely passed.

If one doesn't try one never succeeds.
While I'm sure it will pass sooner or later, I just don't think it will get past the current governor. Snyder seems to have a lock on the legislature. They may pass a law he doesn't like, but if he vetoes it, they won't over ride it. At least they haven't so far, and I think we have little reason to think this will be any different.

Snyder is term limited, so it really doesn't matter what he does, he's not risking losing the next election, since he can't run again. I think if/when constitutional carry does finally pass, it will most likely be AFTER Snyder is no longer in office.

Of course, I could be wrong. :)
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,514
Location
Secret Bunker
Top